Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 3

Same-sex marriage
A user claims that it is not a "claim" but scientific fact that children need to be reared by a mother and a father; this user also adds citations to articles that make these claims in general, with no specific reference to same-sex marriage in order to illustrate the argument against same sex marriage. I think this raises clear NOR and NPOV concerns. Edit dif and talk page and talk page. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 22:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If they persist, list them at WP:AIV.  Corvus cornix  talk  23:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Indo-Aryan loanwords in Tamil
I am developing this article and I use an authoritative and comprehensive published lexicon to cite the existence of borrowed words in Tamil language

Some people who dont accept the lexicon's authority (since it contradicts their POV) are threatening to delete my work and have extensively tagged my article with "citation necessary" tags. Kindly help. ­ Kris (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Find citations from reliable sources. qed.   Corvus cornix  talk  23:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Henry Kissinger Biography
I question the overall neutrality of the Henry Kissinger biography and therefore its validity. It is of particular importance to present biographies of political figures as objectively as possible. Most of the article is biased, and in places it's unrestrained adulation. Earlier, in the introductory description, the word hero was used to describe him. It is not libelous to state facts about the man, and it's important to do so, since he is participating in a current presidential campaign as an advisor. Links to informative factual sources should not be censored, nor should other facts about him. Political figures, by the way, are not protected by the libel laws of private citizens, and the biographies of political figures shouldn't be written, or seem as if they're written, by the man's publicist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inwol (talk • contribs) 11:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing of Georgians in Abkhazia
An article is much biased. It has pro-Georgian and anti-Abkhaz POV. Such non-neutral edits are being made by Georgian users Iberieli and Kober. SkyBonTalk\Contributions 13:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Crossroads of Chiropractic - Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves
There is ongoing dispute over at Talk:Chiropractic, regarding the phrasing of "Chiropractic is viewed to be at the crossroads of mainstream and alternative medicine", or "Chiropractic crosses the boundaries of mainstream and alternative medicine:"

WP:ASF states that "There are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions.", and that "When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion.".

This case very clearly expresses an opinion (how can it be a fact that a profession is at a crossroads?). However, other editors have stated that "It is an undisputed fact if no serious disagreement is presented."

The most recently proposed text phrases it as an opinion, yet does not attribute this opinion to anyone. Is this appropriate? If there is no dispute over an opinion (such as stealing is wrong), does it become an undisputed fact that does not need any attribution?

DigitalC (talk) 01:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems WP:ASF was taken out of context by the above comment. Please read the entire policy. Reliable sources agree with the proposed text at chiropractic talk.  Q ua ck Gu ru   06:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have read the original policy, and for you to assume that I haven't is not assuming good faith. Nothing above takes WP:ASF out of context. - DigitalC (talk) 09:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Not completely clear as to what the issue is here, but I'll have a go. Explicitly noting that particular content is an opinion is helpful when there are significant differences of opinions; the scope of the content, its credibility, context, etc., becomes clearer.  However, when there isn't as much differences, such a construction can have a deleterious effect.  Taken to the logical extreme, such language actually becomes weaselly, having the effect of undermining the content which doesn't deserve undermining.  E.g., "It is the opinion of astonomers that the earth is round." --that can certainly be sourced, but it's poor writing.  So,... is there any significant contention about that statement? On the face of it, it appears reasonable, other than that "crossroads" is somewhat of an essaylike word.  Is there an approximate synonym that would be true to the source(s) yet read better? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 13:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The discussion is continuing at chiropractic talk. See Talk:Chiropractic. No evidence has been presented this is an opinion, Therefore, we shoud assert the text rather than add uneeded attribution to the article. There are more instances throughout the article where text is being attributed when there is "no serious dispute" to the well referenced text.  Q ua ck Gu ru   19:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Take a look at Chiropractic. Here is an example of uneeded attribution: what is considered by many chiropractic researchers is not under any dispute. All the references are in agreement with the referenced text. Per WP:ASF, all the unecessary attribution throughout the article should be removed until evidence of a dispute is presented among reliable sources.  Q ua ck Gu ru   20:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, WP:ASF states "There are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions.". This is one of those cases. It is not a "fact" that Chiropractic is at a crossroads, because this cannot be objectively measured, nor can it be falsified. DigitalC (talk) 09:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Per WP:ASF: By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a matter which is subject to dispute." No objection or dispute exists among reliable sources. Reliable sources agree with chiropractic is at a crossroads.  Q ua ck Gu ru   18:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This edit added unnecessary attribution and my response to the edit is here.  Q ua ck Gu ru   05:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It may not be clear from the above comments, but there is a longrunning dispute at Chiropractic over whether some claims need in-text attribution. If reliable sources agree about a particular proposition, then by the standards of WP:ASF, it's not necessary to add qualifiers to them; for example we need not add a qualifier like "astronomers say" to the claim "the earth is round". However, other editors have been adding these qualifiers to Chiropractic, using the argument that even if all reliable sources agree about a claim, the claim is an opinion and therefore needs the qualifiers.
 * Here is an example of these qualifiers (in italics) in Chiropractic :
 * "Evidence-based guidelines are supported by one end of an ideological continuum among chiropractors; the other end employs what is considered by many chiropractic researchers to be antiscientific reasoning and unsubstantiated claims, that have been called ethically suspect when they let practitioners maintain their beliefs to patients' detriment."
 * All reliable sources agree that straight chiropractors (the "other end" of the "ideological continuum" that is being talked about here) use antiscientific and pseudoscientific reasoning, and there is also no serious dispute among reliable sources that this behavior is ethically suspect when it lets "practitioners maintain their beliefs to patients' detriment". However, the italicized qualifiers give the reader the mistaken impression that there is serious doubt about this part of the text.

Eubulides (talk) 16:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Invariably these qualifiers have been added to claims that are critical of chiropractic. This raises an obvious NPOV issue about the practice of adding these qualifiers in Chiropractic.
 * There are two threads here, the "crossroads" thread and this "ideological continuum" one, but I suspect the same reasoning will be applicable to both. While I might be somewhat wary of the universal "all" in the straight chiropractors analysis, if it is still a vast majority of reliable sources, the qualification would serve to weasel the statement more than to helpfully qualify it.  Same would go for the crossroads content, although in this case the motivation for being weaselly seems less useful.  There is a gray area of sourcing where it is not clear what is best, but I am not convinced either of these are even that.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Waitahora Wind Farm
This article is about a proposed wind farm project. Local resident Stuart Christopher Brown is a member of an opposition group and a new editor to Wikipedia. He has made several edits to the article which, in my opinion, lack WP:NPOV and verification. It appears Mr Brown is very genuine in his opposition to the project, and has some valid points. However, I don't think this is justification for relaxing Wikipedia guidelines. (Actually, I think he would present a more persuasive case and win more converts if Wikipedia guidelines were followed.) Any suggestions on how this can be tidied up? Thanks. Pakaraki (talk) 06:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Refer the newbie politely to WP:V and WP:COI. If he finds it difficult to take the policies on board then you could go to the conflict of interest noticeboard. You can remove any unverified controversial statements and ask for page protection if necessary. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Timothy Evans
The article has been tagged as POV, and I have tried to remove what I feel were the most blatantly POV statements / paragraphs. However, a principal contributor keeps re-adding them. I would like to know if there is consensus in that these statements should be removed.

 The case is one of the most serious miscarriages of justice that has occurred in Britain.

There are several things that I feel are wrong about this statement.

1. It's a declaration of fact, when there is no agreement on whether or not Evans is guilty or innocent, and thus a miscarriage of justice even occurred. 2. How do you quantify how serious a "miscarriage of justice" is? If the ultimate miscarriage of justice is the execution of an innocent person, then there are still hundreds of people (in Britain alone) that would no doubt have suffered an equal injustice. 3. Finally, assuming that miscarriage of justice was a quantifiable matter, "one of the most" places it on an arbitrarily long or short list, with no idea of it's absolute or approximate position to the top.

''The case was one of the first major miscarriages of justice perpetrated by British Courts after the end of the second World War and was followed by many more, such as the cases of the Birmingham Six, and the Guildford Four, among numerous others. If the lessons of the Evans case had been heeded by the authorities, then many more injustices would have been prevented.''

Again, there is the assertion that a miscarriage has definitely occurred. Also, "numerous" and "many" do not give any idea of quantity, so the significance of this crime as a miscarriage in relation to others is unknown. Assuming the "lessons" that the last sentence refers to are the alleged improper handling of evidence or poor police profiling, you cannot say that "many more" injustices would have been prevented, since no reference is give as to how many injustices have occurred due to improper forensic work, nor to injustices that have occurred when proper handling and investigation was conducted.

inclusivedisjunction (talk) 08:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * With the first statement, it is the kind of thing that a commentator may have stated. If you can find a source that has said this, keep it in and attribute it. The second statement is perhaps off-topic as it is about miscarriages of justice in general and not about this case. However, it could stay in if it can be attributed, for example to someone who has written a book about the case. Neither statement should stay in without a source. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "perpetrated by British Courts"? Is this really correct? It implies it's definitely the courts that are at fault, not the police, or just bad luck. Peter jackson (talk) 11:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should come out. Then if someone finds the connection between this affair and later controversies made in a reliable source, then they can find an appropriate way to summarise and attribute it without implying that WP blames the British courts for anything. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Tasaday
For many, many months now, there has been something of a dispute/revert war over this page and issue is still ongoing. The Tasaday were a group 'discovered' in the Philippines in 1971, and were believed to be a previously uncontacted stone age tribe, but they were supposedly exposed as a hoax in 1986. The view that they were a hoax still dominates much reports, but many are apparently still disputing this, and thus the ongoing conflict, which has reduced in intensity but is still going on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesFox (talk • contribs) 00:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest two ways to work towards improving the article and gaining consensus. One is to start adding inline references for everything. Some books are listed at the end which would seem at at first view to be highly reliable sources. They need to be used to the full. The second approach is to decide on a basic structure for the article, and I would suggest that it should be chronological. The lead para was informative I thought, and followed what you present in your post: 1) people "discovered", written about, 2) idea that their existence was a hoax, 3) counterclaim that they are not a hoax, 4) continued discussion. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Gibraltar
Hi,

Gibraltar tends to be a topic that stirs up a lot of heat. I've noticed a series of POV edits being added to Gibraltar articles:

Telephone numbers in Gibraltar, Gibraltar, History of Gibraltar

Sees to spilling out into WikiSource as it appears that one of the documents has been moved? See

The comments on the user page, cause me some concern as they appear to indicate a desire to insert a Spanish POV see User:Ecemaml/Gibraltar. And the comments on Talk Pages seem to indicate that the temperature is rising again see Talk:History_of_Gibraltar and User talk:Asterion.

The topics are on my watchlist, I'd appreciate any advice on how to stop the dispute escalating between the parties. Justin talk 23:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Please, Justin, don't forget to show the diffs with alleged POV editing and explaining why, if the problem is apparently POV editing, you revert an edition on the grounds of being too technical. It seems other thing.


 * And for your information, Justin, from here:
 * Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.
 * Which is the problem with "a desire to insert a Spanish POV"? The NPOV orders to enter "fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources"? I intend to include the Spanish POV whenever it's not present, if relevant, or if distorted, with proper attributions (that is, I don't aim to present a POV as a fact, as currently happens in many articles) and sources. It seems as you wish to delete the Spanish POV and, you know, that's against the NPOV. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC) PS: and BTW, the only diff you quote (this), is related to this and this. I assume that I can name the articles in wikisource in the way I consider more accurate, can't I?


 * As I explained in my edit summary, your edits were adding too much technical detail on the teleophone article that made it difficult for the average reader to understand the article. That was all.
 * On the Gibraltar article, the opening lines took a great deal of effort to achieve a consensus, as I politely requested in my edit summary to avoid further conflict it would help if you were to discuss proposed changes on the talk page first.
 * On the history article, my concern was for the change of names to have POV implications, names have proven to be highly contentious in the past.
 * What I find most disappointing is that rather than take my suggestions, you appear to have edit warred to insist on your changes. Really as an admin on the Spanish wikipedia, you really should be setting an example rather than indulging in disruptive behaviour.
 * From my experience, when i hear someone talking about wishing to see "a POV represented" and quoting NPOV policy, it is precisely because they wish to promote a particular POV via wikipedia.
 * I would be delighted if my first impressions are incorrect and your intentions are to enhance the encyclopedia and indeed will happily redact this report. In the mean time I'd still appreciate some advice from experienced Wiki editors as to the best course of action.  Justin talk 00:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

UNINDENT

Added a link to this page on each of the named articles above. Justin talk 00:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As I've told you by three times, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. If you feel that a given paragraph is too technical, feel free to rewrite or ask for explanations. However, a full reversion of text that is not related to such a "too technical issue", with four different sources, two from the Spanish government and two from the UK document is called, in any wikipedia I've edited in, vandalism.
 * Well, I asked for a link to the consensus. Finally I found it (not thanks to your help) and curiously the position of the UK government is simply not considered. If you think it's not neutral, please, explain it in the talk page, explain why it's affected by the consensus and, anyway, move it to other place within the article, since it contains sourced and attributed information.
 * On the history article, you should analyze the whole of the history. The name was initially included by me (I hadn't uploaded the text to wikisource yet and eventually I decided to use a more accurate name, may I) and I can't see the POV implication in saying that the Spanish authorities surrender in 1704. If not Spanish, what were they?
 * What I find most disappointing is that rather than including any suggestion, you've simply dismissed several hours of work by simply reverting (easy, isn't it?) Being an admin in the Spanish wikipedia, I know this: "It does not entitle users to revert a page three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique". However, you're right. After you broke the 3RR with futile arguments in Telephone numbers in Gibraltar, I shouldn't have done the same. I'm autoblocking me here for one day.
 * I don't know which your experience is, but my experience here is quite old (Requests for arbitration/Gibraltarian). Fairly showing a POV is not promoting a POV. And preventing a POV to be shown on the grounds that someone decides what a NPOV can easily led to MPOV.
 * Justin, you haven't provided the diffs on my alleged POV promoting. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Again for the record, see my 00:38 posting to your talk page. And as always with Wikipedia your contributions are not lost but can be retrieved from the history if necessary.  Thank you for the clarification on the history article though, I'd been through the edit history and simply couldn't figure it out properly.  I see now that you'd simply created a different article on WikiSource - it isn't always easy when things are posted across multiple projects to see how it was put together.  And there is no need for the drama of a block, as I've just commented on your Talk Page I have no intention of reporting the 3RR violation; though a self-revert would be appropriate.  Justin talk


 * It is not a case of a Spanish POV and another view, this is a simple case of an editor making something up. The Spanish refusal to implement the Gibraltar IDD code dates back to the restoration of telephones (1982?) and the matter was only resolved last year.


 * User:Ecemaml has been trying to provoke an argument about Gibraltar.


 * After reverting his personal POV that Nothing prevented Gibraltar from expanding its numbering plan which not even the Spanish Government share that I tried to start a discussion which he asked for but he ignored and continued edit warring


 * He refers to the 'banned user:gibraltarian' who he used to goad in this way who was equally as insistent in pushing his POV and like User:Ecemaml refused to discuss anything and was abusive. It is well known that that user is not myself although he accuses me of that


 * Yes he is an admin on the Spanish wikipedia where he is used to getting his way by protecting articles which he has edited to enforce his erroneous POV as it was HIS opinion that the Gibraltar airport was not part of Gibraltar !


 * After a number of attempts to remove a reference to an agreement on my website, he copied and pasted it to Wikisource to remove the link.


 * Sadly this seems to be a deliberate campaign to stir things up and provoke edit wars particularly including provocative statements of his opinion like unfortunately, Gibraltar is not Spain


 * This behaviour does not help in creating an encyclopedia, and some of his comments and behaviour are very aggressive towards other editors, with threats like:


 * As long as you don't want to show the Spain's POV I'll go on, with my poor English, including it, whether you like it or not. And thank you by recognizing that you have something to do with Gibraltarian.


 * I am not that user and do not even know his name. --Gibnews (talk) 01:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I would add that there was a long long /long/ discussion about these things, discussions I believe were pointed out to Ecemaml. Rather tha breaching 3RR and tossing around petty accusations of vandalism, Ecemaml might be advised to use the talk page to discuss the edits. 'Bold -> Revert -> Discuss'. Not 'Bold -> Revert -> Slam undo until the cows come home'. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 11:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree completely - whether the texts belong there or not, revert warring over them doesn't help. There is no reason not to use the talk pages. Pfainuk talk 15:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be over. There has been no evidence shown that the wording on the existing article is either factually inaccurate or POV perhaps someone not directly involved in the dispute could remove the headers added by the Spanish editor. Since the Cordoba agreement, Spain recognises the Gibraltar IDD code like everyone else in the world, and is no longer involved in telephone numbering in Gibraltar --Gibnews (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Christian Zionism in the United Kingdom
A stub, so I am inclined to be broad minded. But it is written like a speech or personal essay and I am concerned that the whole thing violates NPOV. Or maybe it is just parts that can be removed. I'd appreciate others' judgement, identifying NPOV problems and dealing with them. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 01:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * POV and antisemitic, with its equivocating about the "Jewish lobby". Merge with Christian Zionism if there is anything to rescue. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I looked at the definition, which said it was part of the Christian Right, and some of the named people some of whom certainly didn't seem to be part of the Christian right, and deleted them all to be on the safe side. Doug Weller (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Agatha Christie's Poirot
I realize that a low importance article on a television series seems a little insignificant among such great topics as the Kosovan war, nevertheless there is a battle being fought on the above page regarding one user's (Grakirby) addition of facts regarding recurring characters and recurring actors in different roles. It seems that one particular editor, UpDown, is extremely unhappy and is repeatedly accusing the additions of containing POV and therefore being unacceptable. Hence my posting here. For the very very long and polemic discussion see the discussion page section TRIVIA (should you be brave enough).

I have referred this for a third person non-partisan view on the apposite WP page and the response was from 2 separate users to leave the additions in but this is not accepted as a consensus by the aggrieved party who is still deleting daily and tagging the page as having excessive intricate details. Thank you for your time.--Septemberfourth476 (talk) 13:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a good article, and you all deserve a cup of tea and a slice of cake for working on it so assiduously. My view is this. First: "achieved notoriety" is not the right wording, even if it were spelt correctly. Fame and notoriety are different things. How about "actors who appeared in the series in minor roles and who later became well known include X, Y and Z"? Now, strictly speaking you should have a third-party source for such a statement. Moreover, it is a hostage to fortune because you could be descended upon by fans who want their relatively unknown heartthrobs included in the list. But honestly, it is not a big deal for this article at the moment. The point is sourceable to the rolling credits on the episodes themselves. Second: these aren't intricate details. They don't make it difficult to read the article. Sure, they are only of interest to people who want to know lots about this TV series. But that is a core audience for this article. Those who don't want to read everything can stop after the lead. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Landmark Education
This article was turned into a corporate PR piece. Various tendentious editors have been protecting it in that state for several years. Several of those accounts have now been blocked as sock puppets. Can we get some uninvolved editors to look at the article and help bring it into compliance with WP:NPOV? I suspect that more socks may appear and start edit warring. It will help considerably if uninvolved editors watchlist the article and check all edits. Jehochman Talk 15:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Watching it. And wow, you're not kidding! Arakunem Talk 14:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Adam Kennedy (eco-scientist extraordinaire)
Yes, that's really the title... There is an assertion of notability buried in the self-promotion, so I didn't think it appropriate for speedy. That title's got to go though... Arakunem Talk 15:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Already moved to Adam Kennedy (scientist) by User:Nancy. Quite right too. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 18:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

U 552
This page is the subject of an on-going, 2 year old dispute over content. The original version of this account in 7 July 2006 was the subject of an edit war from September 2006 to January 2007, and again in September 2007 to March 2008. It was edited by myself to this  in October 2008 with the agreement of the original editor.

It has been changed repeatedly to this  by an anonymous editor using a variety of IP addresses: The content added is highly POV, and editorializing. There has been no response to repeated requests for discussion of the issues. The allegation in the edit summary that the original account is “completely inaccurate and extremely biased” has not been substantiated at any point.
 * 71.75.217.133 (Sept 06-Jan 07),
 * 75.181.159.63  (Sept 07-Mar 08, and now Oct 08)
 * 75.181.143.239 (today : 7 Oct 08).

