Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 36

Fact sheet of India
Talk:India should be of some interest to the regulars of this board. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

ISO 3166-1
From the article lead:
 * "ISO 3166-1 is part of the ISO 3166 standard published by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), and defines codes for the names of countries, dependent territories, and special areas of geographical interest."

The article contains a table that shows some of the elements of each entity in the standard, including the name and numeric and alpha codes. Each row also includes a flag that is not part of the standard, but is there in our article solely as a means of identification and decoration.

There are currently 4 entities for which some editors object to showing a flag, the discussion of which can be found here. Recently, someone re-added the Taiwan flag and I added the other three, along with an explanation clarifying the non-political nature of the standard and the flags being shown. This prompted a revert, but no further discussion, where clearly some is needed.

(My reason for bringing attention to it here is that I believe, by not showing specific flags, we are making a political statement about the legitimacy of those entities, which is not a NPOV. It should be all or none, and it looks better with all.)

—&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 05:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Forgot to add a link to the discussion, which is at Talk:ISO 3166-1. Opinions needed please. —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 01:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Social Programs in the U.S.--Food Stamps and a Conservative POV
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_programs_in_the_United_States

I recently reviewed the article above and came across the Food Stamp section and discovered that someone had included their own POV from The Heritage Foundation where they worked.

I checked all references and discovered the use of Conservative ezines/websites/newspapers which supposedly referenced the USDA in certain areas of usgae of taxpayer money. I found that the articles had re-written the way the USDA actually provides fisal information, that information regarding 'fraud' was a specific money amount 'investigated' for fraud, in 5 states only and not actual fraud cases that had been prosecuted and found guilty.

The use of the phrase "Conservative commentators have argued..." shows a beginning clearly referencing a non-neutral POV, and as such, I removed all information that refered to this one-sided POv.

Someone then revised that edit to include the POV again and changed one referenced article to The Wall Street Journal, which was an editorial that must be paid for in order to review. This is not what I consider a reference that can be used in a Wiki article.

I have re-revised-- to remove the POV again. If I am incorrect about the POV, please advise. I am sure we have been reading a Conservative POV which was one-sided and I belIeve I am correct about the revision.

FYI--I cannot locate the name of the individual who removed my first revision and I dont know if its my laptop but I seem to be missing what I entered into the 'talk' section. BTW the individual who removed my edit, never discussed anything with me on the talk section.

Please advise--Thanks Brattysoul (talk) 04:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Per WP:RSOPINION, editorials are generally not reliable for anything beyond the editor's views. As such, they are generally ok as sources for articles about the editor, but not other articles unless the editorial has gained significant coverage itself. aprock (talk) 05:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I must be thick--how does what you've stated apply to a wiki article that has been weeding out POVs and the POV stated in the artcle regarding the food programs-particularly the food stamp program-has only ONE side stated and has links that are 1-not available 2-are only from one-sided media that contains unsupported "facts" or worse, with a spin from a conservative pov.

Wiki rules state an article must have a neutral pov, and that is not the case with this part of the article and must be removed and NOT replaced while it contains someone elses POV that is not an encylopediac entry. I have shown how not only is it a one-sided conservative POV from a conservative wesite, but that references are not usable.

The blog of the Heritage Foundation with one article does not contain actual facts from the USDA. What has been claimed as a source from the USDA doesnt exist in the way it has been used. THAT is the problem. I actually checked the USDA. What the Heritage Foundation article called 'investigated fraud' does not exist on the USDA in the way that the article claims. THAT is what I stated. REPEATEDLY. As long as the use of unsupported facts are contained in an artcle, or a link in an article cannot be accessed the one-sided POV cannot be used.


 * I am concerned that people may be misunderstanding the policy. Our sources are allowed to state a POV.  What this policy says is that we (as Wikipedia editors and article writers) must be neutral in how we describe what those POV sources say.  If conservative commentators have said something, it is not necessarily POV for us to note that they have said it (indeed, it can be POV for us to ignore this fact).  The key is HOW we mention it... we should present POV opinions as being opinion, and not present them as being accepted fact.  An opinion can be based on inaccurate information, but it is an opinion nevertheless. Blueboar (talk) 14:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * If conservative commentators have said something, it is not necessarily POV for us to note that they have said it Per WP:RSOPINION opinions are generally not reliable for anything but the author's views. Adding a view just because someone published an op-ed somewhere is an example of misusing WP:PRIMARY sources, and WP:UNDUE.  If the weight of that editors view is established through secondary sources, then it might merit inclusion. aprock (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Corporate involvement in article - ReachOut Healthcare America
Hi! Is it okay if I list articles in which I suspect companies may be trying to whitewash their pages? I noticed some edits at ReachOut Healthcare America which included OR rebuttals of sourced content from articles about the company. There is a legal case involved, so it may get contentious Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 04:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please watch the edits by 66.234.240.133 in the article - It seems like a company editor based on the language inserted into the article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ReachOut_Healthcare_America&action=history WhisperToMe (talk) 22:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * At User_talk:66.234.240.133 I am critiquing his edits. They seem to be the same as the edits from the previous username. There are some tweaks I would like to make to the content that I wrote before his edits, but in general it seems like most of his/her edits are flawed/company POV edits. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Edinburgh Academy
An IP removed material at Edinburgh Academy stating that "In an August 2012 analysis of Scottish Independent Schools by the percentage of 'A' grades awarded for the 'Higher Grade' examination, the Academy came second bottom of independent schools in Edinburgh with 34% of passes at A grade." I replaced it and it was then removed with an edit summary saying that " across to me as negative POV - especially when the quoted source is an article saying how well Scottish independent schools have done. And why pick out this particular statistic from no doubt many others which are presumably available?". I can see the point, but this school did particularly badly and we commonly do include exam results in school article. What do others think? Dougweller (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ideally there would be a common approach to presenting the exam results across all Scottish schools. That's what we have to do on WikiProject Universities. Otherwise schools will cherry pick the results that look best for them, or in this case someone's cherry picking the worst results for that school, possibly as sour grapes or perhaps from rivalry. But I'm not up to speed on how results are usually presented in Scotland. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It may be good to put it on Wikidata (when it is active), so that the info can easily be copied to other languages WhisperToMe (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality of treatment of the awards of the Iron Cross and Karageorge Star to Pavle Djurisic
On the talk page of Pavle Djurisic the neutrality of the treatment of two awards made to the article subject is disputed. There is a separate issue which is not being discussed here which relates to the reliability of one of the sources used for the award of the Iron Cross. I am just flagging that so that involved editors can focus on the NPOV aspect.

Djurisic was awarded the Order of the Star of Karađorđe, a high award of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, by the Yugoslav government in exile. The award is sourced but the degree of the award and date of award are not. The award is currently mentioned in the infobox and in the aftermath section (it was put there as it is not known when it was awarded).

Djurisic was also awarded the Iron Cross 2nd Class, an iconic but fairly lowly award of Nazi Germany, by the German commander in Montenegro in October 1944. The award and the date of award are sourced. The award is mentioned in the lead, infobox and in the chronologically appropriate section of the article. It is illustrated by a copy of the entitlement document and a image of a newspaper in which it was announced.

The rationale behind the current mentions of both awards in the article is as follows-

1. The Order of the Star of Karađorđe was a Yugoslav award which was awarded to a number of prominent Chetnik leaders, it is unknown how many were awarded during the war and or in what degrees. It is unknown what degree of the award was bestowed on Djurisic or when. There are no images available of the entitlement document or any announcement of its award.

2. The Iron Cross 2nd Class was an award of Nazi Germany (4.5 million were awarded during WW2), but Djurisic was the only known Chetnik recipient of the award and the only Chetnik known to have received any German award. He was also a notable Chetnik collaborator with both the Italians and then the Germans. The award is also particularly notable for that reason. The class and date of the award are known. There are images available of the entitlement document and the announcement in a local paper.

This is a Featured Article which I assisted to get to that class. As a result I try to maintain a stewardship role in relation to the information included and consider I have dealt with the awards in a neutral way, taking into account the uniqueness of the award of the Iron Cross. My request is for a consensus here on whether the current treatment of the two awards provides a NPOV and if not, I ask for suggestions on how that would be achieved. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What is the rationale behind the perceived lack of NPOV? Both awards are mentioned and there isn't a dispute about the events themselves so what is the focus of the NPOV dispute?-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 07:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose that the Star is not mentioned in the lead and there are two (conjoined) images regarding the Iron Cross. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So, an issue of balance and I suppose a perception that the relative level of the awards within their own awards systems is not being taken into account? Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi all, I would appreciate a couple more editors providing some guidance here. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of things you forgot to mention here:
 * Information about Iron Cross award is based on controversial Cohen's work and disputed
 * The information about when Karadjordje star was awarded exists. It was after Durmitor operation conducted in August 1944 as explained in work of Tomasevich (page 410): "At the end of some two weeks of fighting, in what Yugoslav historians call Operation Durmitor (otherwise the Montenegrin phase of the German Operation Rubezahl) There was no other Operation Durmitor. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Al-Ahbash
''Wanted! Few Neutral Wikipedia editors who will help with a version of Al-Ahbash page which presents the information written by the Al-Ahbash as well as its opponents objectively under the light of pertinent academic sources and Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines''

Please, bear in mind that the subject of the Al-Ahbash article is extremely controversial.

Thank you and Good luck. McKhan (talk)
 * Note: The article is currently protected (by me) after large amounts of edit-warring between multiple editors. A quick perusal of User:McKhan's edits will show that he has done pretty much nothing else but edit-war on this article.  So yes, neutral editors are required, although I am unconvinced that either side is likely to agree with each other on this issue. Black Kite (talk) 16:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia and its admins never cease to amaze me. So much so for NEUTRAL, THOROUGH and FAIR admin-ship that an admin is polluting the water from the get-go when an editor is making a serious attempt to have some un-involved editors involved into the matter. I still hope that some un-involved editors come along and help in due course. McKhan (talk)
 * No, that's called informing people of the facts of the matter, which are easily confirmed by looking at your contributions. Neutral editors are of course welcome at that article, as I said - I was merely pointing out that you aren't one, as indeed most of the other people involved in the edit war aren't. Black Kite (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI: I am NOT the author of ANY of the versions posted on that page. How did you arrive at that page? You still haven't answered that. Have you? McKhan (talk)
 * My talk page is on her watchlist. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Correct. Since Darkness Shines' talkpage has been attacked on numerous occasions by a banned editor (whom I have blocked a number of socks of), I always look into it when other editors post anything attacking them, in case they are another sockpuppet of that user (which was not the case on this occasion). Black Kite (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Here comes yet another non-neutral and involved editor and the author of current version of that page. I knew it that it had to do something with you. (There still remain plenty of unanswered questions. For example: Why would she protect the page arbitrarily when there has been no request made to do so on the pertinent Wikipedia noticeboard? Did you request her to do that behind-the-scenes by e-mailing her? Did she notice that I haven't touched that page for several weeks before jumping the gun and accusing me of edit-warring? Did she pay attention to the fact that I have had very long and intensive discussions with the other involved editors? Did she notice that you have written the current version of that page arbitrarily and without seeking consensus and since that version is up on that page you have been quite vehemently reverting it back to your version should someone (i.e.  Sakimonk) dare to contribute to that article? Did she take a note of the fact that you only posted on my talk page about "edit-warring" and yet you did not post anything at all whatsoever on the other involved editors?) Since you have arrived, I would strongly recommend to refrain from rehashing the same old accusations over and over again and focus upon the content should you decide to go any further. By taking Magog_the_Ogre's advice, I am making a very serious attempt here to have some NEUTRAL, KNOWLEDGEABLE and UN-INVOLVED editors involved. McKhan (talk)
 * The two actions available to me to prevent further disruption were (a) protecting the article, or (b) blocking you. I would have thought that you'd have been glad that I took the first option. Black Kite (talk) 22:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not qualified to evaluate User:McKhan's edits—I know nothing about this organization.  However, I do have several observations to make here.   First of all, the claim that McKhan has been edit warring is not a neutral claim given that it is being advanced in favor of another editor who has been doing the same thing.   It seems clear that User:Darkness Shines has not been participating in consensus-building on this article, and that McKhan has, and that to the extent that there is a consensus, the consensus favors the McKhan version.   At the same time, the back-and-forth accusations on the talk page reflect poorly on all editors.   I wish I could just whack you all with the shame stick and get you to stop calling each other names and start cooperating, but I suppose that's impossible.   Be that as it may, the admin action here was inappropriate and non-neutral.  Darkness should stop edit warring and do concise edits that are justified by references and debated on the talk page.   McKhan should do the same.   It doesn't matter who starts, but any editor who does a mass revert of this article again should be permanently banned from editing it.   And the admin who does that should not be User:Black Kite, who has admitted to being non-neutral.  I would argue that Black Kite's actions here are grounds for censure. Abhayakara (talk) 18:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? McKhan has for seven years edit warred using socks to keep that article at a stub. I got there from the 3RR notice board and rewrote the article in user space due to the edit warring of McKhan and his sockpuppets. Perhaps you should look into the histor yof the article a little more before flinging accusations around? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In fact here it is, 6 September 2005 McKhan's first edit to this article. And here is it just before I got there 2 April 2012 seven years that article was kept as a stub by MCKhan and his socks. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I warned you to focus upon the content and to refrain from rehashing the same accusations over and over again on this noticeboard as I am making a very serious attempt to have some NEUTRAL, KNOWLEDGEABLE and UN-INVOLVED editors involved as per the advice of Magog_the_Ogre. Since you didn't refrain, thus, I would like to let you know that I am pretty sick and tired of your "crap insults", to borrow your own words, and constant bullying me around. Furthermore, to borrow own words again, you have done a very "piss poor" job by "re-writing" that article through cherry-picking the academic sources and then indulging into edit-warring with the other involved editors by reverting it back to your own version again and again using the clout of "no consensus" and yet you sought no consensus before making the massive changes to that article. FYI: I did NOT keep that page as a "stub". I have NEVER been the author of ANY of the versions posted on that page. That page has been under constant attack by the proponents of the Al-Ahbash to convert it into an advertisement for their cause. With reference to this edit summary of yours, going forward, your talk is also on my watch-list. Should you like to help with the Al-Ahbash page without converting this noticeboard into a battle-ground' (i.e. Darkness Shines vs. McKhan''), then you are more than welcome to do so by focusing upon the content otherwise let the other un-involved editors come along and help. McKhan (talk)
 * Bullshit, I had never heard of this group until it came up on the 3rr notice board. I have not cherry picked sources nor edit warred. You however have, for seven years, because you are a SPA. The diffs speak for themselves, you with your socks kept that article at a stub for seven bloody years. You cannot deny the facts, anyone can go look at that articles history and see for themselves. Do not make accusations against me without proof, where have I cherry picked sources? Your ongoing quest for the truth is unbelievable. Your hatred of this group obvious to all, you should have been banned when caught socking, you should have been banned after the attacks you made on myself, you should be banned for being a SPA. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I know that you have tried several venues to get me banned from Wikipedia but the good news is that there are still some considerate and understanding admins exist on Wikipedia who can see through the matters. In response to you comment "Your hatred of this group obvious to all", all I have to say that I hold no "hated" towards that group Having said that, I would like to reiterate, "By taking Magog_the_Ogre's advice, I am making a very serious attempt here to have some NEUTRAL, KNOWLEDGEABLE and UN-INVOLVED editors involved...Should you like to help with the Al-Ahbash page without converting this noticeboard into a battle-ground (i.e. Darkness Shines vs. McKhan), then you are more than welcome to do so by focusing upon the content ( not McKhan) otherwise let the other un-involved editors come along and help ." McKhan (talk)


 * I beg your pardon? In what way am I non-neutral here? The fact that I have previously blocked socks of a banned editor is utterly irrelevant.  Explain yourself. Black Kite (talk) 20:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It may be tough to fix this article, because the only people who seem to have any knowledge also have very strong opinions. One option is to put on full protection for a period of time, and only let changes in using editprotect for edits that win consensus on the talk page. Another option is to decide that the article is under WP:ARBPIA (it does have a reference work that mentions 'Palestinians' and 'jihad') in which case admins would have more options for article restrictions (such as 1RR) to try to get things going in the right direction. EdJohnston (talk) 20:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have already protected it. Clearly, judging from the above hysteria, in the Wrong Version, but that's fairly normal. Black Kite (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * User:Darkness Shines, if you are sincere about wanting to make the article more neutral, you need do nothing more than start editing it in the way I suggested: make your edits brief, back them with sources, and discuss differences on the talk page. Without engaging in ad hominem accusations.   If User:McKhan responds with ad hominem attacks, you win, and McKhan gets banned, because it becomes obvious who is the NPOV editor.   Right now, it's not obvious.   Obviously, the same advice applies to McKhan.
 * User:Black Kite, your lack of neutrality in this dispute is evidenced by the fact that you have a watch on User:Darkness Shines' talk page, which indicates that you have a protective interest toward Darkness Shines, and that when you followed up on what you found on that talk page, your action favored Darkness Shines over McKhan.  Either separately would have been perfectly reasonable; the two together indicate bias.   Everyone has bias—it's nothing to be ashamed of.   But as an administrator, you are obliged to be extremely careful not to allow your bias to affect your administrative actions; doing so can cause a lot of harm to Wikipedia.
 * User:McKhan, please don't take what I am saying here as an indication that I agree with you.  Your rhetoric here is largely ad hominem, and while your indignation is understandable, it is not justified.   Please stop accusing people of having thoughts you cannot know.   Don't say "you aren't neutral."   Don't say "I can't believe people are behaving so badly."   These are arguments ad homimen: arguments that attack the person with whom you are debating, rather than attacking what they have said.   If what they have said is wrong, explain why.   Give reasons that are relevant to Wikipedia.  For instance, if you think an editor is exhibiting NPOV with respect to your article, show why that editor's edits are wrong by pointing out problems with the sources that they are using, or by showing that they are cherry picking sources, giving undue weight to sources that say one thing over equally reliable sources that say another.   Do not attempt to remove opposing viewpoints from the article if they are sustained by significant reliable sources; instead, give your side of the story using reliable sources of your own. Abhayakara (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This article is now neutral which is why the article has not been vandalized for several months by ip users. Mckhan and his sock puppets guarded an inaccurate version for almost a decade and since he would not let me edit, i had to use several wiki venues to put this article under spotlight. Editing an infobox is considered POV to mckhan based on discussion. Abdullah al-Harari (leader of ahbash) has the same issue, it has been kept a stub for years because of Mckhan and his socks so its quite obvious he may have a personal vendetta against this group and its leader. The current article has reliable sources so i dont see how its not neutral and mckhan must participate in discussion under brd without going off topic and raving about other things Baboon43 (talk) 21:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Right then, McKhan, what it the article is not neutral in your opinion? Keep it brief please. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * @Abhayakara i believe you have things twisted, if an admin comes along and protects a page it does not mean that they are taking sides..as clearly seen in the edit history it wasnt just mckhan and darkness shines that were reverting so protection would be necessary to stop edit warring..i also suggest new editors to look at the history of the page and discussion on talk pages instead of just joining discussion blindly. Baboon43 (talk) 22:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Since I see some progress here, thus, as a first step (using the step-by-step approach), I have proposed Executive Summary on the Ahbash Talk page. Please, feel welcome to comment and be NEUTRAL and FAIR as this is an extremely controversial topic . Thank you all, specially, for those who have Cool-Calm-and-Neutral heads on their shoulders. McKhan (talk)


 * Asserting that an article is neutral doesn't make it neutral.  If McKhan has engaged in sockpuppetry, accuse them of sockpuppetry in an appropriate venue, not here.   If what you say is accurate (which I am neither disputing nor affirming) then I can understand your frustration, but you aren't handling it well.   If McKhan really is protecting the article as you say, and this isn't a legitimate dispute, then all you have to do is stop edit warring the entire article and stick to making small edits that neutral editors can easily evaluate on their own merits.   If McKhan continues to revert these edits, then it will be easy to make the case that these edits reverts are POV. Abhayakara (talk) 02:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

 Methodology / Ground-rules (Proposed) 

Given that the topic is extremely controversial, the following Methodology / Ground-rules I would like to propose assuming that only independent , peer-reviewed academic and verifiable sources will be used:


 * The article should present
 * a). What Al-Ahbash has to say about them
 * b). What the independent, peer-reviewed academic and verifiable sources have to say about the Al-Ahbash  and last but not the least 
 * c). What the opponents of Al-Ahbash have to say about them.


 * It is extremely crucial that the NEUTRAL and UN-INVOLVED editors keep an eye on the edits made by the editors and intervene as soon as they find a tangible cause for intervention. Please, make sure to be NEUTRAL, FAIR and JUST as it is an extremely controversial topic.
 * The ultimate goal should be to have NPOV compliant version of the Al-Ahbash page.