Your input would be welcomed. Xyl 54 (talk) 07:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Buddhism
Issues including NPOV. Peter jackson (talk) 09:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Turkey
In the article, I have re-edited the religion section, because I thought it was biased and only looks at the point of view of secularism or kemalism of the country, therefore I believe that section does not provide a neutral point of view for the readers on Wikipedia, because nothing is mentioned about the conservatism present in Turkey, for example the rise of Islamist-governments and the headscarf controversy - which is banned, but worn by many. I have then added this information about the culture clash between both of these ideologies, with reliable sources and is an important information which should be available in the article based on the impact of Religion in the country.

Furthermore, I have also added the Kemalist ideology to balance between both of these concepts. But in the article it is reverted by two users: User:Turkish Flame and User:Ayça Leovinus (<Part of the 37 Wikipedia sockpuppets of Shuppiluliuma), their reason mainly given: No Islamist ideology allowed on the article, and only favoring secular information, but I have provided two balanced information for the article section, so I believe these two users are reverting my edits due to based on their own ideologies, but not caring about how information is provided for Wikipedia users, and that is what I have done by editing the section, providing a neutral point of view, but however these users are trying to hide these facts and informations, which I think is not a valid reason to revert my edits. Please review this, Thank you!!! My neutral revision : against this:

Many biased reason's against my edit: There is no place for your islamist agenda in wikipedia..., I know that it tickles your Islamist nerves., The top paragraph entirely for religion, the bottom paragraph entirely for secularism., especially when you are the "dedicated Islamist" of Wikipedia?, You are not making a "summary", you are only removing the parts that you dislike due to your Islamic ideology, Mr. Bangladeshi Islamic fanatic in England, why don't you "get a life" and leave Turkey to the Turks - who definitely know their country much better than you do?, Enough - go see a doctor, You are not making a "summary", you are only removing the parts that you dislike due to your Islamic ideology - Note the word Islamist mentioned in these quotes by User:Ayça Leovinus.

My reason's for edits:  I have shortened the section because: the section looks cluttered and unorganized; various info moved to subs; reducing article size (not removed secular), Balancing and adding information (ie Kemalism, political situation), fixing info, now clear according to NPOV, good edit (AGF, NPOV), My revision: shortened sentences, and transferred to related articles, adding few relevant political sit., reducing article size (previous cluttered and unorganized) now), re edited section, added more comprehensive populations of Christians and Jews, and fixed Kemalism, with sources, entry referenced, based on NPOV, balanced of view. Conservate and secular present, not only secular, this should not be hidden., NPOV version: providing info based on two sides of point of views, not only one, but two present in society. Secularism/Kemalism, Conservatism/Headscarf  - Note no insults given to users, but giving suitable reasons for the edits.

Mohsin (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I have re-edited it again for a more neutral perspective: Mohsin (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Osho Rajneesh - Selective sourcing

 * There seems to be an issue with the dependence upon Judith M. Fox's book in this article. I question why of the 350 odd citations, 100 (including ibidem's) are taken from one 54 paged "booklet". Some sections in the Osho article depend almost entirely on Fox. This would appear problematic considering the abundance of material available on the subject.
 * In light of this observation, I am seeking an opinion as to whether or not this issue warrants the placement of an appropriate tag, or tags, to highlight this concern.It is essentially one editor, Jayen, who is responsible for the weighting issue arising from the use of this source.
 * Notable also, in terms of questioning the quality and reliability of the source, is the fact that the book in question is published in conjunction with an Italian organisation called CESNUR, owned by one Massimo Introvigne; who seems to have a reputation for his stance against so called anti-cultists, or cult-apologists.
 * Generally, I have found that there is resistance to the inclusion of material that questions offically endorsed appraisals of Osho Rajneesh; despite numerous valid sources being offered, for example Talk:Osho & Talk:Osho.
 * The officical view, that endorsed by individuals sympathetic to the Osho movement, is always presented as the primary version of events, with all other perspectives sidelined as secondary. This is not a neutral presentation of verifiable sources.
 * Another observation is that the weighting of Fox's assessment of Osho's teachings gives it primacy over the views of other scholars, such as Carter, Metha, Urban, Mullan, etc. all of whom have written on the nature of the subject's teachings. Instead some of their views are relegated to one small section entitled Assessments by scholars of religion. This simply adds to the imbalance.

Semitransgenic (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

According to my analysis, the article lists 201 different source locations. Of these, 35 (not 93) are pages in Fox. However, it is true that some of these pages have multiple citations. Overall, the article has, according to my reckoning, 347 individual source citations. Of those, 98 are to Fox. So there would seem to be some potential justification in raising the question of undue weight. To check if this is borne out by the facts, let us look at what is actually cited to Fox, taking each citation in turn, from the beginning.


 * Fox p. 9 (3 cites) is used for the number of Osho's siblings and the occupation of his father, his going back to live with his parents aged 7, and his youthful flirtations with politics.


 * Fox p. 10 (2 cites) is used to source Osho's criticising Gandhi and socialism, and his speaking against Brahminism.


 * Fox p. 12 (1 cite) is used to source that sannyasins wore a locket with his picture.


 * Fox p. 11 (1 cite) is used to source that his sannyasins did not live an ascetic lifestyle.


 * Fox p. 15 (1 cite) is used to source that the number of Western visitors increased.


 * Fox p. 16 (1 cite): the arrival of Western therapists in the ashram.


 * Fox p. 17 (6 cites): the Ashram beginning to offer therapy groups, these becoming a major source of income, there being Dynamic Meditation at 6 a.m., Osho holding a spontaneous morning discourse, the way therapies were chosen, the fact that therapies allowed violence and sexual contact between participants.


 * Fox p. 18 (3 cites): daily meditation and therapy programme in the so-called "buddhafield", visitors having darshans, "madhouse" carnival atmosphere in the ashram.


 * Fox p. 20 (1 cite): some individual sannyasins engaging in drug running and prostitution.


 * Fox p. 47 (1 cite): sannyasins discussing planned drug runs or prostitution activities with Osho and Osho giving his blessing.


 * Fox p. 21 (4 cites): alternative commune locations in India sought, Saswad castle commune started, tensions with the Desai government, Osho entering a period of silence.


 * Fox p. 22 (4 cites): Sheela becoming the new secretary, back problem and move to US, Sheela claiming it was for health reasons, Sheela being keen to go to the US.


 * Fox p. 26 (1 cite): Osho's AIDS warning.


 * Fox p. 27 (1 cite): Osho ending his period of public silence.


 * Fox p. 50 (1 cite): lack of evidence linking Osho to Sheela's crimes.


 * Fox p. 48 (1 cite): allegations that Osho was addicted to nitrous oxide.


 * Fox p. 29 (1 cite): Osho returning to his ashram in Pune in 1987.

This covers the first 33 citations to Fox. As the article grew, I used Fox as a convenience cite for several reasons: Her book is short and contains the essential outline of Osho's life. Second, it is, unlike FitzGerald or Carter, strictly choronological, making it easy to find things. Third, having been written quite recently, it is one of the few books that covers all of Osho's life, from his birth to his death. Fourth, along with FitzGerald, Fox was one of the first sources I bought for working on this article.

There is nothing cited to Fox in the above that could not just as easily be cited to Carter, FitzGerald, Joshi, or Gordon.

CESNUR is an organisation of mainstream scholars of religion. According to this Oxford University Press publication, CESNUR is a recommended source of objective information on new religious movements. The same publication also mentions that Massimo Introvigne lectures at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross in Rome.

"Judith Fox (= Judith Thompson, = Judith Coney) holds a doctorate in the sociology of religion from the London School of Economics, University of London. For more than twenty years, she has researched new religions, culminating in such books as The Way of the Heart: A Study of Rajneeshism and Sahaja Yoga. She edits a series on new religions from Curzon Press." Jayen 466 16:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This is misleading, count the total number of individual cites attributable to Fox.'''


 * Cites in the teachings section are almost entirely from Fox, particulary the first sub-section, and it is mostly Fox that is being paraphrased.


 * Her work The Way of the Heart: A Study of Rajneeshism was not a culmination of 20 years research, as claimed above, it was written in 1986.


 * Fox is not a practicing academic and does not currently hold a research position at a university.


 * Fox's Osho Rajneesh publication appears to hold many biases and is not a neutral source, I would point to the first paragraph of page 9 as a good example: where she essentially states that Rajneesh was the reincarnation of a man who lived 700 years ago.


 * Semitransgenic (talk) 17:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This is misleading, count the total number of individual cites attributable to Fox. I did count them. It is 35 out of the 201 numbered notes, or just under 100 individual citations out of the roughly 350 individual citations overall. It is not 93 out of 201, as you claimed.
 * There are indeed many cites to Fox in the teaching section. This partly reflects the fact that she devotes a whole chapter to a complete outline of his teachings and gives the best overview. Other sources tend to have scattered references to various aspects of his teaching here and there, and to focus on particular points. But the various aspects that Fox describes of his teachings can be found in accounts by others as well. (For the record, the Teaching section has 76 citations, of which 48 are to Fox. Note that every sentence sourced to Fox has a separate citation, even where these are 3-sentence units, and that each primary source quote that is given in Fox and is reproduced in this article has a separate, double citation to both Fox and the primary source.)
 * Bromley disagrees with you about the neutrality and objectivity of CESNUR, and he is a leading scholar of religion. It is true that Fox reproduces a legend about Osho's former incarnation; I did not think (and still don't think) that section is encyclopedically relevant to our article. Jayen 466 17:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not sure whether a scholar working at a university or not is necessarily relevant to this discussion, but according to this page, relating to an Oxford University Press publication of hers, Judith Fox taught at the University of London in 2000 at the time her book on Rajneesh was written (the copyright is 2000). (She married or divorced or something, hence the name change. But she is also generally known as the leading scholar on Sahaja Yoga.) Jayen 466 17:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This is misleading, count the total number of individual cites attributable to Fox. I did count them. It is 35 out of the 201 numbered notes, or just under 100 individual citations out of the roughly 350 individual citations overall. It is not 93 out of 201, as you claimed.
 * go to the reference section, look at the cites, count the ibidem's. Semitransgenic (talk) 17:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, Fox is not the only source with ibidems. If you count her ibidems, you also have to count the ibidems for the other sources. Jayen 466 18:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe she was cited here as an academic at one point or another; that is generally someone with a track record of peer reviewed, university endorsed, research.
 * The question relates more to the neutrality of the Signature publication - it's usability as a reliable source, and the degree to which it is being depended upon, in light of the fact that it is essentially a 54 page booklet, and that other sources are largely ignored, relative to the disproportionate coverage given to Fox's views - than to her academic credentials Semitransgenic (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I mentioned above that her book on Sahaja Yoga was published by Oxford University Press. Judith Fox/Coney/Thompson has a twenty-five-year history of contributing to peer-reviewed journals, including on this specific topic. Jayen 466 18:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * But this is not an article about Sahaja Yoga. Semitransgenic (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I honestly can't see what you're getting at, Semitransgenic. As far as I can see from a quick survey, Judith Fox has a degree in Religious Studies and Anthropology, an M.Sc., a doctorate in the Sociology of Religion, she taught at London University's Study of Religions Department, previously produced a book on the subject of this article (as yet unreferenced here) with Paul Heelas, (The Way of the Heart: The Rajneesh Movement, mentioned e.g. here in [Aveling), she contributed a paper entitled Recent changes in Rajneeshism to the Journal of Contemporary Religion, and contributed a chapter covering Osho to this 2000 State University of New York Press publication. We cite few, if any, authors in this article who have a longer track record of researching Osho than Fox has. And the cites above, like the number of his siblings, the ashram earning money with therapy groups, some of his disciples engaging in drug running and prostitution, Osho giving morning discourses, Osho talking about AIDS, etc., are not Fox's views, but facts reported by her, and by many other authors. I'll grant you that much of the teaching section is sourced to Fox, but that is because she gives the most complete and best-structured overview. [[User:Jayen466| Jayen ]]466 22:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I looked no further into Fox's background than what is immediately available via google, and there is very little for one Judith Fox. The name change since 1986 was not apparent to me becasue I viewed the credit to The Way of The Heart on the 2000 work, for a woman of the same name. The question of the publisher and its reputation is beyond the scope of the discussion, and I don't have time look further into allegations relating to CENSUR accepting funding from various NRM's with public image problems.


 * Obviously, it's not possible to get wider feedback here on the tone of her Signature publication but I personally find it questionable, relative to the range of sources available on the subject. It does not feature the type of writing I would expect from someone with academic training, but then again this is far from being an academic standard source, not that it is a requirement, but there are a number of academic publications on the subject that could be referred to in place of Fox.


 * The issue that needs to be addressed is the fact that almost one third of the citations stem from one persons assessment of the subject when there are a number of commentators to consider, this is not in keeping with provisions for a summary of sources.


 * I do not accept your claim that she gives the most complete overview and this runs contrary to the summary of sources requirement, she provides her overview, other commentators have offered views on his teachings but they are corralled into a short sub-section entitled Assessments by scholars of religion.


 * In summary what we have is undue weight given to a concise and sympathetic little booklet which reads like it was written by someone who is unashamedly a fan and perhaps once a follower, not that either of those facets are in themselves problematic, it is the credence that this 54 page book has been given here that is the problem. Semitransgenic (talk) 23:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The Teaching section sets out to give a description of his teaching. People's views on the teaching are treated in the Reception section. That is fairly standard practice. Jayen 466 16:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think perhaps you may be choosing to miss the point. By my understanding of the matter, there is no codified set of 'teachings' attributable to Osho. Fox is simply one of many who have written on the subject, but the weighting is leaning heavily in her direction, becasue in your view her perspective is definitive. You can run around the issue but it is very plain. Semitransgenic (talk) 17:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there something that prevents the use of alternate sources to provide greater diversity in references cited for the reader? I appreciate that certain sources will simply be easier to use and somewhat valuable as a reference because they provide a clear overview of a subject. However, we should avoid being overly reliant on a single source, especially in such a potentially contentious article. It can lead to claims of bias and undue weight, which are often legitimate concerns. If the material can be cited to a wider variety sources, diversifying the citations a bit will be of benefit to the article and the editing climate. Vassyana (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll look for some alternative citations then and drop them in. FWIW, I don't believe Fox is or ever was a follower. But when it comes to describing Osho's teachings, I don't think it is inappropriate to use a sympathetic source. For example, to describe Islamic beliefs, we use Islamic sources, not Christian ones; to describe the beliefs of Scientology, we actually use primary sources – pages off their website – rather than Operation Clambake. I think this article already does quite well ín using scholarly sources and restricting primary source quotes to those quoted by scholars. Cheers, Jayen 466 23:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Right-wing politics edits by user:Valois bourbon
He seems to have undertaken a very biased re-editing of this article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Right-wing_politics&diff=prev&oldid=241469606

could someone take a look? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.171.61 (talk) 09:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Population Connection
The article on the organization Population Connection is little more than an advertisement by the organization (it even tells readers at the end "You can learn more about Population Connection on the website...". It is desperately in need of cleaning up, because right now it is not NPOV.  76.173.189.236 (talk) 19:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Good catch. It had been entirely re-written recently by user:Popconnect, a single-edit editor and presumably a member of the group. I've reverted it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit war at Varg Vikernes
Some anonymous ip has continued a NPOV issue at this article, that I though had cleared already. Within the right wing/neopagan underground apparently some people are of the opinion that the subject of the article is a 'writer', whereas, according to the few reliable sources, such a description would not be appropriate. It goes back to a discussion from August 2007, when someone was of the opinion that Varg Vikernes was not only a musician, but also a writer, composer and an atheist; and consequently I had to explain that someone who considers 'Jesus to be an Aryan' can hardly be described as an atheist. I only did not get through with explaining, that, according to the reliable sources, Vikernes just does not qualify as a writer. Two months ago an anonymous ip had already vandalised my user talk page with a racist comment in relation to this issue ( see this diff). Zara1709 (talk) 17:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look like a writer. Who are the books published by? Are they available through Amazon? On any bestseller lists? Their existence may be a notable part of his biog, but their status needs to be clarified. When they are listed, make sure that further editions and translations of the same thing form one entry, not several. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * His books are extremist underground literature. One of them was published by Cymophane, some publisher with which he is somehow himself involved and can be ordered at a far right web store (note the link to a book by Savitri Devi on that page, who proclaiming Adolf Hitler as an avatar of the Hindu god Vishnu.) The other book was afaik self-published with money from Vikernes' mother. This certainly aren't bestsellers, and are not listed at amazon.com (the only thing you get there is secondary literature about him: ). However, if you want to look for his music, at amazon.com they still sell it . Zara1709 (talk) 18:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the article should just note "He has authored some self-published books on ... (name subjects)." Itsmejudith (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Probably I should have been more specific in my initial comment. In the foregoing version this was included as: Vikernes "wrote several pamphlets on Germanic neopaganism." The controversy is about the question whether he should be listed as a writer by occupation in the template at the side of the article: diff, which I oppose because it would give a wrong impression. Zara1709 (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * After I took a closer look at the IP adresses involved (apparently they all belong to the same person who vandalized my user talk page), I have decided to resolve this as vandalism to save the community the effort. If you think that his is inappropriate, please, just leave a note at Talk:Varg Vikernes. Zara1709 (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

first of all, where on the history of edits do you find me vandalizing anyone's page? this is a college library computer, I don't know, nor care, what others have done on wikipedia with the computers here. second, I have enough info to call him a writer and list his writings (something that zara has also vandalized). Thrid (and this is off subject) I believe that a man named Jesus existed, does that mean I'm not an atheist. No, I don't believe in god(s) and neither does he, so technically he is a athiest... it does seem a little weird that zara keeps bringing up points that have nothing to do with Wikipedia's guide lines or whether or not he is a writer. I'm not a vandal (neither in the internet sense nor am I a member of any eastern germanic race). I just want the info to be complete. I don't care if she removes the part that has Occuption(s): Writer. I'll even remove it if it helps. But he has written these books, their are on more than racism and neopaganism, and listing these writings are solely to give the full info, nothing more. Now I think I'll just sit and wait for the proof that I have ever vandalized anyone's page. 172.163.184.165 (talk) 05:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Stop lying. The chances that two people whose computers are in the same ip range care so strongly about such a specific topic are considerably slim. But now, since you have found this discussion page, you know that even it we all assume good faith here your edits are simply bad. You appear to be a fan of Vikernes writings, and there is nothing I can say against this. But to the greater public, Vikernes simply isn't a writer. You'd have to accept that. Zara1709 (talk) 06:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright, this is what I wanted. Zara has kept my constructive edits and changed the wording from "wrote several pamphlets" to "authored several writings", I agree that mythology mentioned is covered (at least in Varg's case) with "neopaganism" and I thank Zara for keeping the edits we could reach an agreement on. As far as the things you mention. His writings do seem to be that of an atheist (a religious one albeit) but the sources are... well, inconclusive, more info will surface after he has served his time. As for composer, I've always defined a composer as someone who writes in musical notation for publication, which I have no reason to think Varg is such. So with that I thank zara and apologize for the warring. Next time I'll discuss the problem first, once again I'm sorry. As far ass the ip check, the computers in this school are unable to go to several sites (or download from some) due to everyone acting like idiots (we have several neonazis and neopagans, me not incuded, I'm not even a fan of his writings, I'm just fascinated by extremist) (I can't download "home of the underdog" because of this) so If someone did say that about your mother I stand by that it wasn't me. I will take everyone's advice and create an account the next time I decide to edit. I consider the problem resolved, once again sorry for my newbie-ness, and thank you for compromising zara, I would like to make one statement about wikipedia, their needs to be guidelines on what an occupation is define as far as wikipedia is concerned, or maybe I just didn't see it. well, goodbye everybody. 172.164.211.91 (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

James Hansen
The specific section with NPOV problems is "Trials for fossil fuel chiefs". Briefly, Hansen has called for putting fossil fuel company executives, including the CEOs of ExxonMobil and Peabody Coal, on trial for "high crimes against humanity and nature", on the grounds that these and other fossil-fuel companies had actively spread doubt and misinformation about global warming. I added a reply from a Peabody Coal spokesman, that if everyone who disagreed with Hansen were jailed, "the jails would be very, very big." , citing "Big Coal Fires Back Over James Hansen’s Criminal Complaint" at the New York Times.