That would be wonderful if there are more NEUTRAL and UN-INVOLVED editors involved into this process. Thank you. McKhan (talk)
 * You posted the same exact comment on the article's talk page, it would perhaps be better to post it to one location and then direct the conversation to the one page, the article's talk page for instance. - SudoGhost 03:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The Talk Page hasn't worked so far. That's why I brought this matter to this noticeboard as per Magog_the_Ogre's advice. I would like to make sure that the methodology / ground rules and other matters have been agreed upon before moving back to the Talk Page. And most importantly, I think (but I could be wrong) that this noticeboard might be able to facilitate the help of some NEUTRAL and UN-INVOLVED editors whose involvement in the process is absolutely paramount at this juncture. Thank you. McKhan (talk)


 * User:McKhan, my experience with trying to get editorial help is that in general, you won't get much, because nobody cares about the article enough to really grok the situation.  The fact that you have an editor who disagrees strongly with your position may seem like a curse, but it isn't—the two of you could collaborate to produce something better and more fair than either of you would produce separately.   So don't just hang around waiting for a rescue that will never come.   Rise to the occasion.   Be the change that you want to see in the world. Abhayakara (talk) 06:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * McKhan, what in the article is in your view not neutral. If you do not tell us then it cannot be fixed. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but I am very busy nowadays and should have more time during the weekend. However, here is an example:


 * Darkness Shines's version states:


 * "According to Gary Gambill the AICP arrived in the Lebanon in the 1950's were he says "they blended Sunni and Shi'a theology with Sufi spiritualism into a doctrinal eclecticism that preached nonviolence and political quietism".[4]"


 * Given that Darkness Shines adds "Al-Ahbash beliefs are an interpretation of Islam combining elements of Sunni Islam and Sufism" under "Religious Beliefs", nevertheless, this sentence still implies that it is "According to Gary Gambill" only and the structure of the sentence incorrectly portrays that the AICP arrived in Lebanon in the 1950s (It is incorrect as AICP was founded in Lebanon, thus, it never "arrived" from anywhere else albeit its Shaykh - who later on took over the AICP - came from Ethiopia.). It is important to note that only Gary Gambill has been used as the source.


 * Let's compare this one to Sakimonk's version which does not only provide more than one source, unlike User:Darkness_Shines:Darkness_Shines's version, under "Religious beliefs" but also elaborate in much more detail by quoting Ahbash's Shaykh's own books and other material along-with other academic sources:


 * "Shaykh Habashi's syncretic teachings draw upon a conflation of different branches of Islamic theology, and thereby elude unambiguous classification. However publicly the group claims to be in accordance with sunni sufi teachings; in an address to his followers, Shaykh Habashi stated that "[w]e are Ash'aris and Shafi'is. The Ash'ariyya is the basis of our belief, and the Shfi'iyya is our daily code." [2]|undefined"


 * "Shaykh Habashi in his books and lectures blend[17]|undefined [18]|undefined [19]|undefined [20]|undefined [21]|undefined elements of Sunni and Shi'a theological doctrines with Sufi spiritualism by supporting the legitimacy of Imam Ali and his descendents while condemning Mu'awiyya, the caliph and governor of Damascus, and his son Yazid as "seditious" thus adopting Shi'ite tradition whereas setting apart from all other Sunni jurists.[1]|undefined [8]|undefined [22]|undefined [9]|undefined [23]|undefined."


 * And last but not the least, Darkness Shines's version does not shed the light that what the opponents of Ahbash has to say about the Ahbash which is essential to maintain the equilibrium of NPOV as we are dealing with an extremely controversial topic. Thank you. McKhan (talk)


 * firstly ibn taymiyah is not the mainstream scholar of islam so because ahbash disagrees with him doesnt make them shia. as that article "a sufi response" gets their shia dimension from. the conflation of different branches sums up sufism already..there is no orthodox form of sufism so i dont know what that source means by "they are not in accordance with sufi sunni teachings" and as discussed they self identify as sufi. Baboon43 (talk) 09:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * With reference to very long and extensive discussions with you on the Ahbash Talk page, it is NOT the question whether Ibn_Taymiyah is "mainstream" or not (Al-Ahbash are NOT mainstream either.), the main question is "Whether the Ahbash and their Shaykh blend Sunnis and Shia beliefs or not?" and the answer is abundantly and categorically clear under the light of their Shakyh's own lectures and material[17]|undefined [18]|undefined [19]|undefined [20]|undefined [21]|undefined and under the light of scores of other academic and verifiable sources[1]|undefined [8]|undefined [22]|undefined [9]|undefined [23]|undefined that they do. Thus, it should be included in that article. Thank you. McKhan (talk)
 * The article already says that. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Your version does NOT specify that HOW the Al-Ahbash blend Sunni and Shia beliefs. Furthermore, your version ONLY quotes (i.e cherry-pick) Gary Gambill despite the fact that there are plethora of academic and verifiable sources which shed way more light on the topic than Gary Gambill. We need some un-invloved, knowledgable, neutral and impartial editors here. McKhan (talk)


 * The source is wrong it says ahbash condemns "the caliph" the caliph was not muwaiyah it was ali so ahbash did not condemn the caliph see Battle of Siffin. Sunnis agree ali was the caliph its just that they dont discuss this but ahbash does which puts them into the sufi column Baboon43 (talk) 01:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * There is just NOT one source. There are plenty of verifiable and academic (i.e. Harvard University Press, Oxfor University Press) sources[1]|undefined [8]|undefined [22]|undefined [9]|undefined [23]|undefined - in addition to Al-Ahbash's own material plus Shaykh's own lectures[17]|undefined [18]|undefined [19]|undefined [20]|undefined [21]|undefined - which describes EXACTLY that HOW the Al-Ahbash blend Sunni and Shia beliefs. I would like to reiterate that we need some un-invloved, knowledgable, neutral and impartial editors here. McKhan (talk)
 * Let's verifiable, elaborate and academic sources speak for themselves:
 * Rubin, Barry (2009). Guide to Islamist Movements. M.E. Sharpe. p. 322. ISBN 978-0765617477. ("As explained on al-Ahbash's own Web site, his system mixes elements of Sunni and Shi'a theological doctrines with Sufi spiritualism .")
 * Rubin, Barry (2009). Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict, and Crisis. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 139. ISBN 0230623069. ("...Shaykh Abdullah al-Hirari, an Islamic scholar of East African origins (al-Ahbash literally means "the Ethiopians") who immigrated to Lebanon in 1950, the movement blended Sunni and Shi'a theology with Sufi spiritualism... ")
 * Rougier, Bernard (2007). Everyday jihad: the rise of militant Islam among Palestinians in Lebanon. Harvard University Press. p. 115. ISBN 978-0674025295. ("By describing Mu'awiyya, the governor of Damascus, as "seditious" and taking the side of Ali, his adversary, Shaykh al-Hirari adopts the Shi'ite tradition of paying special respect to certain members of the Prophet's family--Ali, Fatima, Hasan, and Husaysn--while condemning the caliph Mu'awiyya and his son Yazid. The Ahbash thereby reject the dominant values of their religious community; they break with Sunni tradition by granting symbolic concession to "Alid legitimism" (in the words of Henri Laoust and P. K. Hitri) in the Lebanese context, where tensions between Sunnis and Shi'ites is particularly sharp.")
 * The World Almanac of Islamism: 2011 (" His school of thought mixes elements of Sunni and Shi'a theological doctrines with Sufi spiritualism ....accept the legitimacy of the Imam Ali (the Shi’a doctrine of legitimacy) and of his sons Hassan and Hussein; uphold the teachings of Hussein's son, Zayn al-Abidin...")
 * Marshall, Paul; Shea, Nina (2011). Silenced: How Apostasy and Blasphemy Codes are Choking Freedom Worldwide. Oxford University Press, USA. p. 356. ISBN 0199812284. (" Al-Ahbash combines Sunni and Shia elements and is Sufi in outlook. ")
 * Dossier: Al-Ahbash (April 2001) (" The Ahbash's belief system mixes elements of Sunni and Shi'ite theological doctrines with Sufi spiritualism . Supporting the legitimacy of the Imama of Ali, and of his sons Hasan and Hussein, and upholding the teachings of Imam Hussein's son, Zayn al-Abidin. They believe that fighting on Imam Ali's side against Muawiyah was a duty and a Sunna. In this, al-Ahbash set themselves apart from all other Sunni jurists and are closer to Shi'ite Islam.")
 * Let some un-invloved, knowledgable, neutral and impartial editors contribute to the aritcle. McKhan (talk)
 * The article already says this. It is the first line of the Religious beliefs section. Darkness Shines (talk) 05:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Your version does NOT elaborate enough. McKhan (talk)

Censorship for Politicians ?
I have noticed certain articles about politicians getting the Royal Treatment:"King can do no wrong". All "criticism sections" on these politicians have been censored by reverting.

a partial list of these Articles: do we allow one-sided articles on Wikipedia ? don't these articles violate WP:NPOV ?

I personally have not argued with any of the editors, but reading the Articles' talk pages and their archives, I don't think it would be of any use.--Ne0 (talk) 09:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Criticism sections are not a good idea, instead all points of view should be built into the article as it goes along. What the articles you've listed seem to share is a lack of detail about the political positions of the subjects. It would be good to add sections on Views or Political stance, or similar. The articles on Nehru and Indira Gandhi should make more use of academic historical research. Have a look at Featured articles on politicians to see how they handle neutrality (assuming we do have some FA on politicians). Itsmejudith (talk),
 * I'm with Judith on this (I think this is the second time today I used that exact phrase). If there is relevent criticism of something a politician has done, it should be incorporated alongside the text describing the event so criticized, not isolated by itself in its own section.  Thus, you could say something like "John Politician enacted sweeping bureaucratic reforms and reorganized the apparatus of state.  Jane Socialcritic and others have criticized this move as ultimately promoting cronyism by John Politician, putting his own friends and supporters in key positions"  That would be the appropriate way to handle it.  Segregating criticism into its own section give WP:UNDUE weight to it.  We rarely create entire sections for "praise", and yet for some reason there is a real push to integrate entire isolated sections of "criticism" which are divorced from the text.  Also, the criticism should be widespread and commonly expressed, not a fringe viewpoint, per WP:UNDUE also.  Not every critic's opinion bears mentioning, and not all criticism merits mentioning in articles.  Only that which is so prevalent in the mainstream, respected scholarship that Wikipedia would be remiss not to include it.  -- Jayron  32  17:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The articles I am talking about do have separate sections for praise/honors/Commemoration, but none for criticism/controversy, which is why I called them one-sided/POV. So the advice, as I understand it, is to integrate both praise and criticism back into the article ? --Ne0 (talk) 07:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I would seperate "awards and honors" section from the article. It can be helpful to list the decorations and awards a person has received in their life, if they have received a lot of them.  So, things like medals awarded, prizes won, etc. isn't really "praise", its just information which is useful to note in list format.  However, if there is an entire section which just collects accounts whereby people have praised the person in writing, yeah, that should integreated into the text as appropriate or removed if it isn't.  -- Jayron  32  15:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

UK wealth tax proposal
Regarding "Lib Dem conference: Clegg promises to push for wealth tax," 23 September 2012, BBC and "A 20% wealth tax on the mega rich would raise up to £800bn," 25 September 2012, New Statesman, would someone with insight into the workings of the UK coalition government please say whether this is noteworthy enough to include as a proposal in Wealth tax yet? I realize that this is more of a subject matter question on the workings of the UK coalition government than a NPOV policy question, but I asked at WP:RDH and they sent me here. &mdash; Cup co  07:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Third Party Reliable Sources for 'Criticism' Purposes
Hi,