The ensuing discussions (and edit war) are documented at Talk:James Hansen. Briefly, three editors object to including the Peabody Coal reply, on grounds of WP:WEIGHT. Three editors support the addition (or something similar) on grounds of WP:NPOV. No consensus emerged, nor does one seem likely. Hence an outside review is requested.

Hansen is a controversial figure, and his WP biography has been very contentious in the past, so an overall review of the article's compliance with NPOV would also be helpful. Thank you, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Semitransgenic
Please see current spiteful dispute I am having with Semitransgenic at Tellus Audio Cassette Magazine and at the Noise music page. See talk pages at both. Thank you Valueyou (talk) 16:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The user's issues with me started here: . Persistently ignoring guidelines despite numerable efforts to communicate plainly and clearly how things work around here. User also appears to be engaged in sock/meat puppetry, appropriate check requests have been filed. Association with known sock puppeteer and a sock puppet account has been established. Semitransgenic (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * NOT SO! Note date: 15 August 2008. That dispute was well settled and Semitransgenic knows that. Semitransgenic is attempting to distort the current dispute as stated below by fishing in the past.
 * The issue is this: after a month of work I greatly improved the noise music page - providing wiki with an outstanding noise music page with extensive footnotes, some lacking only page # which I can provide in the near future (as previously explained a # of times), free of WP:OR & WP:SYN that stood - more or less - for a couple of weeks. Semitransgenic then imposed a WP:OR deadline on my providing those page #s and when I challenged that arbitrary deadline Semitransgenic falsely accused me of sock-puppetry with the creator of the Tellus Audio Cassette Magazine - an outstanding wiki page started by Tellus archivist who has entered his resistance to Semitransgenic's dictates. (see talk page at Noise music) I strongly condemn Semitransgenic's tactics as he is doing it again at Tellus Audio Cassette Magazine


 * this is a misrepresentation of facts. The article has never been free of WP:OR WP:SYN, tags were at one point removed because an assurance was given that citations would be forthcoming. At least six weeks on and there is still know sign of them, hence the continued presence of the tags. In this regard, nowhere has deviation from standard policy been applied by user semitransgenic, despite the vocal protestations of user Valueyou et al. There was no arbitrary deadline applied, and in light of the nature of the information submitted to the article, deletion may have been a more appropriate approach, yet user semitransgenic instead simply commented out the problematic citations and reinstated the requests. Semitransgenic (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * More evidence of Semitransgenic abuse: he has seen the results of the investigation into his charges of sock/meat puppetry here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Tellus_archivist) and knows (see his contrib page) me to be innocent of them -- yet he repeats them here. The result of his harassment was: "Clerk note: I've indefblocked Taxisfolder as an abandoned account but there is no overlap in activity or block evasion, so Valueyou is left alone. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC) I ask for disciplinary  measures to be taken. He is a bully.  Valueyou (talk) 16:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Distortion of facts. Wknight94 conclusion following 'checkuser' was '' (clerk) Abandoned account blocked but current one is not per lack of WP:SOCK abuse. One account was switched for another)''. Semitransgenic (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The findings were that "Taxisfolder was an abandoned account". Valueyou (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * was referring to users edit comments. Semitransgenic (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Israelites
This case might be RfC material, but the situation seems straight forward enough to most of us that I'd like to try this route first. Israelites had a healthy(ish) NPOV discussion going on over the summer and early fall (pertaining to whether or not the article contained too many religious sources as references) and was moving towards a more neutral tone (based on genetics and archeology). Last week a new editor appeared and began making the article entirely slanted towards what seems to be an Orthadox Jewish position, using Genesis and other religious texts as references for genetic heiritage, and ignoring previous and current discussions along these very lines. Could someone please have a look and see if they can help steer the conversation in a more productive direction (though just be forwarned the editor has a history of doing this). Thanks in advance. NJGW (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Lüscher colour test
This article is little more than uncited conjecture and in no way meets Wikipedia standards:

[]

I've also posted a comment on the article's Talk page.

Simon

Glasgow

Wikiweesimon (talk) 22:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Tommy Tutone and other (alleged) one-hit wonders
The Tommy Tutone page features the following passage in the introduction:

"Although they are frequently remembered as a 'one-hit wonder', they actually had another top 40 hit on the Hot 100 with 'Angel Say No' in 1980, predating 'Jenny' by a couple of years."

This kind of statement occurs in many pages which discuss alleged one-hit wonders. It seems to be written from the point of view of a fan who wishes to defend their favourite band from being labelled as a one-hit wonder. One problem is that "one-hit wonder" is not clearly defined, which allows it to be used when writing from either point of view. The fact that "Angel Say No" reached Number 38 would not prevent me from thinking of Tommy Tutone as a one-hit wonder, but others would argue that two top-40 songs does preclude that status.

A separate issue is that the assertion that a band is a one-hit wonder usually involves weasel words, as is the case in the extract shown above. I suggest that "one-hit wonder" is a subjective term that is difficult to define and interpret. As something which invites POV, I propose that claims and counter-claims as to one-hit wonder status should be avoided in articles about bands and musical artists, and their songs.

I am not in dispute with anybody over this. The reason I am posting is that I have seen statements like the one above on many Wikipedia pages. I would like to receive some expert opinions before editing them. Thank you, Labalius (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you and other editors interested in popular music establish a definition of "one-hit wonder" to be used in all such articles? In this particular article, could using a footnote resolve the difficulty? Itsmejudith (talk) 11:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have tried the One-hit wonder article. It does a good job of presenting the history of the subject and it reveals that there are multiple definitions of a one-hit wonder. No one definition can dominate the others. When you read the lists of one-hit wonders, you meet with more POV from people who do not like certain entries. They are free to choose the definition that fits their point of view, which is the fundamental problem. Whenever I encounter statements like the quote above, I will replace them with neutral stataments of fact. That is all anybody can do, I think. Thanks Itsmejudith for considering the problem for me. Labalius (talk) 11:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Mark Hall (musician)
I went to this article to add a recent interview quote that I felt was relevant, and I saw a tag questioning the POV of this article. I went to the talk page as diercted and saw no explantation of why the NPOV is disputed. Can someone answer why and remove the tag if it is unjustified? Ilostmyshoeinthewasher (talk) 01:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Press TV
This Iran based international TV chain has a holocaust denial article on its official website and was criticised for this by the Jerusalem Post, an opinion piece in the Jewish Chronicle, and numerous blogs. Two new SPAs tried to put this and additional information into the article, somewhat excessively and with improper synthesis, before they were temporarily blocked as sockpuppets of each other. (See WP:AN.) Should the fact be mentioned in at least one short sentence, with proper framing, or is that impossible because the Jerusalem Post, being "Zionist", is a "questionable source"? The discussion at Talk:Press TV seems to have stalled. --Hans Adler (talk) 07:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The situation is a bit more complex than that. In fact, three newly-created single-purpose accounts (1, 2, 3) over the past few days have been attempting to insert (e.g. 1, 2, 3) the same rather lengthy bit of original research into the Press TV article. Besides myself, two other editors (1, 2) as well as an administrator have also taken notice of this. In addition, one of the single-purpose accounts has been blocked for evading WP:3RR through the creation of multiple accounts. I and others have fully analyzed, explained and discussed the situation over at the Press TV article's talk page. To all reading parties, please refer to that discussion page for the specifics. Causteau (talk) 10:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a point of principle here: Causteau has suggested that a newspaper which supports Zionism is a "questionable source" and cannot be cited. This does not seem right to me, but I'm not sure which is the correct forum - I see Hans has raised it here, and I've raised it at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability (but happy for an admin to move it here if that is more appropriate). LeContexte (talk) 22:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the right forum for your question is WP:RSN. I asked a more general question here because I found enough proof of an existing consensus that the Jerusalem Post is a reliable source. I suggested to Causteau to ask there, but he claimed it wasn't necessary because he was obviously right.
 * I also think that the Press TV article is on the watchlists of enough non-extremist editors by now, so that we can just wait for this thread and yours to be archived, rather than adding to them. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you LeContexte (talk) 09:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Meher Baba related entries
There are a large number of entries related to Indian guru Meher Baba, several of which do not conform with NPOV guidelines, especially with regard to sources. Nearly all of the sources are works by Meher Baba devotees and/or Meher Baba newsletters, website, and the like. I added a notablity tag to the most obviously problematic entries (not to the main Meher Baba entry), having tried unsuccessfully to find neutral source material. However, this tag was removed without change to the entries. If appropriate neutral source material cannot be found, then I suggest that these entries be deleted or merged - in some cases perhaps in a new entry or in some cases with other Meher Baba pages. I'm not very technically minded but I suspect that aside from the issue of sources, having them merged with more major topics would draw more readers to their content anyway. The pages concerned and the discussion that followed can be found on my talk page, with additional discussion on the main Meher Baba discussion page (another editor objected to having it there but I wanted to alert others with an interest in the topic that it was going on). I am now restoring the "notability" tag so that other editors are alerted to the sourcing problems and discussion. Hope this is the right page to turn to. --Editwondergirl (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have commented extensively on Editwondergirl's talk page. Editwondergirl began her editing career by adding notablity tags to 11 articles in 15 minutes. She has done little else, aside from her own talkpage comments and a single set comments on Talk:Meher Baba.


 * After waiting a week -- during which there was no further talk from Editwondergirl, or any other edits by her -- User:72.204.47.141 (who has now got the username LittleDoGooder) reverted these notability tags. I concurred with the reverts, and so informed Editwondergirl.


 * I agree that a discussion of notability might be in order on all 11 pages tagged by Editwondergirl. I agree that a citation tag might be added to these pages, or an NPOV tag, or even in some cases an AFD tag. This sort of tagging is a reasonable part of the life of many WP articles, and often leads to improvements.


 * So what I asked Editwondergirl to do was to explain her reasons for adding these tags on the talk pages of these individual articles. She has declined to do so. Instead she informed me that she had instead created a note on the Meher Baba talk page that she had tagged a number of articles for notability. Since the tagged articles were in many cases edited by persons with no clear relationship to the editing of the Meher Baba article, this approach is bizarre to say the least.


 * Now I point to this method used by Editwondergirl to raise the following challenge to her tagging: Her concern seems not so much about notability as it is related to Meher Baba (a controversial guru who claimed to be God in human form). By using her shotgun, drive-by tagging method, she suggests that she has an agenda not related to article quality, but rather to article subject.


 * Since she has declined to offer any individual discussion of concerns with any of these articles, I believe that the notability tags lack reasonable substance and validity. Since there has been no effort to raise the points for individual discussion, I believe that they should, and will, be removed. In fact I may in time revert them, unless some discussion is made on the talk page.


 * What is Editwondergirl's concern? That is hard glean from her actions. Notablity tags suggest that the subject itself has no relevance to WP at large, and hence should be merged or deleted. Yet most if not all of these subjects are reasonably notable, and exceed the notability standards set by many (to my mind) more dubious WP entries. So without some sort of notability rationale, I think there is a prima facie case that the subjects are indeed notable. Hence my invitation -- my pleas, in fact-- that the notability question be raised on an individual basis, which Editwondergirl continues to ignore.


 * Is her concern the NPOV of sources for these articles? Again a reasonable point for discussion, but implemented in a non-productive way. Meher Baba is a figure of worship and honor to many hundreds of thousands of persons, possibly millions, and it is these persons that write the books, articles, etc. See this discussion that took place during the Meher Baba Good Article Reassessment on the challenges of finding neutral or critical sources and of establishing NPOV standards. It is a concern, but one that can be addressed reasonably and rationally, and most importantly on an individual article basis, so worries and remedies can be aired and addressed through consensus.


 * For certain articles such as the ones being tagged, there will simply be no "Neutral" sources of information. For these sorts of articles, however, the NPOV criteria demands that the articles include alternate viewpoints, including those critical or contradictory of the primary sources. Frankly I don't know of any such alternate viewpoint sources for the tagged articles. I don't know of any sources that say that Silence Day isn't really a day of silence, or any source that specifically contradicts or criticizes the famous pamphlet God in a Pill?, distributed to and read by millions of hippies around the world. If Editwondergirl knows of some, let her say so, and I will work to include them.


 * In summary, through her actions, Editwondergirl appears to demand that articles related to Meher Baba must jump higher threshold for notablity and NPOV than is typical of many subjects in Wikipedia. Additionally, her actions clearly suggest an agenda distinct from article improvement. Finally her methods are entirely inappropriate to achieving her stated aims of improving the articles in question, or the quality of Wikipedia in general.


 * If she were not a New Editor, I would bite harder. But I suspect that she is in fact an existing editor with a new username. Her language, tone, and actions are remarkably similar to another editor who was highly critical of the Meher Baba article and related articles. I think she has reincarnated as Editwondergirl. --nemonoman (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Nemonoman, I'll ignore your extensive personal comments both here and elsewhere. As I told you at the time, I was holding off on any further action to give you and other editors time to revise the entries, as you yourself said might be in order in at least some cases. I suggest that you stick to the issues. The "notability" tag alerts other editors to problems with the entries. I have talked further about these issues with "littlewondergirl" (on the talk page of one of the entries concerned). As I said to her, I tagged these articles together not because of a systmeic bias against Meher Baba, but because they are on a related issue and might be open to a common solution (eg merging them together with existing entries, or in some cases with each other under a common entry). And I mentioned it on the Meher Baba talk page in order to alert others with an interest in Meher Baba issues, not in order to crash your party. It seemed only fair to alert other users who might have an interest, including those who would very likely take a different perspective to my own. I take your point about the difficulty in finding sources on Meher Baba-related issues that are not written by devotees and/or published in Meher Baba newsletters, websites, etc - but if people and organistations that are not closely associated with Meher Baba have not written about a topic, then that may well be a sign that it is not notable. I do not suggest that Meher Baba himself is not worthy of at least one entry, but at things stand he has effectively got many entries, many of them not of a high standard and with questionable claims to notability. As I've said to you before, I'm not chasing an agenda and the only reason that I haven't made other edits is because I have not come across any pages in my areas of interest that were so in need of it. But I do intend to do more editing - see my username - which by the way relates to my daytime job rather than my wikipedia hobby, which is relatively recent (although I have watched Wikipedia for ages). --Editwondergirl (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV: Medical degree

 * - The editor User:Naturstud is a Naturopath from Canada who has been editing a lot of medically related pages to include information about naturopathy. I have no problem with this in general and is fine.  However, he has been a  tendentious editor and has been including a lot of misleading information in the article Medical degree suggesting that those who hold a degree in "naturopathy or naturopathic medicine" (a degree he himself holds)  are equivalent to "medical doctors" and that he feels the naturopathy degree that he holds should be classified and listed as a "medical degree" along side the MD, DO, and MBBS degrees (WikiCOI).  The World Health Organization WHO/IMED disagrees and they have created an internationally recognized list of what is and is not considered a "medical degree".  This list published by the WHO is utilized by the "board of medicine" in pretty much every country in the world.  They use this list as a guide to decide who holds a recognized "medical degree" and who is eligible and who is not eligible for a "medical license".  Naturopathy is not on this list.  Naturopathic medicine is classified as a "complementary and alternative medical practice" along side Chinese medicine, homeopathic medicine, reiki, ayurveda, acupuncture, etc.  Naturstud refuses to list his degree along side these other professions even though they are always grouped together, he instead insists on classifying his degree as a "medical degree" even though it is not recognized as such. Naturopaths are allowed to register with the state "board of Naturopathic Medicine" (in those few regions which regulate the profession.  However, this is completely different from the state "board of Medicine".  This is similar to a dentist (another type of "health care professional") who also holds a license through the state "board of dental medicine"; this however does not mean that a dentist holds a "medical license" to "practice medicine" from a state "board of medicine".  They hold a "dental license" just like a naturopath is (in a few regions) allowed to hold a "naturopathic license".  Only graduates with "medical degrees" from one of the the WHO/IMED listed world medical schools who have obtained a certificate from the ECFMG are allowed to apply for a "medical license".

Myself and a few other editors have agreed to allow Naturstud to edit the article Medical degree to include his degree with the only exception that he also equally include ALL other "complementary and alternative medicine" professional degrees, diplomas, and certificates equally as per Wiki (NPOV) policy. He refuses and has continued to push and promote his profession on wikipedia at the expense of others.

Could we please have some assistance cleaning up or rewriting this article to better comply with NPOV policy?
 * I feel we should either:
 * 1) Re-write the guidelines to include ONLY "medical degree"s as is "internationally recognized" for the "practice of medicine" as per the internationally accepted WHO Directory of Medical Schools/FAIMER International Medical Education Directory . As only graduates of medical schools in these lists are permitted to apply for medical licensure. or
 * 2) the only alternative being to include a list of ALL alternative and complementary medical practitioners in order to keep this list fair and balanced (WP:NPOV). We can either maintain the article title of Medical degree or an alternate suggestion was changing the title of the article to Healthcare degrees in order to better suit an all inclusive list.

Thank you for your help. Jwri7474 (talk) 04:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

DeVry University
I was just wondering if I could get some feedback on this article - does the Controversies section seem like undue weight? I don't know anything about this article although I've been working on it in the past and had it watchlisted for a while.

I think it has a bit of undue weight and want to streamline it somehow. x42bn6 Talk Mess 08:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How many universities get repeatedly sued by their students for the education quality and (by the gov't) for the loan practices? VG &#x260E; 10:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't know. :)  x42bn6 Talk Mess  09:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Summarization of Special Comments by Keith Olbermann
On List_of_Keith_Olbermann's_special_comments, one editor is changing several descriptions of excerpts from the Countdown with Keith Olbermann television show. Examples:

Keith Olbermann criticizes John McCain for not speaking out against statements made by Sarah Palin, Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann, and McCain spokesperson Nancy Pfotenhauer for their use of the phrases "real America" and "real Virginia" in public statements and Rush Limbaugh's assertion that Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama solely because of race.

becomes

Keith Olbermann lists examples of hateful, divisive politics from the right that actually do more to undermine America than the bogus accusations of anti-Americanism being leveled against Barack Obama.

and

In light of recent attacks on the Obama campaign, Olbermann focuses upon Sarah Palin's connections to controversial figures.

becomes

Keith Olbermann points out in a Special Comment that while John McCain might want to use Sarah Palin to hit Barack Obama below the belt and accuse him of terrorist associations, he overlooked the unfortunate fact that "pallin' around with terrorists" is one area where Palin has more experience.

He argues that NPOV is not a concern here, that the original text is original research and his revisions reflect what the primary source is saying. Thoughts?

Switzpaw (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Perez_(criminal)
This is just libel. No source, nothing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.182.107.151 (talk) 03:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right, I've put it up for deletion. -- Explodicle <font size="-2">(T/C) 16:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

More eyeballs could be used here--no pun intended, either.
Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China could use some attention from people who actually know what the situation there involves. One user User:Ohconfucius is raising a herd of objections, claiming that any reports that support the allegations are biased, and calling WP:COATRACK on mention of a study supporting the allegations. This user, for all I know about the goings-on in China, could very well have a valid point; however, since I'm not equipped to make that call myself, and since User:Ohconfucius seems to be a lone voice in his/her contentions, I'd appreciate it if someone with actual KNOWLEDGE of the issues here take a look and see whether the article and its sources are in line with WP:NPOV. Thanks in advance! Gladys J Cortez 10:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Anthony Pollina
Anthony Pollina is a current gubernatorial candidate in the state of Vermont, US. A new user with only one prior edit added a large amount of content to Pollina's page, most of which was copied directly off of the candidate's website (see and  for examples). I reverted this, as a blatant violation of NPOV, and warned the user. Another new user has reverted the page back to the version that violated NPOV, including reverting several of my edits since. I have re-reverted, but I wanted to alert others about this issue since I don't want to become involved in an edit war. If users continue to use this article as a political advertisement, what should I do? Should I request the article be protected? Contact the campaign and ask them to stop? Any help watching this page, or input on how I should best protect it, would be appreciated. Thanks! &mdash; λ (talk) 03:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll help you out with watching it for now, when I can. I would say to warn/report users and request protection along the same lines that you would for any article. And yes, contacting the campaign can't hurt. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Murder of Swami Lakshmanananda
Murder of Swami Lakshmanananda- Me and another user have raised some pov issues at article talk page. I feel this article desperately in need of cleaning up (see talk). Additionally, I feel the section "Murder" looks like a news report per WP:NOT. When I removed those contents, another pov editor undid my edits. Please have a look at this and resolve the issue. -- <font style="color:#1849B5;background:yellow;">Googlean <font style="color:#000000;background:white;"> Results  06:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have corrected / chopped / fixed something. Please, have look at the article & do if something else to be done. -- <font style="color:#1849B5;background:yellow;">Googlean <font style="color:#000000;background:white;"> Results  08:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Yamashita's gold
In the Yamashita's gold article this sentence is added by an anonymous (ip editor)

On February 28, 2000, the trial court conducted a hearing to determine the value of the golden buddha and the 17 bars of gold [reference 1 here] and awarded approximately $13 million. [reference 2 here]

Reference 2 makes no mention of the events that took place in Reference 1. Is this neutral? Jim (talk) 01:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV problem with Jack Ross (writer)
Ongoing NPOV issues with Jack Ross (writer), which may be part autobiography.