I am wondering what type of sources qualify for third-party reliable sources when it comes to criticism of a figure. For example in Criticism of Muhammad, the opinion of 20th century Christian missionaries are allowed in the article even though one might think of the two faiths as competitors. My question then is whether I can use a pro-intelligent design's opinion for criticism of a pro-Darwinism. To be specific, take for example Steve Fuller who is a professor of sociology and happens to be a fan of intelligent design. In the book "Religion and the new atheism: A critical appraisal" published by Brill he writes the following about Richard Dawkins on page 65:

"In the notorious but revealing final scene in Ben Stein's pro-intelligent design film, Expelled (2008), Dawkins is caught musing that in light of the complex logic on display in the genetic code, it is entirely possible that it was seeded by an alien life-form. While hardly a confession of faith, Dawkins' admission touch-kicks the question of life's origins into a zone where the theologians and physicists trying to peer into the mind of God rub shoulders with earthbound biologists and seekers for extraterrestrial life. Implicit in Dawkins' admission is a reluctance to accept the standard Darwinian line that life boot-strapped its way out of the primordial soup"

I would like to know if the sole fact that Steve Fuller is a pro-ID and has voluntarilly interviewed in the documentory Expelled, makes his criticism unreliable. Thank you.--24.94.18.234 (talk) 14:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * We do need to be very careful when it comes to criticism of living people. A lot depends on exactly how you phrase the information.  A biased source would usually be considered unreliable for a statement of fact, but might be considered reliable for a statement as to the opinion or beliefs of the author.  The next question is whether that opinion is significant enough to mention, given the context of a specific article.  Or, to put it in Wikipedia policy language... would mentioning the author's opinion give that opinion WP:UNDUE weight in the context of the article.  Could you expand and explain a) which article are talking about, and b) exactly how you wish to incorporate Fuller's opinion into that article?   Blueboar (talk) 15:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What the IP user is not mentioning (and keep in mind he's bordering on WP:TE by trying to force in criticism into Richard Dawkins now) is that Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is entirely a hack job of Quote mining and gained most of their interviews by lying to the participants about what the movie was and was about, and no manor of secondary sources quoting Expelled will make Expelled anymore reliable... — raeky  t  20:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to see exactly how this is "criticism". Dawkins says that material that formed part of the genetic code could have entered earth from outside. Stuff enters earth from outside all the time. There's nothing mystical about this, nor does it necessarily imply that UFOs landed with silver-suited green men bearing test-tubes. It's entirely consistent with Darwinism. And Dawkins himself says that the in such a "highly unlikely" scenario it would still be necessary to explain how those life-forms came into being. I don't see this as relevant. If it's a criticism that's been made by other notable commentators it might just be worth mentioning, but the "point", such as it is, is made in such a convoluted and confused way, I doubt that this actual quotation is useful. Paul B (talk) 23:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's also quoted out of context, the answer he's giving isn't to the question the movie asked... the movie is complete rubbish and misleading. — raeky  t  01:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Abortion-related question
I'm working on the article Forced abortion of Feng Jianmei, about a Chinese woman subjected to a coerced, late-term abortion. The lede includes the sentence "On June 11, Feng's family posted graphic pictures of her dead child online." I'm considering changing 'dead child' to 'aborted fetus,' as it seems more neutral, if less...humane. But I just wanted to inquire whether there is a standard practice here. Would both terms be acceptable, or there a precedent that establishes that one is preferred? Homunculus (duihua) 18:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We haven't got a standard practice. "Fetus" does not imply that the baby was born alive, as "child" might. It seems a little more neutral. "Dead fetus" maybe, rather than "aborted fetus". The usual approach is "go with what the sources say" but in this case you are unlikely to have a large number of neutral sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds pretty reasonable. This article could also use some extra eyes -- it seems to carry an extreme level of detailed information presented as fact, while some of it should probably be treated a bit more tentatively given the sources.  a13ean (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Kerry Bentivolio
50.4.162.0 is edit-warring over changing "Describes himself as pro-life"-> "Opposes reproductive freedom". Seems like pretty clear POV to me, and a borderline BLP violation on a politician during election season to boot. Glaucus (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * User:Glaucus continues to insert his personal bias into the article in spite of numerous warnings against it.--35.16.0.174 (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I've rephrased the wording with this edit to reform the BLP and NPOV concerns. How's that?  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I've expanded it to include his full position. Rather than worrying about terminological matters like "pro-life" or "reproductive freedom", if we simply report on what his campaign website says, readers can work out exactly what he thinks rather than what the label says. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

108.28.53.169
Unarchiving this because the problem is still readily apparent.

Could someone with more energy and patience for it please take a look at Special:Contributions/108.28.53.169? He seems to primarily do NPOV edits. Thanks. —Kerfuffler 22:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I sampled a handful of the most recent edits and didn't see anything even vaguely troubling. Got specific diffs? &mdash; Cup co  01:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This account is almost entirely used to purplify prose; e.g.:          .  Worse, it's doing so even in cases where it makes no sense and/or is ungrammatical:   .  This really needs to stop, but the user has not replied to either warnings or a direct statement about the issue on their talk page.  Virtually all of their edits have been reverted, only some of them by me. —$Kerfuffler forcemeat horsemeat$ 21:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * This is not a NPOV problem, it's vandalism. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to calling it that. I just want it to stop! —$Kerfuffler forcemeat horsemeat$ 08:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think bringing it up on WP:AN/I is the thing to do if it continues. (There hasn't been anything since the 25th). --OpenFuture (talk) 09:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Alan Jones (radio broadcaster)
The BLP article of Alan Jones (radio broadcaster) has had a neutrality flag on the Controversy section since October 2011. This section comprises roughly half the article length and consists of a string of "news item" subsections listing incidents within Jones' broadcasting career. Jones is a radio "shock jock" and his schtick is to get up the noses of people holding leftist political views. He is blatantly biased. He is also Australia's most popular and influential radio presenter.

Although there have been some recent positive edits, the section as a whole is problematic. I quote from WP:WEIGHT:"An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news."

Discussion on the article's neutrality has been ongoing since 2007, and most recently in this discussion initiated a few days ago. Those arguing most strenuously for the preservation and suitability of the section are possibly best described here as possessing noses of the sort which Jones gets up, and I feel that this article is being used as a platform for some private retaliation.

If, for example, a person is ultimately found innocent of a charge, do we need to list each incident? I quote here from the lede:"His on-air conduct has attracted numerous adverse findings from Australia's media regulators, and one on-air incident resulted in Jones being charged with contempt of court, of which he was found guilty of breaching the law but the charge was dismissed."

The basic argument of those pushing for retention is "Well, he's a controversial public figure, paid to generate controversy - duh" but in Wikipedia terms, far more controversial figures like Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin have no "Criticism and Controversy" section, with such material being a natural part of the overall structure. You cannot get much more controversial than mad dictators responsible for the deaths of millions, so why should this far less notable person have half his biographical article devoted to it?

I find Jones a vigorous opponent of causes I support, abhorrent, a travesty of objective journalism and a pin-up boy for the face of political bias but we do not have to descend to a similar level in our encyclopaedic treatment of him.

I'd like the advice of editors possessing fresh and unbiased eyes. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Pete, your'e forum shopping, having convinced nobody of your point of view on the article's Talk page. And you really must look up Godwin's Law. HiLo48 (talk) 01:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Quirk's Exception applies, of course. The talk page thread I commenced was flagged as a precursor to the subject being raised here. It's good to see some solid surgery being performed on the article. It is always good to get more editors involved, and I shall provide some assistance in other threads here to help out other editors seeking fresh eyes. What goes around comes around. --Pete (talk) 11:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Udo Kier, article about the actor
There are lots of mistakes in the English article about Udo Kier, also very subjective point of view, no neutral position. For example, it's written that Udo Kier is German actor while he lives and works both in Germany and America since 1991 so he is German and American/Hollywood actor. Also written that he is "known primarily for his work in horror and exploitation movies". Known for whom, I wonder? For horror fans? He did more than 200 films and only very few among them are horror or "exploitation"(by the way, what is "exploitation movie"? it must be "sex exploitation"what is also not true as he did no more than 5-6 films like that). Udo Kier did many serious films. Then there is very offensive quote by the frontman of music band Korn that contains word "fuck" and so on..Then Udo Kier never said that he is homosexual! Is it possible to add him into the "Gay actors" page?? Then he never was "protege" of Fassbinder, it's an old myth, he was discovered in London by another director and did about 10 films before to work with Fassbinder and they were more friends than collegues, Udo did mostly episodes in his films. Then Udo kier play sonly in episodes in Lars von Trier movies after "Europe" film whicj was in early 90s...and many other mistakes! Unfortunatelly, user called "Joshmaul" didn't accept my editing, almost no one change I did. It looks that there is personal hateness towards Udo kier or probably even homophobic. Please help to edite Udo Kier page correctly! For the moment the text of the page based mostly on one old article/review which has nothing to do with reality and was many times disproved by Udo Kier himself in his interviews. I sent links to many interviews with the actor where he says the true about himself but almost nothing was written and accepted by Joshmaul and almost no change done, even in a movie title which I took from IMDB, now there are lots of mistakes! What to do?? Who is "Joshmaul"? Your official editor? How to write true (based on Kier's resent Interviews and IMDB bio) in Wiki????? The interview about his childhood and work with Paul Morrissey (information was not accepted by your editor)

The interview where he talk true about Fassbinder and their relationships! My edits wasn't accepted!

Another interview whre he tells about Fassbinder and how he (Udo Kier) in real came into cinema, about how he made debut!

Almost nothing was accepted by "Joushmaul", he also can't prove am I represent Udo kier or not, and it's not his business at all. i never says that I'm representative myself, I said that some information was passed by his representatives what is true and also it wass their asking to change the article. I can provided you with 50 other articles and interview with Udo Kier which disproved almost all the information in the English wiki article! Besides the article wrote more as a critique that neutral bio and besides the language of it is very poor and even sound as slang..("He has strarred" instead "he played" or "he was in") and so on. Please help!!! Can people edite anything in Wiki or not??? I'm totally into this theme and subject!
 * Response to unsigned comment above: I appreciate your concerns for the bio on Udo Kier and I understand that you may be new to Wikipedia and may not understand all of its policies and procedures. I also see that English may not be your first language. First it would be good to sign your comments. Second, this noticeboard is for specific questions about a specific issue. You have listed many general issues and for future concerns you will do better to post at WP:BLPN ie the noticeboard for Biographies of Living Persons. The sources you have provided appear to be reliable so I'll have a look at the article and see if I can help. -- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 13:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have reinstated the deleted content but please be aware that: film titles go in italics not quotations, we use only the last name (Keir), YouTube is generally not an acceptable source.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 14:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The Pirate Bay
In this article, the commercial status is in dispute. There are around 6 secondary sources saying its non-profit, 2 primary source that proclaim that the site is now non-profit, and 3 additional secondary sources adding support to the primary claim. On the other side, there is 1 secondary source saying that the founders of the site was found guilty of extensive infringement of copyright law in a commercial and organized form.