The article has improved since it was created but it still doesn't read like a wikipedia article to me. It does not seem balanced. Am I being too critical? What is the best approach to this kind of problem?

Is there a polite way of suggesting to users that autobiography is a bad idea? I noticed that another user has been encouraging the creator of the article to improve it. Bonfire of vanities (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Wyher's edits to evolution
If you look here you see Wyher essentially replaced the evolution page with scripture from Genisis. This is severe vandalism and may even be indicitive of good hand/bad hand sockpuppetry going on.--Ipatrol (talk) 20:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Steve Munsey Article
The Steve Munsey article appears to contain information verbatim from the official stevemunsey.com website, and the remainder of the article almost sounds like it's being written by a faithful parishioner of Munsey.

The article contains absolutely no criticisms of any kind, and even comments on his "trendy creative edge."

The article is 100% praise with no balance at all.

Read below @: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Munsey Jonpaulusa (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

NPOV problem with all years in film articles
Is this article considered by any way a violation of the NPOV rules? I have recently translated this article to the Hebrew Wikipedia and some folks over there say that it is since there is no real criterion for that list... ("a selective list of movie titles mostly from Hollywood which only the authors of the article think are notable"). Any ideas you might have which could help convincing them that it doesn't violate NPOV rules (such as an Inclusion criteria for this article or any film list article) would be greatly appreciated.

Please tell me what the film lists inclusion criteria are. 24.12.234.123 (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

bdsm photos
there is an inordinate number of photographs depicting bound females in comparison to those of bound males —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icevixen17 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Not Notable
I added some information in the Names of God in Judaism article, under Tetragrammaton in the relevant section about Bibles. I found that although the context was about YHWH, and Yahweh, Bibles about Jehovah were being discussed. I decided to add perhaps one of the most well-read, known Bible in the sacred Name Movement, the SSBE, Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition which uses the Name Yahweh both in the Old Testament and New, and it is removed.


 * When I asked for an explanation from the user who did so, he/she said: "Not notable", hence the subject of this article []

Would someone please help to get across a clearly acceptable source in to this section of the article. Jehovah Witnesses are entitled to have their say, but not to the point of UNDUE weight: []

Discuss: Skywriter.

Kiddish.K (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * perhaps one of the most well-read, known Bible in the sacred Name Movement - Prove it, and then demonstrate that it's significant. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I've had a look on the web and found a few interesting sites:
 * Tynadle House thinks highly of the SSBE. There a group which studies the Bible located in Cambridge, attended by scholars ands religious peoples from various parts of the world apparently: [[http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Scriptures/SSBE.htm]] [[http://www.google.com/search?q=site:www.Tyndale.cam.ac.uk%20Sacred%20Scriptures]]
 * It has been used at the University of Cambridge and it's lesser institutions: []
 * It's first edition appears on the Internal Bible Catalogue []
 * Bible appears in well established Libraries. [] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiddish.K (talk • contribs) 16:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * PLEASE NOTE -- Kiddish.K has been banned as yet another of the Mod_Objective Sock Puppets. This thread can be archived.  Thanks. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 08:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Treaty of Trianon
The article about Trianon is clearly onesided (!!!), focus at lost a lot of territorry and people, but Austria-Hungary 1916 and Hungary 1921 were two absolute different countries, Hungary is not successor, not heritage, de jure and in reality it is a complete new startup. And Trianon is still in force and valid. In article abot Saint Germain is this balancing act successful, this article it is a clear falsification of history and the trample at Neutral point of view. Please give your position after comparing with Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye (1919) and another article. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 17:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think deleting four(!) English language, academic sources and a New York Times article will not further your case here. Squash Racket (talk) 17:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * no because, deleted statement is untrue and has to be deleted. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you too realize that is a weak "explanation". Squash Racket (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you ignore text of treaty, you surely reailze, that you don't have any explanation, not a weak one. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As I have already shown you on the talk page you misunderstood the text of the treaty. The parties who concluded the treaty are very clearly listed. You just don't accept that.
 * BTW I didn't "ignore" anything, you removed several English language academic sources. Squash Racket (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again, statement Hungary seen as a successor of Austria-Hungary is a clear falsification of history and a violation of Treaty of Trianon and the trample at Neutral point of view.--Nina.Charousek (talk) 18:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

What is your problem with that? Hungary is a successor of Austria-Hungary - that is true. Two states, Austria and Hungary lived in a dual monarchy for a few decades after the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867. Then at the end of WWI (1918) this was over. I don't see how on Earth that would "violate" the Treaty of Trianon of 1920. Squash Racket (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC) Ich habe überhaupt keine Lust mich zu wiederholen,aber leider muss ich es tun, ich sehe dass sie gut deutsch sprechen, also nochmal Text des Vertrages: in Anbetracht, daß die ehemalige Österreichisch-ungarische Monarchie heute aufgehört hat zu existieren und daß an ihre Stelle in Ungarn eine ungarische Nationalregierung getreten ist - und dann die Bestimming der Grenzen, also Der Friedensvertrag von Trianon hat Oesterreich-Ungarn aufgeloest und für Ungarn neue Grenzen bestimmt, sprich es gibt keien Kontinuität zwischen Oesterreich-Ungarn 1916 und Ungarn 1920, es ist eine komplette Neugründung. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 20:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understand German, but others here do not, so let's just keep it English. The German translation of the text slightly differs from the English one (for example "heute" - "by now"). Would you add a link for it?
 * The Treaty of St. Germain dissolved Austria-Hungary way before the Treaty of Trianon.
 * One more important thing: the text of the treaty is a primary source, and Wikipedia prefers secondary (or tertiary) sources, the ones that you can already find in the article. The text was heavily influenced by Eduard Benes, the French etc., while Hungary had not much influence on it for obvious reasons.
 * We prefer neutral scholarly view of the subject. Squash Racket (talk) 11:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I would ask Charousek to stop the disruption along these lines. Things like this "no because, deleted statement is untrue and has to be deleted." are clearly troubling. We do not go by your word on what is true or not true against multiple citations. Just for your information there was no Austria-Hungary in 1920 it simply did not exist since 1918, so your main point and argument is moot and void anyway, but still your word does not overrule the sources in any case. Hobartimus (talk) 23:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * it is only one aspect, this article is clear violation of NPOV and need a deep revision, full of half-truths and did not cover important aspects of mutter.--Nina.Charousek (talk) 11:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Schismatic dioceses = POV forks
Due to disagreements over theology and social issues, two dioceses in Episcopal Church (United States) have decided to change their allegiance to other "provinces" or hierarchies. In both cases, some churches decided to stay within the U.S. hierarchy, effectively splitting the dioceses. The problem we have is that now we have articles on both sets of dioceses that are POV forks: The problem is worse for Pittsburgh, where the articles(s) include a long history dating back to 1755. Both dioceses now claim to be the "true" dioceses, and so both claim the history, etc. One suggested solution is to have one article on the pre-schism dioceses and one each on the new bodies. Any other ideas? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Episcopal Church)
 * Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Southern Cone)
 * Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin
 * Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin


 * There are two separate kinds of content forks going on here. In the case of San Joaquin, the duplicated content is basically limited to recounting the history of the split.  The current case of Diocese of Quincy and soon-to-be case of Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth will probably be similar in scope.  In the case of Pittsburgh, the fork is worse because of the superiority of the older article, which had a long and excellent history written.  Leaving aside Pittsburgh for the moment, because of the additional complexity, I think that in the case of San Joaquin, Quincy, and Fort Worth, the best course of action is to document the detailed history over on Anglican realignment where it mostly is anyhow, (and just expand that piece), and then prune all that history from the separate diocesan articles and have pointers to Anglican realignment.  In the case of the Diocese of Pittsburgh this solution isn't adequate, because the longer history does not belong in Anglican realignment.  But if we create "history of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh" it won't be limited to the pre-schism history by title, and so it will simply invite continued editing for current events, and likely conflict.  So to implement this for the Pittsburgh case, we will need a good title, and I'm not sure yet what that should be.  In addition, we need agreed language in the lead for the post-schism bodies that avoids thumb-on-the-scale stuff.  Tb (talk) 06:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

- I'm not really certain if I am posting this in the right place, but the article "Conservative Christian" is being used by user N0nr3s to put forth his opinion of Catholic Teaching (on Biblical inerrancy)  rather than the Catholic Church's stated position. The page has been subject to repeated edits and undos.Catholic monarchist (talk) 09:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

American Family Association‎
Heyo. We could use some more eyes over at American Family Association‎. The article is included in some questionable categories and editors are warring over whether to include some user-generated content about the organization as a "reliable source". I've been watching this page for awhile and really don’t have the energy to push back that the moment. Cheers, Hi DrNick ! 17:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Cinema Rex fire needs POV checking
It seems like many of the previous authors of the Cinema Rex fire article wrote it in the point of view that Islamic fundamentalists started the fire. In many reports I read the Iranian public believed, and believes that the Shah did it. We should review the POV and sourcing of this article. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Conservatism in the United States
This article was written from a modern American conservative point of view, presents history in a way that is not generally accepted by scholars, and has attracted numerous edits and comments. I have described how this article could be re-written. In the meantime, could the article be labelled POV? The Four Deuces (talk) 20:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Oklahoma Christian School
In addition to the question of notability, this article is written in a way that does not conform to Wikipedia's neutrality standards. The author's biases emerge loud and clear. It also reads like promotional literature in places. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_Christian_School —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cymbaline69 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Right-wing politics and Conservatism
For some time now, these articles have been passionately defended by libertarian editors trying to make right-wing/conservative = free markets and limited government and deleting any other aspect posted. Bobisbob2 (talk) 20:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think protecting the article is the way to go -- it is apt to get "protected" in its current awful state. Also, I've found that discussions of an article are best held on the article's talk page, rather than a noticeboard.  So, back to talk. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:BBL sidebar
Not sure this is the best board to ask for input but ... does anyone see Template:BBL sidebar as being a bit POV-ish? The "BBL Controversy" also known as the "Autogynephilia Controversy" is an ongoing and heated line of discussion in the transgender community. We might have a content fork here as well. -- <u style="font-size:12px; font-family: cursive;color:#CC00CC">Banj e <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   02:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Six-Day War Article
see Talk:Six-Day War and Talk:Six-Day War

A dispute has arisen over a series of deletions of material from scholarly WP:V secondary sources, i.e. The Making of Resolution 242, by Sydney Dawson Bailey; International History of the Twentieth Century, by Anthony Best; Peacekeeping Fiascoes, by Frederick H. Fleitz; The Evolution of UN Peacekeeping, By William Durch; and The UN Yearbook (a reference work published by the United Nations Information Service. Those secondary sources also happen to be supported by a published primary source document -UN Secretary General U Thant's report on the situation in the Middle East. One of the editors has selectively picked WP:V sources which support his master narrative, and is acting as a gatekeeper to exclude any other published views. I appears to be a violation WP:NPOV policy.

After a lengthy discussion on the talk page these well-sourced quotations from WP:V secondary sources were added, but they were immediately deleted by the same editor:

After the war Yitzhak Rabin, who had served as the Chief of the General Staff for Israel during the war stated: "I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it." Menachem Begin stated that "The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." [61] both men quoted in One Land, Two Peoples: The Conflict Over Palestine, By Deborah J. Gerner PhD, Westview Press, 1994, ISBN 0813321808, Page 112

Former Chief of Staff of the armed forces, Haim Bar-Lev (a deputy chief during the war) had stated: "the entrance of the Egyptians into Sinai was not a casus belli." Major General Mattityahu Peled, the Chief of Logistics for the Armed Forces during the war, claimed the survival argument was "a bluff which was born and developed only after the war... ..."When we spoke of the war in the General Staff, we talked of the political ramifications if we didn't go to war —what would happen to Israel in the next 25 years. Never of survival today." [62] both men were quoted in "Was the War Necessary?", Time Magazine.  Peled also stated that "To pretend that the Egyptian forces massed on our frontiers were in a position to threaten the existence of Israel constitutes an insult not only to the intelligence of anyone capable of analyzing this sort of situation, but above all an insult to the Zahal (Israeli military)[63] quoted from 'The Terrorist Conjunction: The United States, the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, by Alfred G. Gerteiny, and Jean Ziegler, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2007, ISBN 0275996433, page 142 harlan (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If Harlan were really interested in neutrality, rather than just finding secondary sources that included the specific quotes he was so keen on inserting into the article, he would instead have actually reproduced the thrust of the arguments the sources were using. Deborah J. Gerner, for example, suggests that it is unlikely that Nasser was actually going to attack Israel. However, she also points out that Nasser was engaged in brinkmanship in an "attempt to improve its standing in the Arab world and to humiliate Israel by forcing it to accept what it said it would not accept&mdash;the renewed closure of the Strait of Tiran". Someone interested in NPOV would have edited to include that view. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 17:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Stefan Uroš II Milutin of Serbia
A new account,, has been adding some "See Also" stuff, in bad English, that is surely intended to push some sort of point: a couple of sentences like "North Kosovo 1420km2 with Stprce area and Titova Mitrovica, its 13% of Kosovo under Serbian Beograd control!" I reverted once but he put it back. Since I'm not really up on Balkans issues, I should probably let somebody else take charge of this. looie496 (talk) 06:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

NPOV at Grossmont Union High School District article.
The Grossmont Union High School District article had edits made after the recent election [][][][][] may contain possible problems. Some of them I reverted, but they were placed back. After a brief discussion, I decided to allow him to keep the information for now, as long as he cleaned it up a bit, but I made it clear that I was still not in favor of the information and would seek an outside opinion. Could someone take a look and explain it to the other editor or if I am wrong, explain it to me. The more editors that we get in on this the better. The page has been changing so much in the past two weeks, I can't even keep up.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The Kings College
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_King%27s_College

Most of this article was clearly written from the perspective of a student or employee trying to further this school's agenda. I attended this school, so I clearly do not have an "objective" opinion. However, the article is not at all written in an objective way, particularly in the sections entitled, "Degree Programs", "Student Housing and Activities", "Houses" and "Criticism and Response".

I find the article entirely misleading, particularly concerning the fact that the school is only made up of several hundred students and the programs are small and limited. This article makes the programs sound enticing and full of opportunity. I suppose all I have to say is that I experienced the exact opposite in my year at this college. Perhaps I am not able to express myself very well due to my bias, however, I feel the article is rather biased and misleading if you look over it carefully. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcgill lass (talk • contribs) 07:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you believe that the article is missing important facts about the school? If so, give us the general idea. It is hard to respond to such a general complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

India
Please check this page and the talk page. It's about the infobox, where user:fowler&fowler regularly reverts the WP:NPOV version. --Kalarimaster (talk) 09:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

ETA page
ETA is a group that advocates violence, kidnapping and murder by their own publications of the group (zutabes) they have acknowledge killing 821 people so far. A group of editors continuously edit the first paragraph, if the word violence, or similar is used. ETA printed zutabes are illegal and it is difficult to find the full versions in the web to reference as the police decides what or not to release, but many had posted enough references from mayor newspapers quoting them. It has been thoroughly discussed and I find important that the description includes what characterize this group from any other separatist group= they advocate and execute kidnappings, murders, and bombings to promote the independence of a part in the north of spain. thanks in advance lolailando —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolailando (talk • contribs) 02:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you say something more specific about what you would like to see added? At the moment the introduction describes them as "armed" and in the body of the article many different violent attacks are mentioned. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama - President Elect
There has been an ongoing dispute on this discussion page and in archive about Obama as President-elect.

There seems to be a serious neutrality issue here. Obama is certainly referred to, incorrectly, as "President-Elect" by verifiable sources. The problem is that said sources are incorrect, so continuing to refer to him in this way undermines the constitutional process and perpetuates ignorance about the way the President of the United States is elected to the office.

I quite from the dispute resolution guide:

"In these types of disputes, it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality, it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively; painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate; made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present; marginalized or given undue standing; described in slanted terms which favor or weaken it; or subject to other factors suggestive of bias."

Referring to Obama as the President-Elect prior to the electoral college meeting and voting, which is not bound by the popular vote in most states, is both factually incorrect and lacking in neutrality. It is irrelevant that the counterexample to this has never occurred because it is still theoretically and legally possible for it to happen.

This case would be different if the electoral college had voted, but the votes not yet ratified by the Congress, but most legal scholars agree that once the votes are cast, Obama would become the President-elect.

Perpetuating truth rather than biased opinion is much more important than verifiability in this case. I would like to open this dispute for further discussion. Downzero (talk) 10:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The user is arguing for defying wikipedia rules about verifiable sources and consensus. Also, the subject has already been discussed at great length in the article since election night. All the facts of the electoral college are explained. There is no neutrality issue. There is no issue at all, except in the user's mind. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. What I am arguing for is that neutrality is both required by the policies of wikipedia and just as important as variability. We are not in the business of perpetuating ignorance, making subjective value judgments on semantics, or democratically silencing the truth through bias. This discussion is as valid now as it was when it was first had on that talk page. Barack Obama is not the President-Elect and will not be so until the electors meet and vote him into that position. This is empirical and constitutional.

The only counterexample is a 1963 law that refers to the person who has been projected to win the necessary electoral votes ONLY for the purpose of acquiring federal funding for his or her office and adds nothing to the pragmatic or legal debates surrounding the use of this term. Downzero (talk) 10:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The arguing style and phraseology of this user sound a lot like what I ran into with the similarly-named User:Zsero, on the subject of whether Senator Obama "had to" resign before noon on January 20th. He made the same type of argument, i.e. that the constitution says thus-and-so, the media have it wrong, and therefore the sources (and consensus) are to be disregarded, because he's "right". Zsero also personalized it the same way as Downzero has done on the Obama talk page, by saying that "I" had failed to prove "my" case. That argument was an endless loop, just as this one is turning out to be. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The constitution of the United States IS a verifiable source, as well as relevant case law on the subject. The purpose of arbitrating this issue is that "consensus" is a dynamic and evolving issue, and absent the necessarily legal reasoning, the pragmatic use of the term in the media is irrelevant. This must be considered in arbitrating this on the basis of a neutral point of view, which would find relevant case law binding as to how the term is used in an encyclopedia. That is why this dispute must be resolved. Downzero (talk) 10:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's the exact argument that Zsero used in the Senator resignation endless-loop. There is, in fact, no dispute at all. It's trolling behavior on the part of the user. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's also worth pointing out that the user violated the 1RR situation, the Obama page being on probation. He made a change and it got reverted. He did it twice more and it got reverted twice more. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that Rahm Emanuel has not resigned from the House of Representatives, despite being the proposed Chief of Staff nominee for future-President Barack Obama. If Zsero had no leg to stand on, Congressman Emanuel would be out of a job. You have trolled this page and the talk page for Obama continually, claiming that no neutrality exists despite evidence to the contrary. Downzero (talk) 11:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * He only has to resign by noon on January 20th, not right now. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

That is meaningless to this dispute, and the point you expressed is not entirely factual but not worthy of discussion when there are more pressing issues here.Downzero (talk) 11:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no neutrality issue. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, of course there's no neutrality issue, as long as your viewpoint is represented. That's all you really care about, anyway, not the legal reasoning of scholars surrounding the issue. Downzero (talk) 12:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What "legal scholars", besides yourself? The term "President-elect" is not defined in the constitution. The wikipedia articles explain the facts fully, and are compatible with the sources and with consensus. There is no issue except in your mind. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The electoral college has defied the popular vote before. Downzero's correct, as far as the facts go. That Obama IS the president-elect, though, is a lock, unless Clarence Thomas can convince 3 of his fellows that make the citizenship case a part of their docket, then to hear it immediately, then to vote his way. That chance is minuscule, but tangible. As such, I'm with Downzero. The factuality trumps a consensus based on media presentations. Let's be accurate and factual, if not as gung=ho as the media. Remember, we don't have to sell commercials here. ThuranX (talk) 12:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The last time the electoral college subverted the popular vote was 1876, although the issue there was who the proper electors were in certain states. There is no such issue anymore. And there's a fundamental flaw in Zero's argument. The constitution does not define the term "President-elect". That term has evolved into a meaning that includes the "apparent" winner, both in terms of the 1963 law and in terms of consensus of the media itself. "President-elect", as defined by common usage, is perfectly valid. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The Constitution defines the office of the President and how he or she must be "elected." Obama has NOT been elected and thus there is a serious flaw in your use of the term "President-elect" to refer to him. It is undisputed that he WILL be elected. The factual question is whether is HAS been elected, and the constitutional answer is NO.

The electoral college has overridden the popular vote at least five times, the most recent in the 2000 election. The popular vote is a meaningless statistic because it has nothing to do with who gains the necessary electoral votes to be elected to the office. That is the entire point of this discussion--the United States is not a direct democracy.

An encyclopedia is not a dictionary of "common usage." An incorrectly used and defined term in common speech has no place in an encyclopedia, which should be defined by fact and reason. If you want to put a footnote in the article to explain to the user why and how the President-elect comes about, I don't think anyone would argue with you, but to continue to assert that a man who has not been elected to the office is the "President-elect" of the United States is factually and legally incorrect. On December 15, 2008, this will change, and Obama WILL become the President-elect, but there are few laws binding electors and any presumption that Obama will aquire those votes is speculation. I can't understand why any encyclopedia would contradict its own President-elect article and engage in speculation to make a point which adds nothing to the man's page and only serves to perpetuate ignorance about the electoral process and push the individual agendas, however incorrect, of people who do not respect the policy of neutral point of view.. Downzero (talk) 19:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The reliable sources say Obama is President-elect, and hence that's what he is, as per wikipedia policy. And there are not facts missing nor any "bias" in the matter. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Per wikipedia policy, articles must express a neutral point of view. You are expressing an opinion that is contradicted by other articles on the encyclopedia and the Constitution of the United States. The media cannot and never will be the final arbiter of issues which need a legal resolution. Relevant case law and documentation counters your point.

You are attempting to push your opinion as mainstream consensus when there are clear and verifiable sources to the contrary. You have made your facts fit your position rather than interpret relevant information and draw a reasonable conclusion. You have also trolled every page that I have posted this on an parroted your scare tactics because you are an experienced editor. Downzero (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The articles are totally neutral, totally within policy, and all the facts are there. The constitution is not a source for the term "President-elect" because it does not define it. The reliable sources and common usage all agree that "President-elect" includes both the true electoral college winner and the "apparent" winner from November 4th. And you have yet to cite any such "case law". So you are attempting to create an issue where there is no issue. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not a POV question. There is no "pro" or "anti", no attempt to promote or disparage Obama, no real debate over the Constitution or the electoral college.  This whole thing is a semantic technicality over whether we should go with all the reliable secondary sources that call Obama "president elect", or balk on following the sources because (some argue) it is not a technically correct term to use.  Where's the POV in that?  This is the wrong forum for this kind of discussion.  It belongs on the talk page, where it is occurring (but really needs to be shut down there - it's a perennial rejected question where a clear consensus has already been reached).  Wikidemon (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

There isn't a cold thing's chance in a very warm place that this will go anywhere productive. This should be archived with prejudice. -- Good Damon 22:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This certainly is a POV question, giving a status that is not warranted or deserving to a political figure for the purpose of perpetuating ignorance instead of reality. As long as this continues, where you deny the facts regarding our electoral process and continue to assert that you have met the standard of verifiability, but yet continue to assert a false point unsupported by legal sources.

Obama's presidency is equally uninteresting to me as it is to the Brit or Canadian to continues to contest my point. Dismissing my neutrality concern jeopardizes the integrity of the encyclopedia for the purpose of making a political point unsupported by empirical evidence.

Until Obama is "elected," asserting that he is the President-Elect serves no purpose and is factually incorrect. The Constitution of the United States is the legally binding document which explains the election process in Article III.

This is not orignal research, but citation from a primary source, "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

and, "The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

Obama has not been constitutionally elected. Recognizing this, he is NOT the "President-elect" until that happens. If the votes had been cast and not counted, we'd be having a different discussion and I wouldn't waste time with that one. But, clearly, Obama has not YET met the constitutional requirement for election to the office of President of the United States, and the continued referral to him as President elect is logically and factually wrong. Downzero (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A few things, and then I propose this be closed. There is no point in dragging this out further.
 * You have been shown a law that specifically defines the term "President-elect." Barack Obama matches that legal definition of President-elect. You have ignored it.
 * You have been shown Wikipedia policies and guidelines that stipulate what content Wikipedia incorporates. You have ignored them.
 * You have been informed that the Constitution does not define the term "President-elect" in any way. You have ignored this.
 * You need to stop right now. This is becoming disruptive. You seem to think that the article will not reflect the truth until it reflects what you say is the truth. That is unacceptable. Please yield to Wikipedia policies and to consensus. If you do not, you risk being blocked. -- Good Damon 23:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Gooddamon's attitude toward fellow wikipedians is abominable. That said, the law he links to above DOES say after the general election, not the electoral college, when defining the term. As such, I withdraw my support for downzero's proposal. And Gooddamon's lack of AGF can be kept off my user talk from now on. ThuranX (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, GoodDamon is just fine. This is a not-so-civil editor doggedly pursuing a fringe position with little understanding of policies and guidelines.  Taking the complaint here on theory that vanquishing ignorance falls under NPOV is blatant forum shopping.  Considering someone makes this exact same proposal at least twice per day on the Obama page we have been more than patient in humoring it thus far.  This really ought to be closed down as a failed proposal with no reasonable prospect of gaining consensus, here, on the talk page, and wherever else it may be taking place.  Wikidemon (talk) 01:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

1. The quoted law defines the individual for a particular and limited purpose. It obviously does not and cannot define an election differently than that of the U.S. Constitution, which trumps any public law on the matter. 2. You and others have continued to stipulate this nonsense regarding consensus. Consensus is dynamic and evolving in light of new evidence, and your position is supported only by the news media. 3. Article III clearly identifies what it takes to become elected, anyone with a lick of common sense can deduce that you cannot be the "President-Elect" without first being elected. This is scheduled to happen on the first Monday following the second Wednesday in December, aka, December 15, 2008. Debate exists among legal scholars as to whether or not Obama will become the President-Elect at that point because Congress has not yet certified the results, but I would concede that once he is "elected" by the votes, he is and will be the "President-Elect."

Instead of having a discussion on the legal findings of fact, you keep parroting the same information repeatedly. Lacking any evidience to support the position that Obama has been "elected" at all, you continue to make accusations about myself personally because you cannot deny the findings of fact.

The only disruption is the perpetuation of ignorance by a bunch of parrots who will publish whatever the news media tells them to publish, destroying any accuracy and validity that this encyclopedia once had, all to make a political stance that in the end is still false. You have violated wikipedia policies, refused to discuss this despite the concerns of several users, and now you're trying to make me into the scapegoat of your political banter.

The original debate had on this topic on the forums' talk page, now back several dozen pages in archive, was to add a footnote explaining this to the users. Even this was overruled by this nonsensical banter of democracy regarding verifiable sources publishing this information.

I will not stand for it. Everyone has a voice in this medium. Yours happens to be wrong. I respect your right to hold an incorrect opinion based on deductive reasoning. Downzero (talk) 00:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Your stance reminds me of the story of the guy driving home who gets a cell call from his wife. She says, "Be careful on the expressway - some clown is driving the wrong way!" He answers back, "It's not just one, it's hundreds of them!" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yours reminds me of a man arguing about abortion. You are not an American and yet you're arguing about something that you cannot change or affect, because the outcome is outside of the scope of your life. Downzero (talk) 01:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * With that I propose we close this discussion as disruptive, pointless, and uncivil. I would myself, but I'm not a regular contributor here.  Perhaps one of the regulars can do it.  Wikidemon (talk) 02:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, close it. And did he just say I'm not an American? That's it, we're done here. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Pointless indeed: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/11/25/despite-bells-whistles-office-president-elect-holds-authority/ Downzero (talk) 02:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Even that opinion piece refers to Obama as "President-elect" before going on to describe the same technicalities you have been referring to. Heck, we could cite referring to him as the President-elect to that article. But all of this is moot; in the end, you have to accept that WP:CONCENSUS is an official policy of Wikipedia. If you have a problem with that policy, change it. But don't argue against it here. -- Good Damon 03:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Shamblin
This article, about a preacher notable mainly for having written a bestselling Christian Diet book, has gone wildly astray, chiefly as a result of editing by (currently editing as, but it isn't socking because the older account has not edited recently). The section Josef Smith Case and Shamblin on Child Discipline is particularly bad. I can tell from the history that trying to fix this would simply cause an edit war, so I bring it here. looie496 (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The English Qabalah
A small fringe group seems to have taken over the English Qabalah page. They want only their literature or books mentioned and are removing any additions by other contributors. They have also hijacked the page so that it is redirected to the "English Qaballa" versus "English Qabalah" in further attempts to monopolize the subject--English Qaballa being admittedly a book by one of their "gurus". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.206.226 (talk) 23:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Conservative Christianity
I'm not really certain if I am posting this in the right place, but the article Conservative Christianity is being used by user N0nr3s to put forth his opinion of Catholic Teaching (on Biblical inerrancy) rather than the Catholic Church's stated position. The page has been subject to repeated edits and undos.Catholic monarchist (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The term is ambiguous and there is no evidence that it clearly identifies any group of people or set of beliefs, it overlaps with other identified groups, and there are no references to prove otherwise. Compare this with the article on Conservative Judaism, which is well-understood and refers to a specific group of people. This article should be deleted. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Any interest in actually addressing my concern? Catholic monarchist (talk) 23:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

ATTENTION ALL: Map of India
I wrote a similar message to Ssolbergj (in Wikimedia Common) who created these retarded maps. I hope you guys here can back me. It's a clear bias and I don't think that being bias is a policy of Wikipedia. It is high time things are straightened out.

(Reference: vs )

Dear Ssolbergj, your map of China colors Arunachal Pradesh in light green which implies it is somehow rather a part of China although under Indian administration and claimed as an integral part of India. I agree this is a disputed region by both countries. In that case why doesn't the India map have Aksai Chin (a Chinese administered region claimed by India) be colored light green on the India map? Why double standards apply for Aksai and Arunachal although they are both disputed?

Same goes with Pakistan occupied kashmir. Shouldn't those areas be indicated in light green too? Please maintain neutrality as prescribed under Neutral point of view. I look forward to you recoloring those maps with a NPOV in mind and not China slanted views. Thank you.

If they don't want to change it, I suggest we change the map of India to its old form (2d one) as it is more accurate.

I look forward to all your replies / opinions / assistance as I am not an established user on Wikipedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.208.245.138 (talk)


 * Please consider the possibility that there was no intent on the part of the user creating these maps to falsify such information. This may sound facile, but drawing maps isn't easy, especially where territories are disputed. I am sure if you approach the user in a friendly manner, and point out relevant sources clarifying the status of the affected territories according to international law, they'll be quite happy to colour these areas in the appropriate manner. Cheers, Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 18:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I already did so but the user is not responding!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.208.245.15 (talk) 12:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems that has already picked up on the same problem as you: see here. Nichalp is a very capable WP:Bureaucrat, and he is from India; I'm sure he'll be able to sort this out. Suggest you leave a message on his talk page if there's a lack of progress. Cheers,  Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 17:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * But there looks like no progress!! And Ssolbergj has read my message surely but doesn't reply!! Anyway you are also an Indian so can u please ask NICHAP what is going on? whats the progress? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.49.35.137 (talk) 10:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've left a message for him. Seems he was unwell but is back now. Cheers, Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 15:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Are yaar Jayan Sir, that was the message I left for him! (left a message for him). OK? And he has not replied although he has made other contributions after I left that message. So are you saying he is unwell to reply my message but fine to make all the other edits in the world? I even left a message on his WIKIPEDIA talk page. I don't want to spam his talk pages with messages. He surely isn't an Indian so he doesn't know what he is doing. Either that or he doesn't know his geography well or he is a China sympathiser. Either way, Wikipedia should not nominate such a person to draw maps. So what should I do now? 60.49.35.137 (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Forgive me, I was an idiot. I meant to link this post of mine on Nichalp's talk page above rather than Ssolbergj's talk page ... don't know what happened there. (And it was Nichalp who was unwell, not Ssolbergj.) At any rate, the updated version Nichalp linked to below now has Kashmir and Aksai Chin in light green, just as Arunachal Pradesh is light green on the China map. If I click on the link that you gave above in the post that started off this thread, I get the same image. Please have a look if that is better now. Are there any other images that are wrong? Cheers, Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 22:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not fully NPOV. Arunachal Pradesh & Jammu and Kashmir should also be marked correctly on the India locator map. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  06:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I did contact Ssolbergj earlier, for another issue on the Wikipedia logo. His responses unfortunately are usually delayed, or he does not respond at all. When drawing up my NPOV map of India (Image:India-locator-map-blank.svg – now a featured picture), I thought about the best possible method of depicting disputed areas would be to have varying levels of transparency. In addition we also have dotted borders where the disputed territory exists. See the map page for a description. This set up should be replicated across all such maps. When I met Jimbo, I raised the issue about maps of India and he agreed that NPOV maps are necessary on Wikipedia. So I then went ahead and created the POV-map template to tag all such maps. Now, unfortunately for us, wikimedia commons allows POV maps (See Commons:Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view, so editors there place less of an emphasis on producing NPOV works. The best way to go about it by petitioning the author to modify the image. If 10 people keep pinging him, sooner or later he will have to yield (Note: it's not necessarily directed to Ssolbergj)
 * Note that an update locator map is now available: Image:India (orthographic projection).svg. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  19:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind Jayan sir, you don't need to call yourself a idiot. everyone makes mistakes. but million thanks for letting Nichap bhai know; now he has fixed things in a NPOV manner. Somebody said that Common allows POV maps so this is our POV and it should be allowed too just like how the Chinese POV is allowed. Thanks again to the both of you!!! 218.111.30.197 (talk) 11:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * My pleasure. Unfortunately, another user has reverted it, claiming the edit was not drawn correctly to scale. (It looked alright to me, but hey ...) Let's try this again. Cheers, Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 12:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've left Shibo77, who'd done the correction yesterday, a message to please have another go at it. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 12:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello Nichalp, Jayen466, Deepak! Dark green for land territories administered by India (Ro India-administered Siachen Glacier; PR China-claimed Southern Tibet Region, Demchok, Kaurik, Nelang, Topidunga), light green for land territories claimed but not administered by India (IR Pakistan-administered Azad Kashmir, Northern Areas, Siachen Glacier; PR China-administered Aksai Chin, Shaksgam Valley). --User:Shibo77 (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

OK now this current one looks fine. At least SHIBO is a better person than Ssolbergj who is actually reading this message but pretending deaf. Good job SHIBO. I have to praise her, although she is a Chinese she is fair and square and acting in the interest of everyone not acting bias.

Everyone please note I am not demanding in any way for Pakistan occupied kashmir and China occupied kashmir to be colored in light green, all i am asking for is consistancy, because Arunachal and Taiwan is marked in light green in China's map. Now it is consistant, thanks to SHIBO. Again well done to her. The new map on the India page looks good. And to Jayan, thanks for your coorperation and bringing this to her attention.218.208.204.181 (talk) 18:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I had earmarked a strategy to resolve disputed territory by using varying levels of transparency, and stroke styles. Please see: Image:India-locator-map-blank.svg. This needs to be replicated across the maps of all three countries, and the stroke style (ie borders) implemented for all maps that show the Kashmir/Arunachal region. This got community approval on FPC, so the issues seem to be resolved. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  05:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

OK sounds good. Thank you for resolving the issue! 11:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.100.29.171 (talk)

QSR International
I'm concerned that this article reads like a piece of sales literature. On checking the history section a number of the editors names appear to be that of the company or its products. I beleive this article chould be removed as it is not from a NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.133.17.141 (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Company is notable; their NVivo software is very widely used in academic research. Agreed that it reads like a company prospectus. I'll have a quick go through it. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Rick Ross (consultant)
I would appreciate wider community input on the above article, notably the sections on (1) the Jason Scott case and (2) the Branch Davidians.

The article subject, Mr Ross, as well as editors and, feel that these sections are too unkind to Mr Ross:
 * 1) in the first case, for reporting too many details relating to the Jason Scott case, and
 * 2) in the second case, i.e. the Branch Davidians section, for reporting scholarly criticism of Mr Ross's involvement in the Waco siege.

The article shouldn't be a hatchet job, but on the other hand, such notable criticism as there has been should be fairly represented. The Jason Scott case was a landmark case that set an important legal precedent (it ended the North American practice of forcibly abducting adult "cult" members in order to change their beliefs).

Also, I feel unduly pressurised by the subject, Mr Ross, on the talk page; for example to portray events in a light flattering to him, based solely on his own assertions made on the talk page, when this flattering interpretation of events is flatly contradicted by a statement reported in a reliable source – which Mr Ross says is "of little value here".

As I see it, the article has for many years suffered from the inclusion of many statements that were either unsourced, or sourced to Mr Ross's writings on his website, thus failing to reflect significant published views on this subject in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. Here, for reference, is an old version of the article, which Mr Ross prefers – it has multiple clear violations of Blp. I was also concerned to find that around a quarter of all edits that the article had received over the past five years were made by single-purpose IP accounts that seem reasonably attributable to Mr Ross himself, as they are all consistent with a New Jersey location, use the same diction and lines of argument as Mr Ross's (recently-established) account on the talk page, do not cite published sources but personal knowledge, seek to attach a "cult apologist" label to any academic that has been critical of Mr Ross, etc.

I'd appreciate uninvolved editors' input on how to find the right balance. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 11:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Both my bio and the article about the Jason Scott case have become dominated by single editor Jayen466, who seems to be either a volunteer or staffer working for a guru group often called a "cult" founded by Osho/Shree Rajneesh, now deceased. Anyone interested should also see the article about Osho/Rajneesh, which Jayen466 has sought to turn into promotional advertising for the guru.

However, Osho/Rajneesh was most well-known historically as a notorious "cult leader" that was deported from the United States after being jailed by authorities.

I am pointing this out because Jayen466 seems to be an editor at Wikipedia because of such personal interests and his participation at my bio and the Jason Scott article reflect his unhappiness that the Ross Institute Internet Archives contains a subsection with critical information about Osho/Rajneesh.

See http://www.rickross.com/groups/rajneesh.html

Jayen466 bias is reflected by his work here at Wikipedia and there are specific problems with his editing of my bio and the Jason Scott article, which I have noted specifically at the talk/discussion pages attached to those articles.

Jayen466 has used various quotes from unreliable and biased sources, edited/parsed language and inserted opinions in an effort to mislead readers and generally promote his POV. For example, he has relied heavily upon the writings of Anson Shupe, who was paid by Scientology lawyers to become their "expert." Shupe worked very closely with Scientology lawyer Kendrick Moxon.