Yet, the article states that the site is commercial, and the claims about non-profit was instant reverted. Diff of adding the new section. Diff of instant revert 20m later. I think this is wrong, but so far I and the person doing the revert is the only participants in the discussion. Belorn (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * First, there is a 3O request pending. Shouldn’t we go one step at a time? Second, this is a poor rendering of the situation. Belorn states that there is only “1 secondary source” that agrees with the text that he wished to modify. He neglects to mention that the one secondary source is the Supreme Court of Sweden, the final arbiter of the claim he insists is “disputed.” The sources he points to are all echos of the defendants, that were convicted and sentenced to prison. It is no longer disputed. It was disputed. But, the Supreme Court ruled. In the prose, he can argue all he wishes that the Supreme Court made an error. He cannot argue that the site is non-commercial when the supreme court of the state has stated otherwise. That is their job and they are the final arbiters under the laws of Sweden. The article states that the site is commercial because commerciality goes to the heart of the verdict and the Supreme Court verified the verdict that they are commercial.74.108.115.191 (talk) 00:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * personally, I think that's inane. If a court is wrong (and it does seem to me to be), it is entirely okay to, here, point that out. Their being the penultimate arbiter of this case in that locale does not instantly make them correct in the face of evidence to the contrary. I can name examples of governments being stupid and incorrect if you'd like me to. ... aa:talk 01:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The State of Sweden defines its terms and its dispute resolution. A special master was appointed, an audit performed, a determination made, and appeals exhausted. Its supreme court made a final resolution. You may not like it, but it is the resolution and the sentences were fashioned accordingly. There was a recent absurd American Football ruling that a touchdown was made when everyone could see it was a bad call. The fact that it was a bad call is not relevant. The ruling was made, appeals were made, appeals were exhausted. So, it was a touchdown. The final arbiters in a situation rule. We live in a world of laws. There are arbiters. Whether you approve or not, they make determinations. Complain all you wish. But, a ruling is a ruling. There is nothing wrong with the text of an article stating that the defendants protest their innocence. Most defendants do, and the text of the article so states. But, if the state defines commerciality, and the state rules they fit under the definition, and all appeals have been exhausted resulting in no legal dispute, they are commercial. If we do not accept the rule of law and the role of the state, then we must state that nearly every single trial mentioned in WP is disputed. In fact, everything is disputed and the WP article on September 11 attacks should have "Perpetrators: al-Qaeda" removed and disputed put in its place. We need to be reasonable. With respect, 74.108.115.191 (talk) 01:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, is this excerpt from The Christian Science Monitor the material being cited for The Pirate Bay being a commercial enterprise:


 * The ruling, which was harsher than many expected here, including the four who were convicted, stated that The Pirate Bay (TPB) founders were guilty of "extensive infringement of copyright law … in a commercial and organized form," said Thomas Nordström, chairman of the Stockholm district court, when he announced the ruling Friday morning.


 * AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thus, in all what I can read, there is no source that supreme court has verified that the site is commercial. The source states that the founders where guilty of inciting copyright infringement, and so in an commercial and organized form. This include a long list of activities, starting with the "creation" of an company, discussions around creating a "tv" box, and so on. Of course, any such analyzation would be original research, so what we have is what the reliable sources says, and those were all summarized in the section that got reverted (first diff above). Belorn (talk) 01:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for verifying what I have been saying.:) They were convicted of commercial incitement of copyright infringement. They exhausted all appeals all the way to the Supreme Court, and the convictions were upheld. Find a source that reverses the finding of commerciality and you have a point. But, there exists no such reversal. The conviction stands. It's time to give it up. They were found guilty.74.108.115.191 (talk) 01:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hang on a moment - you haven't answered the question: is this the material being cited for The Pirate Bay being a commercial enterprise? It really needs a simply 'yes' or 'no' answer, and if the answer is 'no', a clear indication of what is being cited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't supply the source or make the original edit. The court opinion is the reliable source. But, the CSM source certainly appears on point and CSM is a WP accepted RS. "Extensive infringement of copyright law … in a commercial and organized form" appears quite clear. As do the prison sentences. Please realize that consensus was reached long ago on this exact subject. The petitioner is attempting to change that consensus. Thus far, he has zero supporters and has now reached out to two outside pages to find new support.74.108.115.191 (talk) 02:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I can see nothing in that extract that suggests that the court made any ruling regarding the commercial status of The Pirate Bay one way or another - or indeed, that they were asked to. The individuals were charged, and convicted, of copyright infringement, that much seems clear. It cannot be taken as an authoritative statement regarding the legal status of the organisation as I see it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The full CSM article clearly states that it is the site itself that was the reason for the conviction. And there exist numerous other cites (375 cites in toto) in the two extensive WP articles on the subject. Petitioner keeps leaving out details. With all due respect, I think it would be more useful to read the related material before making comments.74.108.115.191 (talk) 02:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Is it not a bit absurd claim to suggest that every single source in the articles The Pirate Bay and The Pirate Bay trial would include a "the pirate bay is commercial=yes" in them? Also, in the CMS article, where exactly are the author speaking about the website, and not, as suggest above, about the founders of the website? There is a difference between human being made of flesh, and electronic system that serves HTML pages. Belorn (talk) 04:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I asked a simple question: 'was the extract I quoted the material being cited for The Pirate Bay being a commercial enterprise?' Since the IP is now saying it isn't, can I ask how the heck you expect anyone here to make any sensible comments on the issue? And no, I'm not going to read 375 different source articles to try and figure this out. Instead, I'll point out that per policy, it is down to those wishing to include a statement to provide the necessary citations when required. If any of you wish to claim that The Pirate Bay is a commercial organisation, provide the sources that say it is. Likewise, if any of you wish to claim that it isn't, provide sources. Otherwise there is nothing to discuss here. The default position is clearly to make no definitive statement one way or another - and if there are contradictory sources of any reasonable credibility, to make clear that this is the case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I did find several sources that say that the pirate bay website is non-profit/non-commercial.
 * "The Pirate Bay is the largest of several torrent sites that operate on a nonprofit basis and do not provide copyright materials" - Daily tech
 * "Adoption of this approach would make it easier for the record industry to sue music file sharers and for officials to shut down non-commercial BitTorrent websites such as The Pirate Bay." - ISBN 978-0-9804344-1-5 - p372
 * "Today the site is run by an organisation rather than individuals, though as a non-profit. The organisation is registered in the Seychelles and can be contacted using the contact form." - Pirate bay own about page
 * "A Seychelles firm called Reservella Ltd has been claimed to be behind the site, according to the high court judgment handed down by Mr Justice Arnold on Monday, but this is disputed." - The guardian
 * There are more sources, in total 14, in the new section that either directly support the claim that the website is non-profit or support the Seychelles firm claim that the site itself made. My new section do not authoritative claim in the wiki-voice that the site is non-profit, only that people has reported it, including mentioning the primary sourced concept that the about page did. It also included the CMS article and included what they says about the founders. All, so that the reader can make their own case if the site should be considered non-profit, or for-profit. Belorn (talk) 09:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The refs that you have made claiming the site was non-commercial all predate the ruling by the courts that the site is commercial. One I could not reach because McAfee is blocking it as dangerous.74.108.115.191 (talk) 11:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That is completely false. The court judgment is in regard to the time spanned between 2003, and 2006. All the sources is past that time, and most are past the judgment about that time span, which was made 2009. looking through, The sources is from 2012, 2012, 2009 after the judgement, 2012, 2012, 2010, 2008, unkown, 2012, 2012. Sorry, but The refs that make the claim that the site is non-commercial all postdate the ruling by the court, and more importantly, the time frame that the judgment addresses. Belorn (talk) 16:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Prior to the court ruling, many sites merely repeated the self-serving TPB claim that they were non-profit. The court settled this matter by rejecting the claim. After the ruling, many piracy fan sites ignored the ruling and continued to claim non-profit status. They also made claims that all Swedish judge's are in the pay of US movie companies and other such nonsense.74.108.115.191 (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting opinion, but there is a difference between a commercial enterprise and a non-profit enterprise acting in an commercial way. The whole fundraising system of non-profit charities, like Oxfam and War Child (charity), is often highly commercial. Still those charities are recognized non-profit enterprises. The Banner talk 19:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

This might be the place to point out that the Swedish Supreme Court said exactly nothing about Pirate Bay, as it refused the appeal. The originator of the quote above, Tomas Norström, <- redacted by AndyTheGrump ->. So it is correct that he, also as the judge in the case, claims that Pirate Bay was commercial. But he is not the supreme court, he is not a reliable source, and most definitely does not overrule the other reliable sources that exist. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Note, I have redacted a gross violation of WP:BLP in the above post. The next such comment will be reported at WP:ANI, where I expect that a block will be a formality. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The appeal based on the claim of bias was lost by the defendants. The case itself was also appealed and lost by the defendants. The Supreme Court refused to take the case, allowing the judgment to stand. It is, therefore, the ruling of the Swedish courts that the site is commercial. No reliable sources that post-date the findings of the courts have been provided that show the site to be non-commercial.74.108.115.191 (talk) 11:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that I should add that libelous statements about individuals do not belong in an encyclopedia, even in Talk pages. Tomas Norström was accused of bias and corruption by the losing party and vindicated.74.108.115.191 (talk) 15:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep saying that the court found the site to be commercial does not magically make it so. The court did not found the site to be commercial, they found the founders to be acting during the time frame of 2003-2006 to be in a organized and commercial form. Until a source is provided that shows the site to be commercial, the claim is unsupported by the provided sources. Belorn (talk) 16:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * No, it did not magically state this. It legally stated this. You’re equivocating. The court ruled “The Pirate Bay (TPB) founders were guilty of ‘extensive infringement of copyright law … in a commercial and organized form’”  You can’t imprison a company or website. They convicted the people responsible for running a commercial, illegal site and sentenced them to prison.


 * It is getting ridiculous to debate this on two separate pages. This makes no sense. Pick a page.74.108.115.191 (talk) 16:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's be completely clear. The excerpt I quoted from the CSM does not support a claim that TPB is a commercial enterprise, It says no such thing. It cannot be used as a source for a claim that it is. That is all that needs to be said here, as this isn't an NPOV issue at all, it is a WP:RS matter, and we don't cite sources for things they don't say. I suggest that those wishing to resolve this each find reliable sources which directly support their case and take this back to the talk page, or to Dispute resolution. Bear in mind though that there is no requirement whatsoever for Wikipedia to make a statement in its own voice regarding this issue, and from what has been said so far, it almost certainly shouldn't. Wikipedia does not decide the 'truth' of things, and where there are significant differences of opinion over an issue, both opinions should be reported. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * So, to simply thing things, is the best option here to create a new section in the article, and present fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources on this matter (as was made in the diff), and to avoid any wiki-voice authoritative claim of the "truth"? Also, should I repost this question to RSN, ORN, or go straight to DRN if the talk discussion keep getting nowhere and the IP keep protecting the article from any changes? Belorn (talk) 16:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The cite clearly states that TPB is commercial. The cites quoted by Belorn are not at all on point and some are not near reliable as they are conspiracy-laden rants, as shown on the article talk page. There is no consensus on the article talk page to make these changes. That is why the changes have not and should not be made. I suggest we go back to the article talk page and attempt consensus. This has been discussed in detail on the article talk page a few times over the years, the record on discussions exists there, and the editors that attend that page are more knowledgeable of the case detail. Consensus should be reached.74.108.115.191 (talk) 17:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "The cite clearly states that TPB is commercial." - The quote is wrong. We have explained why, and there are also plenty of reliable sources that argues otherwise. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It is clearly explained on the talk page that the court ruled that TPB is commercial. No one has provided a single source that says it is non-profit that post-dates the verdict of the court. All of this has been extensively discussed on the talk page on multiple occasions.74.108.115.191 (talk) 18:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The sources are considered conspiracy-laden by whom exactly? Verifiability do require sources for claims like that. Belorn (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

THE MATERIAL QUOTED DOES NOT STATE THAT TPB IS COMMERCIAL AT ALL. That is all that needs to be said here. This isn't an NPOV dispute, and should not have been raised here. Take it to WP:RSN if you like, but otherwise, this thread should be closed as off-topic for this notice board. 18:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Jarral
This one has an incredible history, with lots of long unsourced essays accreting, reversions to stubs, etc. At its worst, it's gone over 29,000 characters. At the stub, it's down to something like 929 characters. Please look at the edit history before touching this one. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  01:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, and Talk Page to this article
In the article Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford at least two editors, Tom Reedy and Paul B, continually express their POVs, thus distorting the historical image of the person to whom the article is dedicated. They have openly disclosed their bias and even enmity to Edward de Vere on the Talk page to this article. On this Talk page, there were also massive personal attacks on my address, which are not acceptable, including using of expressions like "you are making yourself ridiculous" and indirectly calling me "peanut gallery". In my view, Edward de Vere as a historical person is to be described fairly and not with massive personal bias, disregarding the outcome of the solution to the William Shakespeare authorship question. And there was one very outrageous expression by Tom Reedy on 9 October 2012 on this same Talk page to Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, which probably everybody would call blasphemy. This expression was used by Tom Reedy in connection with Jesus Christ. The use of only this one expression, in my view, disqualifies Tom Reedy as an editor on Wikipedia. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 06:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This page is for assistance with NPOV questions regarding article content. Other editors can be briefly mentioned, but essentially they are irrelevant as far as this noticeboard is concerned (try somewhere else, perhaps WP:ANI, for issues about editors—but do some homework first). So please state the problem as far as the WP:NPOV policy is concerned: what text in the article is a problem? why? It would be desirable to address any issues raised on the article talk page (that is, if someone has offered a reason to oppose your favored text, there should be a counter argument, focused on the NPOV policy). Keep it brief; elaboration can be added if requested. Johnuniq (talk) 06:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI, the personal attacks issue is being discussed, and may be resolved at ANI. That section also raised the POV issue, and it was suggested that the POV issue be handled here, so I think it may now be possible to concentrate here on the POV issues. (I looked at the non-POV issues, and have no input on the POV issues).-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  17:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I thereby declare that I had to concentrate on the case on WP:ANI, given the fact that I was a party, who made the complaints, and that I was even severely under criticism because of my, as I see it, justified complaints. That I was upset about the reactions is my private matter. Anyway, it was a very unpleasant situation for me. In fact, as the core of that case is concerned, several participants to the discussion gave me right, but not all participants. User Sphilbrick was very helpful for me to get out of the situation. This other case is now more or less closed. However, I am sorry not to be able to continue with this case here on WP:NPOV simply out of lack of time. So now this particular case may be declared closed. User Johnuniq, you certainly agree that I am free to come back with a similar issue if I deem it appropriate. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 05:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Shaun Suisham
Yesterday, Shaun Suisham failed a kick that would have given the Steelers a victory against the Tennessee Titans, and at the end the Steelers lost. An anonymous IP edited the page on what I think is a clear example of fan rage, calling Suisham "the weakest, most unreliable player of his generation" and casting doubt on his permanence on the Steelers, without any source at all. I undid the changes, but then a registered user restored them, calling them "reality". What is the proper action to take here, to ensure the page is OK until the dust settles?

Thanks. Not A Superhero (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Honeywell_Turbo_Technologies and GenArts
In the article about the company Honeywell_Turbo_Technologies I feel that there's a large amount of contents meant to show case the company in a positive light and showing off its product offerings. One example is a fairly long list of race cars utilizing the subject company's turbos, but only the ones that did well. The product sections go on about product features and patents. In this article, and in articles about companies in general, I think that the style of writing places excessive bias in favor of the subject and deviates from neutral and impartial informational page.

Similar, the article GenArts created and extensively edited by User:Corporate Minion who is a self-identified COI editor in my opinion sparkles excess promotional tone. I am talking about liberal use of WP:PEACOCK terms that uplifts the subject. For example "Compared to other visual effects plugins, GenArts is a premium brand,"  that imparts positive tone like "well known computer scientist..." etc. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 07:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: According to his talk page, Corporate Minion, with whom you have had content disputes about promotion, is not "a self-identified COI editor" but "also work[s] heavily in helping companies contribute where they have a WP:COI using Talk pages." There's a big difference. Eric:  Esowteric + Talk  09:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ClarifyHe used to have COI edit section on his user page []. That's how I came up with the statement. What I meant is he is editing pages on behalf of companies. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 09:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You'll see the article use to look like this. I declared a COI on the Talk page and used the request edit tool. An impartial editor felt it was an improvement and moved it to article-space. Because Cantaloupe has a problem with COI and a confrontational attitude, he is going through all of the articles I have written (even where I have no COI) - in some cases making good neutrality tweaks and others just being malicious or finding ways to be confrontational.


 * OTOH, I welcome any genuine improvements to the articles and would appreciate if someone was willing to intervene here. I generally don't make direct edits where I have a COI, except for minor stuff, so I am unable to defend the articles against his attacks. However, neither are the articles immune to criticism. If someone in a less confrontational position worked with Cantaloupe and coached him I think improvements could be made both to the articles and to Cantaloupe's style of collaboration and therefore value to Wikipedia.


 * I have removed the list from my user page to avoid being a target for editors like Cantaloupe, but you can see the list of articles where I have helped a company contribute with a COI on Cantaloupe's link and that he has been going through all of them. Cantaloupe has been making vast edits (some good, some malicious) to many of the articles. His tone and editing behavior seems to suggest he is on some campaign against me, but like any Wikipedia article, neither are the articles immune to criticism. You can also see from my Talk page that in my opinion Cantaloupe has an aggressive deletionist and anti-marketing editing behavior, often making wholesale deletions to articles on marketing topics and I think there are broader issues that could be resolved with the help of someone patient and willing. Corporate 12:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * More specifically, what I would like to gather is general wiki consensus on articles written in style of those articles. A lot of product show casing, etc. I think its inappropriate and shows clear bias.  Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * We don't generally create consensus in the way you're thinking for minor editorial disputes. On the other hand, you may get feedback and a third-opinion.


 * Wikipedia does cover products, often in excruciating detail in dedicated articles depending on the product's notability. I have followed best practice on the Hon Turbo article by creating a short, neutral summary, instead of a long list or promotional advert. In fact, there are dozens of "fan-written" articles on specific Honeywell products.


 * On the other hand, we could probably tighten "premium brand, with more expensive, but very professional grade products," with "high-end". Corporate 03:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * That kind of comparison is contentious. Can you objectively say that said brand is higher-end than "others"? As for fan-written articles, I'm well aware things that shouldn't be on Wikipedia finds its way. If they don't meet the criteria for inclusion, they should be nominated for deletion. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 03:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Neutrality means following what is supported by reliable sources. It does not mean we are not allowed to make any evaluative statements. In fact, many articles have a Reception section that summarizes reviews and many of those are positive or negative, because they reflect independent sources. High-end leads the reader to the natural assumption that it is both of high-quality and that it comes at a high price-tag, which is indeed the facts of the case. However, I like most of your trims here. I thought it was odd you called infobox data spam, so I re-inserted the revenue and employee number data.


 * Because of your approach here, you are very eager to find fault and aggressive about interpreting policy in overly simplistic ways that are favorable to your campaign against me, but your more thoughtful trims are an improvement. Keep at it. Corporate 12:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Just FYI, I think (hope) we are working this out on our respective Talk pages. Cantaloupe is making some very good adjustments to remove some puffery and I think (hope) is understanding of my request to be more civil and AGF. I have also apologized for areas, where - despite my best efforts - I may have said something that offended him. In fact, some of his latest edits are quite thorough and good and I welcome the neutrality improvements. Corporate 15:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree Minion and I aren't clashing the same way now, but could someone shed general idea concerning my original question regarding whats considered appropriate amount of inclusion and whats overtly promotional? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * That can be a complicated question. Clear peacock like "industry-leading solutions with best-of-breed, out-of-the-box capabilities..." is prolific and an easy delete. I think "well-known" is indeed true on the GenArts article and supported by sources, but we did not need to point it out. It was a good cut.


 * You might be interested in taking a look at well-written, volunteer-written product pages. For example, Mass Effect 3 has the following in the lead:
 * "Combat system in Mass Effect 3 has been changed and refined. In particular, the cover system has been improved. There are more options for moving around the battlefield and scoring instant melee kills. More conventional grenades are available and an improved artificial intelligence is introduced."
 * Because it describes a product in detail, does not make it peacock and because it covers a product does not make it advert. However, if it had promotional language like "revolutionary new combat system" we would want to take that out.


 * As for next steps, it might be a good idea for us to both voluntarily go through dispute resolution to go through the articles that have already become involved.


 * For the future after that, I might ask that you take a look at WP:Hound. Hound is not a means to settle content disputes, but it is a policy intended to avoid personal attacks, harassing and stalking. While that may not be your intention, it adequately describes what this feels like on my side, seeing that almost all your contribs are directed at me and articles I have edited, in addition to the multiple civility and AGF warnings/problems. Wikipedia is a big playground! There are plenty of areas for us to contribute that don't involve confrontation with each other.