If Wikipedia is to be a credible and reliable source for objective information editors like Jayen466, who wish to use this site as a platform for propaganda, need to reigned in and held accountable.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Mr Ross, as has been pointed out to you before by others, these are personal attacks. Please cease them forthwith – you have made essentially the same attack ten times now, on multiple talk pages:         . As for Anson Shupe, he is widely considered a leading scholar in his field, your unpublished opinion of him notwithstanding. Cheers,  Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 13:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The point remains the same, which is your conflict of interest as an Osho/Rajneesh devotee with an ax to grind. This is something you have notably never denied per the ten examples you offer and it is the motivation for your editing work at Wikipedia. Attempting to portray this conflict of interest as a "personal attack" doesn't change the facts. Are you a full-time staffer or volunteer for the Osho community? It is also a matter of record historically and evident to anyone that does serious research regarding Anson Shupe, that he has worked professionally closely with Scientology and Scientologist lawyer Kendrick Moxon specifically. The writings you have quoted are evidence of that.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 21:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * So, Obama supporters cannot edit articles about Mccain's or vice-versa? What about Islamists editing State of Israel? Or Israelis and Palestinians editing Israeli–Palestinian conflict? Each and every WP editor have their biases, but in this project we have the help of three content policies: WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR, and additional constrains when we write about living people. So, rather than use argumenta ad hominem or poisoning the well in these dicussions, contributors are asked to collaborate with each other within the framework provided by these policies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If employees of the McCain campaign were editing the Obama article, and were not being scrupulously neutral, that would indeed be a problem. There's a difference between folks who simply have sympathies with a subject, and those that are paid by the subject. That's why we have a WP:COI guideline, which is largely self-enforced on the honor system. Unfortunately, self-enforcement doesn't always work well. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see any evidence of Jayen not being scrupulously neutral in this case, quite the contrary. I wish other editors would be as conscious as he/she is in this regard. If you or anyone has concerns about Jayen's edits in this regard, the forum for that is WP:COI/N and not here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The section on the subject's criminal trial has grown substantially since Jayen has been working on it. Are you of the opinion that adding material on a negative incident like that is a neutral activity? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Is the criminal trial an important trial? According to Jayen, it is. Maybe you could help in researching if this is as significant trial as Jayen reports it to be, and if it is not, you may have a case. Good luck with your research. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the question is, "Is the criminal trial an important part of his notability?" If it is, then the article needs to acknowledge and reflect that. Rumiton (talk) 14:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As I recall Jossi has the same conflict of interest as Jayen466. He is connected to a guru group led by Prem Rewat/Guru Mahariji of "Divine Light Mission"/Elan Vital. Like Jayen466, Jossi seems to be a staffer or volunteer working for his guru by editing at Wikipedia. This is similar to Scientologists, who apparently have done the same. Like Jayen466, Jossi has also edited my bio, it seems because he is unhappy with the Ross Institute subsection about his guru. See http://www.rickross.com/groups/vital.html This is a serious problem for Wikipedia. Editors that use Wikipedia in this way should be reigned in.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Mr Ross, please rest assured that I am not a "full-time staffer or volunteer for the Osho community" and do not have a conflict of interest in relation to either your article or any other that I work on in Wikipedia. FWIW, I have in the past also been accused of being a Rawat follower in these pages. My actual work has no relation to Wikipedia whatever (except that it serves me as a reference source on a daily basis), or to the WP topics I usually work in.
 * You have been advised by an admin on your talk page as to the proper way to bring up any further concerns you may have, so please let the matter go.
 * You yourself do have a conflict of interest here, and have wisely stopped editing your own article. That being so, can we please return to discussing content rather than editors. Cheers, Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 14:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Words of wisdom, may be useful... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)
 * No one has any way of verifying anything Jayen466 claims about his background and purpose here at Wikipedia. He/she remains an anonymous editor. The way Wikiepdia is set up anyone can come in and edit anonymously. It is very hard to believe that Jayen466 has no vested interest or agenda given (1) the narrow scope of his/her editing at Wikipedia (2) the time required to pursue the editing. Jayen466 seems to be deeply, if not obsessively concerned with Osho/Rajaneesh, a notorious cult leader once jailed and then deported from the US. Jossi turned out to be a Rawat associate. There is a problem with cult members coming to Wikipedia to work for their group, rather than simply due to some general and genuine interest in open source editing.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

17:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Jayen, do you think that people with acknowledged conflicts of interest should avoiding editing the article related to their conflicts? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't got a problem with Jossi's editing, Will. Jossi sticks to sources. I don't perceive him as any more POV-driven than other editors on the pages where all of us have met. If anything rather less so, in fact. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 02:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So you wouldn't have a problem with Rick Alan Ross editing the article where he has a conflict so long as he sticks to sources? One issue I've often seen is where an editor will seek to declare that some sources aren't reliable, and it's always the sources that are contrary to their apparent POV. Jayen, is Ross out of line for questioning the reliability of cult-related writers? Or is any source that meets the standards of WP:V sufficient?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I wouldn't. But at the moment, Ross is very, very far away from that. He has no knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and in fact appears to treat them with utter contempt. He seems to feel they don't apply to him or his article. When asked to provide sources, he has usually failed to do so, and instead argued that his personal opinion, especially his opinion of his critics, is the only one that matters and should inform the editorial voice in his article. And that it does not need any other authority than his stating it on the talk page. Where is WP:V or WP:NPOV, let alone WP:ENEMY in that? Where he does provide sources, these are usually links to his own website, which is just not good enough on anything remotely contentious. It's simply not how Wikipedia articles are built. I'd be delighted if he got the point, but I shall be very greatly (and pleasantly) surprised if he does. Cheers, Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 14:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * (e/c) WP:V does not stand alone. You need to avoid cherry picking from sources, and avoid other forms of original research. You also need to be sure you treat significant viewpoints correctly. And finally, in biographies of living people you need to be very selective with your sources: use only sources of utmost quality. As all these are editorial judgments, you need to work in collaboration with other editors to find common ground in making these judgments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Jayen: WP:SPS allows for using self-published sources to assert the author's opinion within some caveats. This of course, alongside other significant opinions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I think that the present use of WP:SPS in the article is okay. But the caveats in Blp do apply, and are very specific. For example, an SPS characterising an academic who's been critical of the subject as a "cult apologist" would by any reading of this WP:BLP section fall foul of it. It is contentious, unduly self-serving, makes claims about a third party, as well as claims about events not directly related to the subject. Or do you read WP:BLP differently? Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 16:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There was one more point I did not address. Will asked, "is Ross out of line for questioning the reliability of cult-related writers?" Even the question is wrong. The writers whose reliability Ross questions are university-related (and government-related) writers. Eugene V. Gallagher is on the board of the American Academy of Religion, the most prestigious such academic body in the world. Ammerman, another academic, was commissioned by the government to write a report on what went wrong at Waco. Anson Shupe is, together with David Bromley, widely recognised as the leading social science authority on the anti-cult movement. Ross would like to present such writers as "cult-related writers". But that is not their standing in the real world, where they are widely respected and influential academics, writing for the world's top university presses, their works required reading in university syllabuses, etc. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 16:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Jayen466 certainly prefers academics that reflect his POV, which he then cites as his chosen authorities. However, as brought out in other discussion, Ammerman actually represents a minority point of view concerning Waco. The other experts commissioned to report to the Justice Department didn't even mention me by name, my supposedly highly negative role or influence. They simply didn't concur with Ammerman in any opinion she expressed specifically about me. Ammerman, Shupe, Bromley, Melton and a few other academics have historically associated themselves closely with groups called "cults," e.g. Scientology. Shupe and Melton have been paid by cults for their time and "expert" opinions, which ultimately have been used to defend or apologize for groups called "cults." It is this specific behavior that categorizes them then as cult apologists. For example, Anson Shupe worked for Scientology lawyer Kendrick Moxon and was paid to testify as an "authority on the anti-cult movement" in the Scott case. But academics like Shupe and Bromley actually don't represent the mainstream, as evidenced by their failed effort to substitute the label "new religious movements" for "cults." Instead, other academics such as Stephen Kent, Benjamin Zablocki, Philip Zimbardo, Margaret Singer, Louis Jolly West, Robert Jay Lifton represent a more widely held consensus of opinion regarding cults, which opposes these apologists. And regarding Waco historically, Ammerman and the other academics Jayen466 has quoted such as Tabor, Wright, Lewis, are relatively obscure and virtually incoherent, when compared to the historical record, which was well-established through numerous investigations, court records and eyewitness testimony.21:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The traditional smokescreen produced by anti-cult activists, who are not interested in the academic discourse. Of all the above authors Ross cites in his favor, only Stephen Kent and Zablocki contribute significantly to the current academic discourse. They usuaully voice the minority opinion. Who "pays" Bromley, Shupe, Zablocki, etc. is of no interest here, as long this is not an issue raised w/i academic discourse as well w/ regards to the credibility of the empirical research results. It could be satan himself with Melton on his payroll, as long as Melton publishes in peer-reviewed journals, and manages to get his pro-devil view behind the editors of scientific journals, that's it. It's up to Rick Ross to publish his criticism in academich journals, but I guess, he doesn't even manage to publish his bogus research on Wikipedia. Fossa <sub style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">?!  00:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * J. Gordon Melton was paid $10,000 by a front organization for the notorious "Children of God" cult to study that group. He has also been paid by J.Z. Knight to research her claim that she speaks for the spirit of a 35,000 dead general from Atlantis named "Ramtha." Subsequently, Melton apologized for both. Melton and James Lewis received an all expenses paid trip to Japan courtesy of Aum, after that cult gassed the Tokyo Subway murdering 12 people. Melton and Lewis proclaimed the cult "innocent." Needless to say they were wrong and this discredited their standing as supposedly objective researchers and academics. Melton was also eventually put in charge of the Cult Awareness Network files, after that organization went bankrupt. He was given the files after Scientology's paid expert Anson Shupe and his counterpart Scientology lawyer Kendrick Moxon went through them. What Stephen Kent, Zablocki and others have pointed out is that such paid arrangements between cults and supposed "scholars" represents a conflict of interest. As one cult tragedy after another is reported in the mainstream news, cult apologists like Melton and Shupe have failed to convince the general public that their apologies hold water. And presently, the mainstream media is covering the prosecutions of purported cult leaders and cultists across the US such as Tony Alamo in Arkansas, Phil Aguilar in California, the House of Yahweh in Texas, Strong City/Wayne Bent in New Mexico, Followers of Christ in Oregon, 1 Mind Ministries in Maryland, Polygamists in Utah, Arizona and Texas and Rama Behera/SIST and Alan Bushey in Wisconsin. This is why the apologists are not heard from often in mainstream news reports, because their spin falls flat in the face of hard facts regarding criminal prosecutions. So cult apologists publish books through whatever university or college press they can, which are usually very small book runs. Meanwhile books about cults written by former members such as "Not Without My Sister" about Children of God and "Stolen Innocence" about polygamists become best-sellers. Mental health professionals and academics in psychology and psychiatry that have studied cults specifically, have long-standing disagreements concerning the positions taken by cult apologists within the fields of religious studies and sociology.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "This is why the apologists are not heard from often in mainstream news reports, because their spin falls flat in the face of hard facts ..."
 * 479 topical google news mentions for J Gordon Melton
 * 392 topical google news mentions for Rick Ross. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 16:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jayen466. What can be seen from the links you have posted is that Melton isn't consulted much by the mainstream media and rarely appears on network news programs. Melton's most notable appearance lately (this century) is on background regarding vampires. In fact, he has largely disappeared from the mainstream public scene during this century. IMO--This is because Melton's views are no longer considered credible by hard news in the area of cults and cult-like groups. And anyone that does just a little bit of digging can easily see why, i.e. he has been paid off by groups called "cults" and thus compromised his academic integrity as an objective scholar/researcher.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, Melton was quoted in the Wall Street Journal just a couple of weeks ago. There are 292 google news hits from the seventies through to 1999, and 186 hits from 2000 onwards, including LA Times, NY Times, SF Chronicle, National Public Radio, USA Today, Washington Post, Philadelphia Inquirer, etc.. It does not really matter, we are not citing Melton anyway. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 21:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Now Melton doesn't matter? The links you posted demonstrate two things (1) Even though Melton is probably the most quoted cult apologist in North America, he is nevertheless a shrinking presence in the mainstream media, and most notably within network television news reports. (2) Anyone that takes the time to read the links gathered of Melton press quotes over the years can easily see that he is a cult apologist.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:ENEMY? Boy, I know some editors who should read that! ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is the point about editors like Jayen466. It is probable that he/she is either a staffer for Osho or doing specific volunteer work for the group, i.e. to advance a propaganda effort through Wikipedia (e.g. as Jossi has done for Prem Rawat/guru Maharaji). Look at the time expended and the pattern of behavior regarding the control of certain articles. It's a shame to see Wikipedia used this way. The relatively tight knit and small group of academics Jayen466 has selectively chosen to quote are a notably biased group with a POV, which as no surprise coincides with Jayen466 POV. There is no meaningful balance to reflect this or the historical facts that dispute their conclusions. It's a choice, does Wikipedia want to be a place for fringe conspiracy theories, cranks and propaganda, or reflect the facts in a more mainstream and objective manner, in order to be considered a reliable source for research?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, actually, if you read WP:NPOV you will find wikipedia reflects all major viewpoints without prejudice, so that readers have the facts to make up their own minds. They are not spoonfed in the way you seem to be suggesting. Wikipedia represents the POV of the different significant sources and does not make a judgement on them. Therefore your approach is violating policies and you should amend it forthwith, if you want to continue to edit. You are accusing others of controlling articles, but what comes across is that that is exactly what you are trying to do. It would also be extremely helpful if you would stop conjecturing as to the RL (real life) activities of other editors. It is their on-wiki behaviour that matters here. Argumentum ad hominem is no argument. You might like to look at WP:NPA. Jossi's behaviour in relationship to Prem Rawat articles has been examined by ArbCom. They found no fault with it. They noted that he had voluntarily restricted himself to talk pages, rather than editing the article directly, but they observed there was no requirement for him to have that restriction.  Ty  19:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps there isn't much hope of Wikipedia becoming an objective resource for reliable research information then, but rather quite often a place where various editors expressing their group or personal views come to propagandize. And whichever group or person has the most time, staffers or volunteers wins. Kind of Orwellian. I have no "control" over the article. I can only come here and discuss whatever objections I have regarding its accuracy. What you have now is an extremely biased and often almost nonsensical propaganda piece largely dominated by a single editor. Jossi and Jayen466 illustrate what's wrong with Wikipedia and how it can be manipulated by anonymous editors with an agenda.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 19:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Long-term_effects_of_alcohol focus on moderation
The article Long-term_effects_of_alcohol and some related articles have many sections (eg: cardiovascular effects) which focus solely on the effects of moderate consumption, which are often positive, whereas discussion of heavy consumption on those same metrics would highlight deleterious effects. Within discussion of moderate consumption, the articles are reasonably neutral, however, the selective attention to moderate consumption is itself biasing.

NcLean 114.76.96.115 (talk) 23:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * wouldn't long term effects of excessive consumption be better discussed under alcoholism?DGG (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Alcohol effects the neurotransmitter in the brain, like any psychoactive chemical. In neutrality, mention of abstinence, moderation and heavy use should all be included for a balanced encyclopedic entry. In the vast majority of American studies, which I've known of show, 10% of the United States population is "alcoholic". Being a significant minority of such a population, heavy use ought to be mentioned in proportion to the ratio. If the page doesn't give a balanced portion to "heavy consumption" it should be deleted and added under "Long-term effects of alcohol in moderation". A fair mention would be respecting the Wikipedia NPOV policy aspect of "balance". While more focus should go to a dedicated article, avoiding the facts by posting a totally separate article is Content forking and also against NPOV policy.Hasbrook''' (talk) 12:18, 18 December 2008 (EST)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.131.18 (talk)

Putting up a company page
I'm trying to put up a Wikipedia page about a company that does a lot of pro bono marketing for charities, but it keeps getting flagged. I followed all the rules listed by Wikipedia and made sure it was straight facts and completely unbiased but for some reason still can't put it up. Any thoughts on how to keep this page from being erased every time we create it? Are there other wikipedia rules that we don't know about or certain subjects that aren't allowed to have pages? Thanks for your help in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.14.226 (talk) 17:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Notability", for one. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time
There's been much back and forth over the NPOV validity of including a referenced statement in the lead section stating "The title is widely considered to be among the greatest games ever." There's been much discussion on the talk page under heading #20: "More info on reception in head paragraph: the Greatest Game Ever Made?" Some review of whether such a statement conflicts NPOV would be very much appreciated. -- The Fwanksta (talk) 00:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Quick link to the talk page discussion. - Zero1328 Talk? 01:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Tamara Millay
User:Skarl_the_Drummer continues to remove a relevant category listing for this minority politician, who should be properly listed both as an American politican and as a Missouri politician. Posts 3RR warnings while deleting the same warning given him for the same action. This may possible be a POV issue as well, given that the listing is about a minority political party activist. Request admin review. -- Davidkevin (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As stated on my talk page, it is not usual to insist on a category and a subcategory without good reason. -- Skarl 19:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The entry legitimately belongs in both categories. Deleting it from either degrades the article by removing relevant information.  -- Davidkevin (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In what way could a Missouri politician be mistaken for not being a US politician? -- Skarl 19:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If separate categories weren't needed, they wouldn't have been created, nor would they still exist. If she belongs in both, she should be in both.  It's as simple as that.


 * I realize you're getting a great laugh out of "screwing with the American", but that isn't why Wikipedia exists, and you should get your jollies in some other way.


 * Would an admin please step in? -- Davidkevin (talk) 20:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Trust me on this one point: being accused of vandalism for no valid reason is not something I can find any "fun" in. -- Skarl 20:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * By people of the USA, maybe not. Don't forget the world-wide use of the English Wikipedia and that some users may not know the names of all the states. (I usually forget Wisconsin - keep thinking it's in Canada for some reason.) Can you recite all the UK counties? I would say leave it in both categories. Won't do any harm. Peridon (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * BTW I'm not the requested admin, and I'm referring back to the 'In what way' comment. As a UK resident, I an totally neutral in this matter. Peridon (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, but when one category is a subcategory of another, the potential for confusion is not there -- because the info is there in the categorisation system. The argument "does no harm" needs to be backed up by something vital in the bio that begs both category and subcategory (see Categorisation). -- Skarl 20:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Can I suggest you both take it to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests ? Start a thread there and someone will sort it out. There's no point in going on arguing - you're not going to convince each other. Leave the disputed article as it is while this is done. It can be set to the 'officially approved' version later if necessary. If a 'revert war' starts, someone might get banned. Peridon (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If Davidkevin wishes to take this to Third opinion, I undertake to abide by the opinion offered, even if I disagree with it. -- Skarl 20:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Fine. Let's do it.  -- Davidkevin (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Dispute over addition of POV tag
User SMP0328 and myself cannot agree whether it is appropriate to add a POV warning tag to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution article. I really want to avoid starting an edit war, putting the tag in, taking the tag out, over and over. The question seems simple to me: Is there presently a neutrality dispute? If yes, then add the POV tag, resolve the dispute, then remove the tag. I would appreciate outside opinion about whether there is presently a neutrality dispute, and if appropriate could another editor add the POV tag so I may avoid edit warring? Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This article is a crass example of POV, and now it has been protected on a version without the POV tag. Please, someone tell me it is not necessary to get a consensus with the owners of the article before an obviously appropriate tag can be inserted. WP:PROTECTION is silent about this kind of situation. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not a crass example of POV. On the contrary, SaltyBoatr has a long history of POV tag bombing this very article.  See:  Requests for mediation/Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution for more history on his egregious behavior. There was also an ArbCom activity after the failed MedCom addressing this very behavior by SaltyBoatr. The point of the POV tagline dispute at present is apparently a disagreement with the Supreme Court ruling on Heller by SaltyBoatr, not on the article itself. The article has been reviewed and is presently a Good Article, having been found to have no neutrality problems.  Looks like a case of "deja vu" all over again with SaltyBoatr.  (SaltyBoatr also edited this same article under an earlier "handle", as was addressed in ArbCom.)  Yaf (talk) 05:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * SaltyBoatr's and Hans Adler's problem with the article is that it displays a pro-right view of the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. So shouldn't the article reflect that official interpretation? Would tax protesters be right to place a neutrality tag on the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution article, because they feel the article has a pro-ratification bias (they feel the Amendment was not properly ratified)? How about someone who feels abortion is murder? Would such an editor be right to place a neutrality tag on the Abortion article, because he feels the article insufficiently refers to abortion as an act of murder? If the neutrality tag disputed here is legitimate, a terrible precedent has been set. Neutrality must be more than being in the eye of the beholder. SMP0328. (talk) 05:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The above author asks "shouldn't the article reflect the official interpretation?" The answer is of course, absolutely, positively not. The idea that an encyclopedia article should take on a point of view that agrees with official court rulings would find agreement in totalitarian states, but has no place in Wikipedia. The encyclopedia's role is to lay out different sides of a disputes and say who is making what arguments, NOT to take a side in the disputes. The biggest issue here is not that the article is too "pro-gun" or "anti-gun"; it's that statements of opinion and original research are repeatedly referred to as fact. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Tags are there to encourage editors to improve articles. And my, isn't there a need for improvement! I am very surprised that this article got through GA, not because of NPOV but because it is a quote farm. I suggest that it goes through GA reassessment and that all editors agree a list of things to do on the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So, are you saying we are now to start tagging articles with POV taglines not because of NPOV issues, but rather because they may not have correctly passed GA and need further improvement? I am puzzled. Looks like the wrong tag usage to me. Yaf (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur with notion that there are serious POV problems with the article. The biggest thing that can be done to improve it, in my opinion, would be to have Scalia's majority opinion in Columbia v. Heller not be presented as fact, but as the court's opinion. On a somewhat tangential note, it's also puzzling that this case is mentioned throughout the article, but the decision itself is only explained briefly near the end of a very long article. It seems that instead of giving proper weight to this decision in the article, editors have simply incorporated the opinions of the decision as statements of fact in the lead.Nwlaw63 (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the article lacks good coverage of dissenting views on the nature of the Second Amendment, and thus the NPOV tag is appropriate. However, the Second Amendment is a part of the US constitution, and thus the majority view of the Supreme Court should get billing as the controlling viewpoint on its implementation. Other views should be mentioned as minority and alternative (currently disfavored) interpretations. Ray (talk) 21:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Have to disagree with the last. That the Supreme Court holds a view is very strong evidence. But not always decisive or majority. There are about 5 people who ever held a very odd, very hard to understand view of the 11th Amendment.  The scholarly consensus is that it is unfortunate that all five sit on the Supreme Court.  Dred Scott is a more famous and important case of the problems of thinking the SCOTUS view is neccesarily the mainstream one.John Z (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It may or may not be the majority viewpoint, however, it is the legally controlling one, and thus should get first billing in any article on law. Whatever other people may think the law was originally intended to mean, the Supreme Court's word says what it means today, and that is of primary importance to our readers. I think we would be less than helpful if we were to encourage "majority" interpretations that are contrary to current legal doctrine in our articles on law. Ray (talk) 00:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If it were only so simple. Yes, the SCOTUS has the authority.  The problem in the article is that the meaning of the ruling depends a lot on which part of the court ruling the dominant editor(s) chose to selectively quote to push their preferred point of view.  Is it that the individual right to firearms is now settled?  (As wishful editors have presently edited the article to say as fact.)  Or is it that "(n)ow the court must slog through an utterly predictable torrent of litigation, writing, piecemeal, a federal gun code concerning the newfound individual right."  And never mind the 219 years of prior history about the Second Amendment.  Dust is still settling.  This all can be sorted out, assuming good faith collaborative editors and editing (lacking of late).  In the mean time, a POV warning tag is fair.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