 * After that, I wish you the best of luck and happy editing ;-) Corporate 15:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It just so happens that you somehow found yourself into SEOMoz.org and gasbuddy and you even have SEOMOz on your user page as heavy contribution only after I put it up for deletion. Fan written pages can have unnecessary promotional tone too even though not for the same purpose as hird mouths. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 21:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It is not against the rules to identify an editor making problematic edits, review their contribs and vote on a routine AfD. The SEOmoz AfD in general (not you specifically) looks like a good example of pouncing, confrontation and speculation, where none is needed. It is however against the rules to create a long-term harassment campaign against another editor, especially when it is littered with poor edits, civility and AGF problems. We all want Wikipedia to be a welcoming and respectful place, so we should not participate in a way that targets editors. Like I said, it's a big encyclopedia and there's plenty of places to play. Corporate 22:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Mohamed Nasheed: Cherry picked sources & lacks important events
The article Mohamed Nasheed has used carefully choosen sources to create a specific image of himself. This article needs to reflect the other side of the coin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.84.148.60 (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately what you're making is a subjective claim - unless you can give some specific examples? Give us a hint or at least some place to start. This article is huge. Lexlex (talk) 02:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Tenedos and WP:Place
We have a situation here which needs clarifying. In the past two years there have been four failed move request from Tenedos to Bozcaada plus one super-lengthy and -tedious move review. The result was invariably no consensus to move respectively closure endorsed. So keeping Tenedos as article name all the way. This should have settled things, one might think, but unfortunately it did not. Now Bozcaada advocates have been repeatedly substituting Tenedos for Bozcaada in the sections dealing with the island's history after the Ottoman occupation, including the section on its most recent, modern history. In my view, this violates WP:Place; the name used should be "Tenedos" throughout the article:

1. WP:Place specifies: "The same name as in the title should be used consistently throughout the article, unless there is a widely accepted historic English name for a specific historical context." But "Bozcaada" is no widely accepted historic name for any period as "Tenedos" always existed alongside it. Four move discussions have made this plainly clear, so why not accept its outcome?

2. As for the modern section, replacing "Tenedos" with "Bozcaada" even more violates the clear consensus of the move requests: WP:Place requires the article name to conform to current/modern usage. The result of four move discussions was that the current article name is Tenedos. This means that the community believes Tenedos is the term most often used in modern English and since it is most often used in recent times, it is the only choice of words in the section on the island's modern history.

Put differently: It is contradictory to have an article named "Tenedos" on the one hand, but to use "Bozcaada" in its section on the most recent events on the other hand, because if "Bozcaada" were really the most common name, the entire article would have been named "Bozcaada" which it isn't.

Put yet again differently: it follows from WP:Place logically and directly that an article name and the place name used for its modern history must be the same, because WP:Place makes the latter its basis to define the former and if there is ample consensus about the former, and it is here, the latter must comply to the former. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Does this belong here? It doesn't seem appropriate. I will not fight about any points in the move request.  WP:NPOV says: "Editing from a neutral point of view means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."  All I have to say is there's a compromise proposal here which adheres to NPOV closely (as well as WP:PLACE and usage in sources).  It represents sources (which show a distinct preference for Bozcaada in the modern context) fairly and when it gets fuzzy (the 1455-1923 period), I let go of my personal position, and said "go with article title".  NPOV is not served by implying that a "no consensus" outcome means that we ignore usage in sources completely, that would be giving prominence to one name that sources do not use.  I think it is quite clear that actually following the sources is better NPOV than using a "no consensus" outcome to assert universal usage in favor of one name.  As WP:NPOV says "alternative names should be given due prominence within the article itself."  If anyone has any advice on how we can make the compromise positions more NPOV, I would take those suggestions very seriously and try to apply them.  Thank you. AbstractIllusions (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I can't see what this has to do with NPOV - other than the likelihood that trying to impose a Greek name on a island that is part of modern Turkey, when all atlases, guidebooks and news reports in 2012 about the modern island use the Turkish name, is probably closer to a breach of NPOV than anything else here. Also we have the very selective citing and interpreting of WP:PLACE - whose provisions about using the "modern name" for article titles was studiously ignored in the RMs referred to. The only reason in fact that the RMs left the page at Tenedos is because of a) the veto effect and b) people successfully running the odd argument that the preponderance of references to the island in history (due to its prominence in classical myth) in Google Books outweighs anything else. The point is that every other provision in PLACE assumes that the page itself is at the modern name. And actually people did not start switching Tenedos to Bozcaada in the modern-context parts of the article - GPM started switching them from Bozcaada to Tenedos, while the broader issues were under discussion, and was reverted but has begun edit-warring over it.  N-HH   talk / edits  15:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * When I meant "clarifying", I did not have in mind the usual folks which have been hanging around for months on the talk page and who have made their strong opinions abundantly clear, but some fresh insights from uninvolved editors. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Use the modern name or adopt the solution for Istanbul and Constantinople - one article for the modern place and one for the historic one. Make sure there are redirects or easy-to-follow links. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the input Judith, both are great ideas. I think we should use the modern name or split clearly into Tenedos and Bozcaada pages (But both of those are stalled out right now).  But, until then, any ideas on how we can we have a good Neutral POV page?  A) Use the article title throughout even though it isn't the modern name (but is a prominent name) or B) use the modern name where it is appropriate and the archaic name where it is appropriate?  That's really our loggerhead. (GPM says A, N-HH and I say B).  Once again thank you so much for your time, you have no idea how appreciated. AbstractIllusions (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers GPM. I was simply querying in what way this was an NPOV issue, if at all, as well as explaining some of the points that were side-stepped in your opening gambit. You're quite happy asserting your right to post on this topic here after all. Having done that, I am more than happy to hear some third party input, and for this thread to focus on that; as is AI, it would appear.  N-HH   talk / edits  10:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Jaffna hospital massacre
Is "massacre" in the title (rather than "incident"/"event") the right word coming from Wikipedia's voice, especially when there are contesting perspective and nothing has been proved so far? Mr T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 04:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, as a massacre it was. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Darkness Shines, you cannot say that in Wikipedia's voice unless these claims were proved in a court of law. With all due respect, you're not an ideal judge of that situation. Any random murder cannot be labelled as "massacre" unless it is formally ascribed to a cruel motive beyond all doubt, since the exact details of that incident is still debatable (the army claims the casualties were collateral damage in a crossfire), the word "massacre" is not appropriate. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 07:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:POVTITLE describes the decision procedure. It's not related to the definitions of words or what has been proven or judged to have taken place. If the title complies with NPOV, sampling a sufficiently large number of reliable sources that discuss the incident should show that "Jaffna hospital massacre" is the most widely used term. If it isn't the most widely used term you will have demonstrated using RS based evidence that it isn't neutral according to Wikipedia's rules.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 08:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, thank you for your comment, I know. I mean, obviously I don't think that a vast majority of reliable sources refer to the incident as "Massacre" (once we discount the repeated sources). And just to let you know, I was responding to DS's comment. And even the sources that are cited in the article, are woefully tantamount to opinion pieces, mainstream "news reporting" is what could be more credible. These sort of articles need to be backed by solid sources.  Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 16:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Armed me enter a hospital and proceed to butcher over 60 unarmed people. Call me old fashioned but that is a massacre. However as you believe I am not an ideal judge of what is or is not a massacre let us use the sources. Paradise Poisoned: Learning About Conflict, Terrorism and Development from Sri Lanka's Civil Wars "Some of the excesses committed by Indian soldiers during the assault on Jaffna, particularly the massacre of doctors, staff and patients in the Jaffna Hospital, were particularly gruesome." Trauma, War, and Violence: Public Mental Health in Socio-Cultural Context "In one telling incident on the traditional Theepavali day, the IPKF entered the Jaffna Hospital and proceeded to massacre over 60 patients and staff despite the absence of militant presence." Darkness Shines (talk) 19:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No dear, I didn't say you're "not an ideal judge of what is or is not a massacre", I said you're not equipped with the knowledge of what happened that very day. Army claimed they were fired upon. And I also explicated my lack of reverence for opinion pieces. To back this kind of lofty assertions you need something close to news reports, if there are I would not mind including them in the article. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 09:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Yañalif
Hi all, this article has an incompleteness problem:

the discussed writing system was used in dozens of languages in the USSR in 1930s, not just in one language as the article says. Thus, the preamble must be rephrased, and the entire presentation revisited.

Not sure which template to put. Borovi4ok (talk) 12:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You could use undue and raise your concerns on the article's talk page. De728631 (talk) 16:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Bias in Ductile iron pipe article
Greetings, I have come to this noticeboard to ask for editors to assist me with addressing bias in the Ductile iron pipe article. After careful review of the current content and recent editing history, I believe that the article's content has become negatively slanted. I am not alone is drawing this conclusion, as other editors have commented on this in the past on the talk page, however I will disclosure that my interest derives from working with the Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association. I am here on behalf of this organization, aiming to reduce the bias in the article by working with disinterested editors on talk pages.

So far, I have asked on the article's talk page for help with the content under the heading "Environmental". There I have detailed the issues with the existing content and provided new content drawn from quality sources—primarily peer reviewed journal articles—aiming to give a balanced view of ductile iron pipe's environmental impact. My proposal is to replace the existing biased content with this new content.

Just one editor has commented, but only to say they too noticed a suspicious pattern of editing in the article. Since this noticeboard focuses on issues such as these, I would be grateful if someone here will review my suggestion and offer an impartial opinion. If you can, please reply here: Talk:Ductile_iron_pipe PiperOne (talk) 22:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Your suggested changes are a major improvement and I have implemented them. I'll keep an eye on the page for a while.  Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Jonathan, I have replied on the Ductile iron pipe page, but also wanted to thank you here. It would be most appreciated if you could look over the article in case there are attempts to return the content to its former biased state. There are also other areas of this article that concern me with regards to bias in the content. If I may, I would like to reach out to you again once I am in a position to offer further new content. Thanks, once again. PiperOne (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Maldives Section on 2012 Coup
This section is in serious need of a good editor. There is redundant information and some very biased language. For example, a sentence about the coup describes the new President as " President Waheed appears to be too busy lurching from crisis to crisis led by the nose by his coalition partners and by Nasheed, to bother about a small matter such as an investigation into allegations of a military coup."

I'm too much of a novice and not an expert on the events, so I would appreciate it if someone more bold could attempt to correct this.