neutrality issue.Osho.
hello I am quite new here .. less than a week old so excuse my unenlightened ways. the article that I am interested to tidy up has been nominated for its neutrality. the name of the article is Osho. the article is stagnating with two editors glaring at each other from opposite sides of the fence. I am attempting to bring them together to help create a good article. Is there anybody available to help resolve the issue? I would greatly appreciate it. thanks. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC))
 * First, welcome to you as a newbie editor. My advice is always to concentrate on the future of the article rather than on editors' conduct. You might also consider editing a variety of articles rather than just this one. At least you will find it helpful to look at some featured articles, particularly some biographies, to see what qualities they have. In relation to this particular article, why not look back at the application for good article and why it failed. Agreeing a list of things to do can be a spur to collaborative editing. (It goes at the top of the talk page, someone can help you with the technicalities.) If the article gets bogged down on one point, put in a Request for comment. My final advice is to look through the sources used. Are they the right ones? Have they been properly reflected in the article? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

thanks for that judith I appreciate the advice... the future.. yes looking at why the article failed requires improving is cool. request for comment like that too.. i'll look more tomorrow. thanks. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC))

US Congressional districts
I've "corrected" a few of names in the predecessor/successor box at the bottom of the bio pages for members of Congress. But there is a problem: Because that box contains a district number someone is going to change it back. Michigan (and surely other states) renumbers its districts so that, while the geography stays the same or similar, the number changes when redistricting.

Example: Bart Stupak represents the UP and northern Lower Michigan. Currently that is the first district. Someone listed John Conyers (whose district used to be number one and is now 14) as his predecessor. John Conyers district is primarily in the city of Detroit. About as far as one can get from Stupak's district. How can John Conyers be Bart Stupak's predecessor when Conyers still serves much of the same district he has since 1964? William Davis is in fact Bart Stupak's predecessor (in the old district numbered 11, which contained the UP and northern lower Michigan).

Someone/people are strictly adhering to the numbers which makes it innaccurate. Any ideas on how to resolve this? Has there been another category/topic where a precedent has been established?

I would suggest mentioning all applicable numbers in the box. If the district is dramatically altered, mention all predecessor who'd represented a significant (20-25%) number of the current district's constituents.mp2dtw (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC).
 * Sadly, there isn't an easy way to correct this, I'm afraid. Most states do not radically alter the borders of existing districts at redistricting, so there is some continuity in a district number between redistricting cycles. It would be an enormous task to undertake what you are suggesting. It might just be better to note on the articles (in or below the box) that the change of position is due to redistricting and not loss/gaining of Congressional position. Ray (talk) 21:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Heckler & Koch MP5

 * German terrorist group, the Red Army Faction, depicted a Heckler & Koch MP5 in their insignia.



The addition of this simple, referenced statement has been summarily reverted repeatedly by User:Koalorka without appropriate explanation and he and several members of WP:GUN opposed the addition at the article talk page first as "violating WP:GUN", then later as being "trivia" and as violating WP:UNDUE. It was then proposed to hide (for all practical purposes) this "[promotion of] a criminal Marxist terror organization and their actions in an article free of politics" in the article's section on Users. But the RAF never did actually use the gun, and imho the "compromise" to put it there was suggested out of the same underlying POV motivation. Barring a reorganisation of the article to create a better place for this sentence, I believe the end of the article's lead is the only place and perfectly appropriate for this statement, especially considering the fact that the RAF logo is easily the most notable depiction of the MP5 ever. Yes or no? <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">Everyme 02:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this fact belongs in the article about Red Army Faction, but not in the article about the firearm. It does seem like trivia, and placing it in the lead would probably be undue weight in my opinion. Jehochman Talk 03:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks, I'll defer to your judgement. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">Everyme 05:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * OTOH, it already is mentioned in the RAF article. And why exactly is it so out of place to concisely mention it in the MP5 article? I mean, seriously, "trivia"? The RAF is quite notable and the logo is the most widely circulated depiction of the gun ever. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">Everyme 20:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My take on this: most communist organizations that used a firearm on their emblems used the AK-47, so it's worth mentioning that RAF used something else (and what that something else was) in the article on RAF. Mentioning RAF in the article on MP5 seems very marginal; are there any references association with RAF significantly affected the gun's visibility/notoriety? If so, then mention it, otherwise don't. By analogy, MP5 is mentioned in the article on Half-Life_(video_game) as plot device, but Half-life is not mentioned in the article about the gun. What I'm trying to say here is that "X is worth mentioning in the article on Y" is not a symmetric relation. VG &#x260E; 09:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Addendum: to younger generations Half-life is/was way, way more notable than RAF, so it's reasonable to presume that for them Half-life was "easily the most notable depiction of the MP5 ever". In the absence of sources to support the claim, I wouldn't add it to the article on MP5 because it's WP:OR. VG &#x260E; 09:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that I didn't and don't propose to add that into the article literally. But consider e.g. this NYTimes article from 2007: "Ransom pictures of Mr. Schleyer posed in front of the Red Army Faction’s crude symbol, a star bisected by a Heckler & Koch MP5 machine gun, came to symbolize the scourge of 1970s terrorism." It's fair to say that —all recentism and other systemic bias aside— it is indeed the far more notable depiction. I mean, come on. Half-Life? <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">Everyme 20:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just "Half-life 2" has two orders of magnitude more ghits than "red army faction", so come on. VG &#x260E; 17:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Everyme that the use of the MP5 in the RAF logo is notable, for the reasons summarized in the NY Times quote. The RAF, together with other terrorist organizations, violently influenced the lives of many in Western Europe and the Middle East throughout the 1970s, 1980s, and to some extent 1990s. Furthermore I feel it is a notable use of the MP5, since the MP5 was mostly used by police forces and armies that the RAF vehmently opposed as "imperialist". Nevertheless they used the gun in their logo, which became a symbol of terrorism. The gun in the logo is also often mistakenly identified as a Kalashnikov. — I would say Half Life is not such an influential symbol, but since I'm not that familiar with Half Life 2 I'm not qualified to judge whether it's worth mentioning. Stevo2001 (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not in most of Western Europe. Danny Morrison's statement "with a ballot paper in this hand and an Armalite in the other," (to which he could of added 'and semtex in the car') was more symbolic in those parts of western Europe where a much larger war took place. --PBS (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll take the "most" back (and I don't want to play the game which country had the most violent terrorists). But at the least, it was a major symbol of terrorism in Germany, which is home to a significant share of Western Europe's population, and happens to be home to the Heckler & Koch, the manufacturer of the HK MP5. Stevo2001 (talk) 05:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Smack (Finnish band)
Wikipedia's biography of the band Smack isn't especially neutral and worse still, most of it is copy-pasted from this site: http://smackonyou.com/history.html

Here's a link to the Wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smack_(Finnish_band) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.157.168.157 (talk) 09:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have blanked the copyvio text, and tagged the article as being unsourced and needing notability. I was debating CSD A7, so if others feel inclined to delete...-Andrew c [talk] 16:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

"Chile" Article
Hello. I have a small, really small, question that I wish for a neutral editor to answer concerning a possible NON neutral statement.

This is what User:Likeminas keeps favoring as a sentence (which sounds highly PoV) in the Chile article:

"According to one theory the Incas of Peru, who had failed to conquer the Araucanians, called the valley of the Aconcagua "Chili" by corruption of the name of a tribal chief ("cacique") called Tili, who ruled the area at the time of the Incan conquest."

As you can see, he uses the weasel word "who had failed to conquer the Araucanians." It's a fact, but there is really little to no necessity to mention it in that particular way.

This is what I, User:MarshalN20 favor as a better "Non-POV" sentence:

"According to one theory, the Incas of Peru called the valley of the Aconcagua "Chili" by corruption of the name of a Picunche tribal chief ("cacique") called Tili, who ruled the area at the time of the Incan conquest."

What is your opinion on this matter? Do you agree that my proposition is more Non-PoV and less "Weasely"?--&#91;&#124;!*//MarshalN20\\*!&#124;&#93; (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that is much of a "weasel" problem. If it's a fact that the Inca failed to conquer the Araucanians...  Grsz  11  02:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't like the first version, because it asks us to believe that the Incas wanted to conquer the Araucanians, or that they had tried to, or perhaps that they ought to have conquered the Araucanians. It does not explain what actually happened. Your version does not have those problems. However, your main concern must be to follow what your sources say. Can you find a wording that is closer to a description in a good history text? Itsmejudith (talk) 10:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Araucanians in a broad sense are classified into three major cultural subdivisions; the Huilliche, the Picunche, and the Mapuche, the last being the largest group.
 * The known history of the Araucanians began with the Inca invasion under Tupac Yupanqui. So yes, The Incas attempted to conquer them, and indeed, failed trying.
 * That's why I don’t understand how this historical fact can be considered weasel.
 * In any case, and looking at the article from an objetive perspective I do agree that it plays no significant role in that particular sentence.
 * I think your new revised version is much better than the one you previously tried to add.
 * Having no further objections all I can say is go ahead and edit the article if you wish.
 * Likeminas (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Without seeking to make an argument out of this, I do need to comment that what you claim is a "New revised version" is actually the same sentence that you kept reverting my edits upon prior to me coming here. In addition, like I mentioned, it is indeed a fact that the Incas failed to conquer the Araucanians. Yet, as you have explained: The Incas conquered the Picunche, therefore the Incas did conquer part of the Araucanians. In other words, the "more correct" way to refer to the Incas in terms of the Araucanians would be: "The Incas who failed to completely conquer the Araucanians."
 * You might ask what sort of difference a few little words make, but the truth is that in an encyclopedia (which is what Wikipedia claims to be) every single word matters. For instance, take note of this:
 * -According to one theory, Mike Robinson, who did not eat his pancakes, called his mom "Jackie."
 * This sentence follows the same structure as the one in the Chile article. The question thus stands, doesn't the "Who did not eat his pancakes" sound weasely? Why does the reader need to know that the person did not eat his pancakes other than to "downgrade" on the guy? Quite obviously, if the reader wants to know more about "Mike Robinson," they should go to the article of this person.
 * Thank you for your comprehension.--&#91;&#124;!*//MarshalN20\\*!&#124;&#93; (talk) 01:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I’m not so sure, that’s the actual sentence you wanted to add, but anyway, I have no intention either of making a debate out of that.
 * I notice, you attempted to change the article but someone else reverted it. And while I see why the phrase doesn’t quite fit into that particular sentence, I think it does have a place on the history section of the article.
 * Araucanian, as you probably already know, was the name given to the natives by the Spanish Conquistadors. However, none of these people, until this day consider themselves to be Araucaninias, but instead Huilliche, Picunche & Mapuche.


 * Having that in mind, if we now specifically state; “the Incas who had failed to (completely or partially) conquer the Mapuches” would not be weasel at all, since that’s just a historical fact.
 * I included your sentence on the etymology section and also included a rephrased mention of the sentence above.
 * Hopefully, this minor issue has now been settled.
 * Likeminas (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chile&diff=249410495&oldid=249167741
 * The "someone else" who reverted the article is User:Selecciones de la Vida. I would not be surprised if he reverted the etymology section again. He does not want anything that I have posted to apparently stay in Wikipedia.
 * Your new edit is, without a doubt, a productive improvement.
 * The sentence “the Incas who had failed to (completely or partially) conquer the Mapuches” could be weasely depending on the context of the sentence or section. If the sentence and/or section deals with the Inca conquest of Chile, then that sentence would not be a weasel. Yet, if it is added in something as irrelevant to the point of that as the etymology section, then it does sound weasel.
 * By that standard, any word can be a "weasel word," but it all depends on the overall context of the sentence in order to determine whether it truly is weasel or not.--&#91;&#124;!*//MarshalN20\\*!&#124;&#93; (talk) 14:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The complete phrase is taken verbatim from the source and it is important to keep it unfiltered, because it tells us that the Incas had come into contact with the Araucanians —even as far as Aconcagua— and attempted to conquer them. It is necessary context provided to understand the significance of the origin of the word. ☆ CieloEstrellado 02:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure the Incas came into contact with the Picunches (not Araucanians), and that's explicit and briefly mentioned in the etymology section, which by the way, is used to discuss the possible origins of the word, and not the historical developments in which they Incas failed to conquer the Mapuches (again, not Araucanians).
 * I personally don't see how adding "the Incas who had failed to the Araucanians" gives any contextual or historical background of how the word came to exist.
 * Unfortunaly, I don't have a copy of the book that's being used for that claim, but if you can get a hold of it and post the paragrah in Spanish, then we would all be able to see how it's worded and how relevant that sentence is to the etymology of the word.
 * Likeminas (talk) 03:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the phrase:


 * According to one theory the Incas of Peru, who had failed to conquer the Araucanians, called the valley of the Aconcagua "Chili" by corruption of the name of a tribal chief ("cacique") called Tili, who ruled the area at the time of the Incan conquest.

is a combination of two sources: 1) Resumen de la Historia de Chile by Encina & Castedo and 2) "Chile: A Country Study" from the US Library of Congress.

The original text from Source 1 is:


 * Al denominar [Diego de Almagro] Chile al valle del Mapocho, confirmó el nombre que los incas daban al del Aconcagua, según Rosales, por corrupción del nombre del cacique Tili, que lo gobernaba al producirse la conquista incaica. (Page scan here)

The original text from Source 2 is:


 * The Spanish conquistadors heard about Chilli from the Incas of Peru, who had failed to conquer the land inhabited by the Araucanians, of which the Mapuche in central Chile was the most warlike group. (Introduction section)

☆ CieloEstrellado 04:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The specific mention of the "Picunche" in the etymology section is enough to clarify that the Incas reached the Aconcagua valley and created the name "Chile" from the PICUNCHE tribal chief. This "ETYMOLOGY" section is meant to specify the meaning of the name "CHILE." The HISTORY section of the article is meant to stand as the explanation of the history of Chile, which should include the "failed attempt" of the Incas to completely conquer the "Araucanians" (which technically should be called "Mapuche," as User:Likeminas suggests). Including the information of the "Inca's failure" in the ETYMOLOGY section is a blatant example of using "WEASEL WORDS." There exists no need for it in that particular part of the article. 3 users have already certified this point; Wikipedia goes by majority vote, not a single person's vote.--&#91;&#124;!*//MarshalN20\\*!&#124;&#93; (talk) 13:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTDEMOCRACY ☆ CieloEstrellado 05:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Robert J. Lewy
He gave a $1 million life insurance policy to Stuyvesant HS, not a contribution, I am told. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.115.220 (talk) 10:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Religion in Nazi Germany
I removed some material that violated NPOV from the article Religion in Nazi Germany. The disputed material is in the section entitled "Nazism and religion". I removed the following material: <BR><BR> "Heclo, who recently published a book Christianity and American democracy, argues that "religion is to have a place in public life" and emphasizes its importance for a developed democracy: <BR><BR> "If traditional religion is absent from the public arena, secular religions are likely to satisfy man's quest for meaning. ... It was an atheistic faith in man as creator of his own grandeur that lay at the heart of Communism, fascism and all the horrors they unleashed for the twentieth century. And it was adherents of traditional religions - a Martin Niemöller, C.S. Lewis, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Reinhold Niebuhr, Martin Buber - who often warned most clearly of the tragedy to come from attempting to build man's own version of the New Jerusalem on Earth." " <BR><BR> I wrote about my issues on the discussion page: <BR><BR> "I have removed the quotation block for the following reasons: 1. The book that the quotation came from is "Christianity and American democracy", which is not even a history book and so is not an appropriate source for the article. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. 2. It is off topic, this article is NOT about the role of religion in communism or fascism in general, it is about the role is religion specifically in Nazi Germany. 3. This article is also not about whether or not "religion is to have a place in public life"; if you want to include this somewhere then find the correct article for it (not this article). 4. It pushes a point of view by being blatantly anti-secular/anti-atheist; blaming "secular religions" and "atheistic faith" for "fascism and all the horrors they unleashed for the twentieth century", which is no way a generally accepted statement among historians. This violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view." <BR><BR> User Zara1709 reverted my edit and added a reply to the discussion board that did not even address my concerns. <BR><BR> I do not want to start an edit war and am hoping for help in resolving this problem. Thank you for your time. <font style="border:solid 1px #FDD017; background:#342D7E;" color="#342D7E"><font color="#FBB117">selfworm <font color="#FDD017">Talk ) 10:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I would also like to point out that in a previous discussion Zara1709 explicitly stated "Yes, it is POV, but it is there exactly for this reason; to illustrate that particular POV;" [...] <font style="border:solid 1px #FDD017; background:#342D7E;" color="#342D7E"><font color="#FBB117">selfworm <font color="#FDD017">Talk ) 10:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I was busy that day and didn't write an elaborate reply, but I can give you one now:


 * 1), 2) Yes, one could object to the quote because it is not from a work about Nazism, and also makes a general statement concerning totalitarism; However, it approaches the problem the same way that most historians do it since the 1960s. I've added a reference to a work with the definite title The Nazi Persecution of the Churches. The problem is that the author of that book elaborates the issue in more detail and I haven't found such a nice quote in that book and that is is from 1968. The quote currently used is from a rather recent work and Hugh Heclo certainly is a notable academic, although he is working on different topics.


 * 3) Yes, the topic of Religion in Nazi Germany is somewhat different from the question what importance religion should have in politics. But obviously they are related. And the historian Richard Steigmann-Gall just had to connect these two topic in the conclusion of his book. I think this is clear from the section.


 * 4)Well, in case you haven't noticed this already: Steigmann-Gall makes an argument quite similar to yours, only not quite as direct. "Blaming 'secular religions' and 'atheistic faith' for 'fascism and all the horrors they unleashed for the twentieth century'" is not acceptable from a historians point-of-view. At least concerning Nazism he could confirm it. However, contrary to what you think, before Steigmann-Gall's book, most historians who work on the topic would have agreed to a less direct version of that thesis.


 * Of course, following wp:NPOV, we must not participate in such controversies. But we must give a balanced account of all the views, and if we'd remove that quote, that would make the article seriously imbalanced. If I find the time, I'll read a few more books on the topic and will see if I can replace that quote with a quote from a history book on Nazism. Zara1709 (talk) 08:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * With the little work I've done on that section in the meantime, could we close this issue as 'resolved', then, or do you still feel that I did not take your concerns into account? Zara1709 (talk) 08:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This issue is not yet resolved. If these POVs are going to be included in the article then I suggest that we include a paragraph at the beginning of the "Nazism and Religion" section that clearly identifies and explains the different ideas of Historians and Political Scientists like Hugh Heclo (are Political Scientists acceptable sources for a history article?). Also, please more clearly express yourself, I don't know what your talking about when you write "argument quite similar to yours". <font style="border:solid 1px #FDD017; background:#342D7E;" color="#342D7E"><font color="#FBB117">selfworm <font color="#FDD017">Talk ) 03:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Stormfront (website)
Greetings, there are a number of ongoing NPOV disputes at the Stormfront (website) article which would benefit from the input of neutral and experienced editors. Talk:Stormfront_(website), Talk:Stormfront_(website) are the specific discussions. Any assistance keeping the article neutral appreciated, Skomorokh  20:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Banana plantation
Please check Banana plantation for neutrality. Biscuittin (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's just a stump and a poor one at that. Biscuittin has made improvements. I made a few edits. Lots of work to do, but I don't see this as an intervention issue (looks like the original POV pushing author is gonners anyway). Suggest this be marked "resolved" and the multiple warning tags on the article be reduced to a single "Gawd could this 'un use some help!" LOL. 72.11.124.226 (talk) 03:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Paudash Lake
This article was suffering from serious NPOV issues and so I originally tagged it with peacock. The tag was removed four times by an anonymous editor (later determined to be User:Lake Central). The user left messages on my talk page objecting to my actions here, here, here, and the latest one (where I am called a liar and a fool) here.

I have attempted to remove the more blatant POV edits as well as some unencyclopedic content here, only to have it reverted by the above user editing anonymously. I suspect that this is going to continue, so I am bringing the issue here for wider discussion. ... disco spinster   talk  04:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

DIFFS (I'll send you a bill)

Peacock Tag Reverts
 * Rev1 1st by anon user 216.209.115.73
 * Rev2 1st by anon user 209.226.186.79
 * Rev3 2nd by anon user 209.226.186.79
 * Rev4 3rd by anon user 209.226.186.79

............................Looks like same user, different IP - AOL?

Good Faith Edit Reverts Without Cause
 * Rev 1 1st by anon user 216.209.115.158
 * REv 2 2nd by anon user 216.209.115.158

...........Note similarity to 216.209.115.73 above - Same user? - AOL?

'''Just Too Funny. Must See'''
 * I don't know what the hell to call this. LOL
 * Like an unwelcome guest, it won't leave.

This is not a war of the titans, and certainly not an earth-shaking topic. But it does deserve attention.

72.11.124.226 (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Paudash Lake #2
It is difficult to effectively deal with to an individual who:

a. Attempts to make their complaint known by the use of highly ambiguous, unspecific tags.

b. Finally makes some specific complaints regarding the so-called promotion of a non-profit lake conservation association, which makes no sense, and the mere mention of the nearest downhill ski facility to Paudash Lake, for which an explanation was provided.

c. Suddenly proceeds to make a quick and clumsy audit of the Paudash Lake article, removing content on which no specific complaint had been made and leaving a rather strange explanation that certain words, listed for the first time, were not acceptable in Wikipedia articles.

d. Fails to address a demonstration that the allegedly unacceptable words are utilized in Wikipedia best-practice Featured Articles and, instead, raises yet another complaint.

If this individual actually believes that certain words are unacceptable in Wikipedia, then I would expect her to edit them out of the noted Featured Articles. But, of course, I don’t see this happening. What I do see, is a damaged Paudash Lake article, and one which is damaged for no apparent reason other than personal whim. Furthermore, there seems to be no sense of proportion on this matter, which simply involves a pleasant resort area, rather than some controversial politial or religious matter. Lake Central (talk) 08:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think discospinster deserves a medal and ticker tape parade for her diligence in spending time suggesting improvements to, and then actually improving an article that is *not* on the top ten (or even top 1,000,000,000) list of "places to be seen" among controversy-seeking editors. Editors like her are gold. The article was plainly a travel brochure, and she improved it greatly without raping it. 72.11.124.226 (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Continued..... Some scenic places are legitimately and universally acknowledged by words such as "spectacular," like the Grand Canyon. This falls under a legitimate interpretation of WP:CommonKnowledge at least. That doesn't mean that the flood gates can be opened to every place on the face of the earth being billed in such terminology by those who are smitten by (or paid to promote) that place. All she did for the most part was to remove adverbs that are "sales pitches" while leaving the sentences intact. Dont' be offended. In removing glowing adverbs, she is not suggesting the place is a dump. If your patch of paradise is so great, it should have legions of fans who have published legitimate source material using great adjectives. Quote them and cite the source. Presto. You have your splendiferous adverbs back. She is right and you are wrong. Take this as an opportunity to make your good article even better. Shes doing good to the article, not harm.72.11.124.226 (talk) 01:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

David Smick
Written clearly as an advertisement. Mhym (talk) 04:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I reverted back to your version (plus the image). Besides being written as an advertisement, it was also a copyright violation  --Megaboz (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts
In this article about subjects criticized as pseudoscientific, only negative judgments about a subject's scientific nature are currently permitted to appear; references that supports a subject's scientific validity are systematically excluded. The substance of the current dispute can be seen in this diff and this talk page discussion. Is this not a POV-fork? hgilbert (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The editors there seem to disagree with you. If it's a POV-fork, from what article does it fork? dougweller (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it's more a NPOV violation; my question is whether it is permissible to only allow one side of an argument in any article. hgilbert (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Writing as an involved editor, I think that that is an exaggeration - the focus of the list should be to explain why each entry meets the inclusion criteria, but the normal Neutral point of view policy still applies. For a pretty decent treatment of a tricky case, scroll down to the entry for hypnosis. There is still scientific debate over what exactly it entails, but there is no serious doubt that hypnosis occurs. However, Mesmer was a charlatan, and past-life regression does not come up very often at American Anthropological Association meetings. In the entry, the nuances of the first point are omitted, the second point is stated, and the latter two points are treated more prominently. This is precisely as it should read. I just raised some points on sourcing at the above-linked talkpage discussion, and more eyes are always welcome. - Eldereft (cont.) 01:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * [ec] Hgilbert, that's what happens in the articles themselves for each subject. Here it's a matter of staying on-topic and space conservation. The main point of the article should not be allowed to be buried and smothered with fringe POV. Present them in the articles. If you want to continue to make the article your personal battle ground, or to attempt to right great wrongs, then you should edit on another wiki or make your own website. We already have enough tendentious editors here. -- Fyslee (talk) 01:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it could be stated more clearly in the lead that inclusion on the list is not a definitive judgment on the value of the discipline as a legitimate science, but a "sense" of the scientific community which may or may not change with time and further research. Wording to that effect is there, but it is rather vague and weak. Other than that, I don't see huge issues. I can see where a fan of a listed topic might get their knickers in a twist over being listed, but that's life in the big city. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The "sense" of the scientific community is reflected in its publications. The full range that these cover should be included (rather than cherry-picking those that reflect a single point of view); that's called a neutral point of view. The publications are in no way fringe. hgilbert (talk) 13:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, the "sense" of the scientific community is reflected in its peer-reviewed publications. But WP:WEIGHT dictates that the mainstream scientific opinion be given more weight than minority opinions. So, the fact that a minority opinion is published does not mean it can be given equal weight to the mainstream opinion. Now, THERE IS AN EXCEPTION to this rule, and that is when a topic is ABOUT that minority opinion. In that case, WP:WEIGHT states that it IS ACCEPTABLE for minority opinion and even WP:FRINGE opinion to be given MORE WEIGHT than they would be ordinarily accorded. But never under any circumstance MORE than the mainstream opinion. 72.11.124.226 (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That is clear. The problem is that the minority view here is not currently represented at all, despite numerous peer-reviewed publications that have been cited to support this view. Should there not be some representation of this? hgilbert (talk) 01:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem as I see it from your perspective is that the article isn't about the topics themselves, but about their presence in the category of pseudoscience. I always want to see more information, rather than less, so I sympathize with your desire to see both sides elucidated to some degree. To get past the WP:WEIGHT purists though, you have to find a justification for it, with copious iron clad sources, and even if you succeed in finding that justification, some editors just dig in their heels and refuse to look past a shallow interpretation of WP:WEIGHT. Good luck.72.11.124.226 (talk) 02:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion concerning "terrorist" and related words at Words to avoid
There is a discussion concerning WP:TERRORIST ongoing, and User:Dank55 suggested that I raise the topic over here, for resolution by people with more experience on POV issues. Specifically, the current discussion centers on whether words like "terrorist" should be banned from the narrative voice of the article. RayAYang (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I noticed the word "terrorist" pops up on this page, its archives, and the NPOV archives a lot. That suggests that, although we don't have a specific policy, how we want to handle this word is more a matter of policy than guidelines, and more a matter for NPOV experts than for style geeks (such as myself).  You can see the arguments at Wikipedia_talk:Words_to_avoid; if you'd like a summary here, I'm sure PBS, Ray and others will be happy to give it a shot. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd be disappointed if we can't draw some discussion on this noticeboard; better to discuss policy matters here than to force them back into style guidelines talk or article talk pages. Would anyone like a summary of the arguments at WT:Words to avoid? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The problems with the use of the word terrorist in the unqualified narrative voice of the article is best described in the section "Pejorative use" in the article Terrorism.


 * The section has a quotation from Bruce Hoffman "On one point, at least, everyone agrees: terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore." As Wikipedia has a built in bias (see WikiProject Countering systemic bias) inexperienced editors in good faith can and do use the word terrorist citing reliable sources without realising that they are presenting information with a non neutral point of view.


 * For example in the 1960s the British called the Mau Mau terrorists and if Wikipedia had been written in the 1960s most of the reliable sources of the day would have labelled the rebels as such. However more recent research, particularly as the President elect of the US had a grandfather who was tortured by British because of his suspected links to the Mau Mau (Beatings and abuse made Barack Obama’s grandfather loathe the British The Sunday Times, 3 December 2008), presents the same issues from another perspective. An article written in the 1960 would have been much less bias to the British point of view if the article stated "The Mau Mau uprising in Kenya, members of which are considered to be terrorists by the British colonial government (citations), ..." than if it said "The Mau Mau terrorist movement is attacking civilians in Kenya (same citations), ...".


 * Personally I think that the general sections in this Policy are enough to cover this concern — "A simple formulation" ("Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves"); Let the facts speak for themselves"; and Attributing and substantiating biased statements — and that the details should remain in a guideline. --PBS (talk) 11:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with people making the arguments for how NPOV applies to the word "terrorist". On the other hand, logically, if we put this in WP:Words to avoid, then why are we not also defining "late-term abortion", "global warming", "intelligent design", "cold fusion", "independent candidate", etc?  Why single out "terrorist" for this kind of discussion?  It doesn't fit with 90% of the current content of WP:WORDS. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the solution may be to step back, consider this as a more general issue with WP:WTA, and change the emphasis of that guideline's lead section to more strongly refer the reader back to NPOV. I say this because, to me (as to PBS I think), all "words to avoid" are words that fail WP:ASF by presenting an opinion as fact, often implicitly. This approach may solve the problem by making the rest of the text of WTA more of a list of examples of the general principle - a how-to guide on the application of NPOV to word selection, if you will - and less of a proscriptive list of problem words.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 15:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There are two ongoing problems here. The one Dank55 points out, and to which I am sympathetic, is that WP:WTA is not meant to be an elaboration of WP:NPOV. Rather, it's meant to be a style guideline, along the lines of what I associate with Strunk and White. That is to say, ideally it would give advice on ways to avoid mushy and unclear prose in favor of concrete, definite, and punchy prose, thereby improving the clarity and presentation of our articles. It is my feeling that the current guideline has been somewhat hijacked from that noble purpose, and actually acts against it in some places. In the case under dispute, it suggests we lose words like "terrorist" in favor of the much vaguer and muddled "militant" or "partisan," actually contradicting principles of good English style.
 * The second, closely related, dispute, regards the characterization of terrorist by PBS and his quoted sources as a purely pejorative term, as opposed to a term with strong negative connotations which can nonetheless be descriptive and factually accurate, and thus wholly appropriate for the narrative voice. Words like assassination, murder, kidnap, killer, pirate, loser, poisoner, spy, dictator, secret policeman, all have negative (in some cases, strongly negative) connotations, but we cannot deny that their negative associations spring from their accuracy of description, rather than any intent to insult. However fuzzy the definition of terrorism gets around the edges, there is no other word in the English language for easily describing the deliberate targeting of undefended, or weakly defended, civilian targets with violence in order to instill fear and hopefully compliance in a target political entity. See how awkward that construction was? But if I said "terrorism in Mumbai," people would know that I didn't mean "militants" had staged a march with fiery rhetoric, nor that "partisans" of particular factions had taken part in some sort of unspecified political activity. Where the word terrorism, in its plain meaning, fits, we should not shy away from it. Wikipedia is about facts, not the avoidance of giving offense. RayAYang (talk) 10:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC
 * RayAYang, you have just made up your own definition of terrorism "English language for easily describing the deliberate targeting of undefended, or weakly defended, civilian targets with violence in order to instill fear and hopefully compliance in a target political entity". So those people who include the attack on the Pentagon on 9/11 are mistaken and that was not a terrorist attack because it was against a military target? Does that mean an attack on congress is a terrorist attack because it is against a civilian target but an attack on the White House, the residence of the head of the American military, is not a terrorist attack (based on the US assertion that targeting Saddam, head of his military, was a legitimate US war target)? Does that mean one can not label United Airlines Flight 93 as a terrorist attack as the target was unknown and might have been a military one? The IRA never attacked Londoners to terrorise them (Having survived the Blitz without being terrified there was nothing that the IRA could do that would have come near that) instead their aims were to make the cost of maintaining the status quo ante bellum in Northern Ireland too high for HGM. So does this mean as the motive was not to terrify Londoners that these attacks were therefore not terrorists attacks? --PBS (talk) 10:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not define terrorism. I provided an example of a specific class of activities that are unambiguously considered terrorism, in the descriptive sense, by the overwhelming majority of English language users. This is a subset of the set of activities considered to be terrorism -- there are others that are considered terrorism as well, needless to say, with varying degrees of controversy, which is where the train wreck that is a full definition of the term currently resides. It was not necessary for me to opine on whether every single event that has ever been called terrorism actually is a case of terrorism, for me to point out that terrorism, unmistakably recognizable, does indeed exist. The existence of such a subset is a glaring counterexample to your insistence that terrorism is a purely pejorative term, as opposed to its being a term with a legitimate descriptive purpose in the English language. Ray (talk) 20:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * So when a person uses the term terrorism do you not consider it to be a pejorative term? Have you ever known a state in the last 30 years to describe its actions as terrorism? As to your statement "However fuzzy the definition of terrorism gets around the edges, there is no other word in the English language for easily describing the deliberate targeting of undefended, or weakly defended, civilian targets with violence in order to instill fear and hopefully compliance in a target political entity." So in your opinion was Goebbels correct to call areas bombardment by the RAF and the USAAF in WII terror bombing, from which if follows if ture that that RAF and the USAAF were terrorist organisations? Does this mean that the IRA was not a terrorist organisation because although they targeted civilians as they did not do it to install fear? --PBS (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, PBS, what does my opinion of particular controversies matter? Do you deny that there have been self-described terrorist organizations? That the term terrorist brings to mind a specific subset of activities for which there are no other handy words? That the word is an accurate description of these events? There's nothing in your reply I couldn't, with just a bit of editing, apply to the word "murder" or "assassin." Does that mean you want to ban those words too? What about killer? Kidnapper? Is there a single word in the English language describing generally disapproved activities your logic wouldn't require us to ban? Ray (talk) 19:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Murder is a crime, as is terrorism. Wikipedia should describe convicted murders as such, and the same goes with convicted terrorists (and there are many). When a murderer is not convicted, he is often referred to have been "charged" with murder, often by the police or authorities. Similarly, those terrorists not convicted should be described as "considered" to be terrorist, by whoever is making the charge.VR <font color="Black">talk 01:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The terrorist section needs a home, if not in the style guideline then somewhere else. The issue comes up too often, and is too contentious, to let things develop ad-hoc.  The problem is that the word is quite pejorative but also does have some meaning.  It is inconsistently applied and in many cases not objective.  It may be useful, for example, to describe the Red Brigades a terrorist group to quickly and conveniently place them in context and inform the reader what kind of organization they are, but calling Greenpeace terrorists probably does not help us understand who they are or what they do.  There are political and some practical reasons for the expanding definition of terrorists to including anybody who unlawfully damages anything or anyone for a political purpose.  Now we have eco-terrorists, domestic terrorists, and drug terrorists.  It seems to be more a mater of name calling and political ideology than actually explaining anything.  Are rioters terrorists?  Saboteurs?  Crazy people?  If you call someone a terrorist you can turn opinion against it, and likely get more funding and law enforcement resources.  We have to be careful with that word.Wikidemon (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikidemon, I don't see that that's a problem. If we state accurately and precisely that Charles Manson committed murder, we may turn opinion against him. However, when opinion turning against somebody is a natural consequence of facts objectively and fairly represented through precise use of the English language, that's not a problem. As far as the home question is concerned, I'm wondering whether it'd be wiser to break WP:WTA up into two sections, one on NPOV issues and one on style issues. Ray (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Most tags of murder are not a problem because people have a clear concept of what murder is in most circumstances and it is defined by law. But the type of the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes was still open to being called murder until Sir Michael Wright ruled out that option. In that sad case it will probably be accepted by the majority. But what about the victims of Bloody Sunday (1972)? There is no dispute that the killings took place, but that is about where the agreement stops, whether the Paras were or where not murders is a political label. What about Muhammad al-Durrah -- same thing. Much better to report the facts in a Wikipedia article on these two cases rather than to state in the passive narrative voice that they were either murder or lawful killings (unless one is attributing the accusation or justification for the killings to an authoritative source). Labels become much more difficult when they are one side descriptions and that is reflected in Wikipedia text. For example "Tyrant" and "Massacre" have both been subject to much debate because they do not have precise meanings, and they do carry a pejorative connotations. Take for example the run up to the English Civil War was it an Eleven Years Personal Rule or an Eleven Years' Tyranny -- it depends it you are a Cavalier of a Roundhead. That was some time ago, and the politics of it are not going to spark a civil war, but with more recent events such labels do indicate a political statement eg Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre, Mugabe: Liberation hero turned tyrant. -- PBS (talk) 09:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * PBS, many tags of terrorism are not a problem because people have a clear concept of what terrorism is in most circumstances and it is defined by law and common usage. That there are disputed cases doesn't mean we should ban the tag entirely, merely ask people to exercise caution where there is dispute. Where there isn't, the tag is uncontroversial and should be permitted. That's all I've been saying here. Ray (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * WTA doesn't ban anything. It is a strong recommendation that we avoid the words in it, to ensure that bias doesn't creep in and NPOV suffers. It is a call to stand in attention, and a tool to use in ending edit wars. But a hard prohibition? We can always WP:IAR. If fact, look at my contribs, then look at my points at WT:WTA then look at were in the mainspace I am most currently active, and look at what word is used there without my general objection. It gives you an idea. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW, why is this discussion here and not in WT:WTA? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Dank55 suggested we start one here in the hopes of getting learned opinions from people wise in the ways of POV disputes. That did not prove as successful as might have been hoped, which was one of the reasons I suggested an RFC over at WT:WTA. Ray (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I was hoping to get wider input here but it didn't happen. I'll change the template to point to WT:AVOID. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In a NPOV world, one should watch when they use the word terrorist, but to say to avoid the word at all is ridiculous. It's a word that describes someone who fits a certain kind of characteristics. The word itself cannot be censored. Petrafan007 (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)