Thank you.Perew (talk) 00:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle
At 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle, a line in the article saying "it became known as the Lydda death march." and an aka field in the infobox giving Lydda death march have been removed due to, in the words of those removing the material, There are a few sources that mention that term, but saying "it became known as the Lydda death march" is a bit of an exaggeration and that It has not been established by either the quantity or quality or sources that the term deserves the UNDUE emphasis its proponents are trying to put into the article. The sources presented are as follows: One of the users has claimed, at RS/N, that this is not the most common description for the event, though nobody has requested a move to change the article title. Does it violate UNDUE to include the well-sourced material on this event being known as the Lydda death march?  nableezy  - 17:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * On a visit home in 1948, Habash was caught in the Jewish attack on Lydda and, along with his family, forced to leave the city in the mass expulsion that came to be known as the Lydda Death March.
 * On 12 July, the Arab inhabitants of the Lydda-Ramle area, amounting to some 70,000, were expelled in what became known as the Lydda Death March.
 * That's not a full or precise description of the dispute. There are indeed two sources that say "it became known as the Lydda death march". One from 2001 and one from this year (the article contained that sentence when the book was written). Nothing in between and no other sources make that claim, and there are a great number of sources that describe or mention this event (search for example for lydda and expulsion). Only a handful even call it the Lydda death march, not to mention claim it became known as that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)which
 * Are you serious? Nothing in between and no other sources make that claim? From where exactly did you pull that out?  nableezy  - 01:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If it was just two sources using the term, that would be one thing. But we have two RS saying specifically that it came to be known as the Lydda death march. It would be undue not to mention this. If you have a source of equivalent quality criticising the term, that has to go in too. If you have historians who avoid the term, you might just say "X, who does not use the term death march, says that...". Itsmejudith (talk) 06:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have practically every other RS of equal and even higher quality that do not use the term. On google books at the moment there are exactly 7 books that use this term and thousands that talk about the event (see this for just one example of possible wording) that don't. The vast majority do not use the term and the statement that "it became known as X" is obviously UNDUE weight to what two scholars out of hundreds say. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ypu can't contradict RS with your own ghit count. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * When a reliable source makes a claim, the way to refute it is to find a source that says the claim is wrong. We cannot undertake our own investigations to disprove the claim.  TFD (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a common excuse used to try to edit war in content that is known to be incorrect, and the reasoning itself is wrong. Applying light analysis prevented us from publishing several grossly false things about “Innocence of Muslims” that were stated on so-called reliable sources, for example. —$Kerfuffler forcemeat horsemeat$ 20:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The only way to know that a reliable source is incorrect is to provide another reliable source that contradicts it. It is not our role to second guess the facts.  TFD (talk) 05:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem I'm seeing here is that everything points to these works as being the primary sources for the use of this name. I do see a somewhat larger group referring to the expulsion as a "death march" without using that as a name for the incident. I think it would be more accurate to express that the latter characterization has been made. While the sources in question are nominally reliable, to be actually reliable, they have to be accurate. In this case I think the discrepancy between their claim and the material is too great to be ignored; I think we need to go with a weaker statement which withstands fact-checking. Mangoe (talk) 17:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Rachel Corrie
At the Rachel Corrie page a few editors have been deleting information from the lead that has a reliable source (BBC News) and is not (to my knowledge) contradicted by any other source. Also, what has again been reverted/deleted is already included later in this Wiki-article itself. I have previously attempted to initiate discussion but none of the deleting editors has adressed my particular points nor answered my specific questions. Now an editor has again reverted the information and the cited reliable sources. The editor has not been involved in any discussion. He has reverted by claiming there is no consensus. Therefore I decided to bring this here rather than the dispute resolution board as this consensus argument seems to me to be a way of avoiding the points I have made and the questions I have asked and of skewing the article away from a neutral point of view. The deleting editor in this instance is Jethro B. He has an Israeli Barnstar of National Merit, and is a menber of the Wiki Project Israel. Therefore it appears he might be deleting the information from an allegiance to some sort of Pro-Israeli point of view and thereby not a neutral unbiased viewpoint. Here are just a few of the many reliable sources describing her as a 'Peace activist' (there are more on the talk page which have been ignored): SUMMARY: It looks to me as though a few editors are editing this page from a point of view that is not neutral, are refusing to discuss their reasons in regard to specific questions and now this claim for consensus seems to be arguing for a non-neutral editing of this article based on numbers. Despite the fact that can be contested (e.g. I myself, Mirokado, Bastun and JonFlaune are in agreement on this inclusion), can a few editors do that: overule reliable sourcing and non-neutrality by claiming consensus?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 09:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I had asked for any reliable source to be provided which shows that the description of Rachel Corrie as a 'Peace' activist' to be false or innaccurate.
 * I also asked for sources to be presented that demonstrate any activity by the subect of this Biography page which shows she ever acted 'violently' or 'non-peacefully' against anyone in her activities.
 * I disengaged to allow the other parties some time, but no answers to my specific points were ever made.
 * Diff: by Jethro B
 * Diff:  by Brewcrewer
 * Diff: by Shrike
 * BBC News lead/intro: "Rachel Corrie, an American ...was a committed peace activist." 
 * WA Today: " A family's nine-year fight for justice culminates today when a court delivers its verdict in the civil lawsuit against the state of Israel over the killing of the American peace activist, Rachel Corrie, who was crushed to death by an Israeli military bulldozer."
 * The Guardian. Title. " Israeli army bulldozer crushes US peace protester in Gaza Strip." Lead/intro: " Peace campaigner killed as Israeli army destroys homes in Palestinian refugee camp. First sentence: " An Israeli army bulldozer crushed an American peace activist to death in the Gaza Strip..."
 * The Daily Telegraph: (photo caption) "American peace activist Rachel Corrie stands infront of an Israeli bulldozer in the Rafah refugee camp in the Gaza strip in 2003"
 * Al Jazeera: "Corrie was a committed peace activist even before her arrival in the Gaza Strip in 2002. She arranged peace events in her home town in Washington state and became a volunteer for the ISM."
 * Labeling her a "peace activist" is a statement of opinion. It can be mentioned with attribution in the body of the article but shouldn't be presented as fact and certainly shouldn't be elevated to the lead, which would be undue and misleading. For every reliable source that ever used that label in reference to Corrie, there are probably at least 50 that didn't.—Biosketch (talk) 11:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources presented are not opinion pieces, they are part of mainstream news organization factual reporting. As such they do not need to be attributed, unless you have a source that directly contradicts the statement - so far none have been produced. As for your undue weight argument, you present no evidence, just an assertion. I find your assertion unconvincing because the term is used by globally recognized media organizations such the BBC, Guardian and Al-Jezeera. As far as I know not a single report contradicting the statement has been produced. Dlv999 (talk) 11:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * User:Dlv999, why are you trying to make it seem as though I called those sources "opinion pieces" when I never called them that? I'll thank you appreciate that I have the capacity to distinguish between news reports and opinion pieces. What you should acknowledge is that there's a difference between objective reporting of facts, i.e. x did y at such-and-such a place at such-and-such a time, and statements of opinion, i.e. x is a brilliant scientist. This is a case of the latter, and it is also a case of taking a characterization appearing only in a small minority of sources and giving it undue weight by generating the illusion that it's an expression common among most sources that reported on the nature of Corrie's activism.—Biosketch (talk) 11:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, Biosketch, I did not mean to question your intelligence. But the way I see it is this: on the one hand we have high quality RS describing RC as a peace activist in their factual news reports. In opposition to this we are not seeing alternative sources presented, only the opinion of editors, who don't like the way RS have reported the topic. You again you make the undue weight claim, but again you present no evidence, only your assertion. Here are a number of academic sources and international media reports that have described RC as a "peace activist":
 * Roy, S Journal of Palestine Studies (Vol. 39, No. 2, Winter 2010, University of California Press) - "focusing on Rachel Corrie, the twenty- three-year-old US peace activist who was run over and killed by an Israeli bulldozer in March 2003"
 * Richardson, J & Barkho L Journalism Studies (Volume 10, Issue 5, 2009, Routledge) - "Two landmark events have characterised the recent violent years of Israeli–Palestinian conflict: the killing of a US peace activist by an Israeli bulldozer as she tried to prevent it from demolishing the home of a Palestinian resident in Gaza"
 * CNN - "From behind a wood and plastic partition, the Israeli soldier who drove a bulldozer that crushed an American peace activist to death testified publicly for the first time Thursday."
 * CBS News- peace activist Rachel Corrie
 * The Age - "The Israeli Defence Force has been absolved of responsibility in the death of an American peace activist, who was crushed to death by a military bulldozer in 2003."
 * Sky News - "This year's winners of the prize also included peace activist Rachel Corrie, killed on the Gaza strip in 2003"
 * the Washington Post - "An Israeli court has ruled that the death of U.S. peace activist Rachel Corrie in 2003 was not Israel's fault and was an accident."
 * Al Arabiya - "A U.N. official Thursday condemned an Israeli court finding that cleared the army of any blame for the death of U.S. peace activist Rachel Corrie as “a defeat for justice and accountability.”"
 * UN News Centre - "Rachel Corrie, an American peace activist, was killed in March 2003 while protesting against the demolition of Palestinian homes in Rafah, a city located in southern Gaza."
 * Palestine Chronicle - "On behalf of peace activist Rachel Corrie, her parents Craig and Cindy Corrie today accepted the 2012 LennonOno Grant for Peace presented by Yoko Ono in Reykjavik, Iceland."
 * Reuters - "peace activist Rachel Corrie"
 * Time (magazine) - "American peace activist Rachel Corrie speaks during an interview with MBC Saudi Arabia television on March 14, 2003 in the Rafah refugee camp on the Gaza Strip" Dlv999 (talk) 12:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks to both of you for your participation. To Biosketch, I still don't see how if reliable sources don't "use that label in reference to Corrie" how they would be contradicting ones that did? Whether there are fifty of them or whatever, how do they contradict this description? As yet, no reliable sources have been produced contesting that Rachel Corrie's activism was in anyway anything but peaceful.  And as Dlv999 has even further amplified, many sources do. My concern is that by sheer weight of numbers, editors sharing a partisan  viewpoint can skew the neutrality of wiki articles. In this case it appears to be editors sharing a pro-Israeli partisan viewpoint. Thus Biosketch, you appear to me to be rather proving my point. Which is, that with out referring to a source disputing her peace activism, you yourself have now become an example of another editor who also has a long track-record of contributions to Wikipedia concerning pro-Israeli viewpoints, who is arguing against this description of Ms Corrie, but without referring to any particular wiki policy as grounds for doing so. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 13:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The talk page has an extensive and healthy discussion of this issue. The article is well written and written appropriately for an encyclopedia. It is true that newspapers generally prefer pithy labels that suits their medium. Encyclopedias are better served with straight descriptions. For example, we have an article called Opposition to legal abortion instead of Pro-life. "Pro-life" like "Peace activist" are self-descriptions that become common for brevity. At other times the opposition succeeds in coining a brief moniker like "Star Wars" for Strategic Defense Initiative and Obamacare for Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Our encyclopedia, gives priority to the full descriptive phrase rather than the everyday short-cut that journalists prefer. The article as written is better suited for our aspiration as an encyclopedia instead of a news report. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * To Jason from nyc. Another editor Mirokado wrote on the discussion page: "Activist" is rather a broad term and is very often qualified ("civil rights activist", "gay rights activist" and so on). In the context of the IP conflict where violence is so much part of the agenda, this wording becomes important to inform the reader of essential background, provided it is properly sourced, as it is with the BBC reference..."--Mystichumwipe (talk) 17:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * We write according to reliable sources, and if several reliable sources say that Ms. Corrie was a peace activist, and no reliable sources dispute that, then on Wikipedia Ms. Corrie was a peace activist.  nableezy  - 15:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The phrase seems tidy, clear, substantiated and well-sourced. There's nothing unusual or weasel-y about the phrase. And there seem to be no RS objections to it as a description. So it should pass NPOV. I would add that the tendentious objections to every last word in this (Israel-Palestine-related) domain of the encyclopedia only serve to discourage the entry of new, level-headed editors, something which is desperately needed.--Carwil (talk) 15:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with User:Carwil. My only involvement in this whole area, to date, was in relation to the Gaza Flotilla (the second one), where I started a neutral, 5-pillar-compliant article on an Irish ship that was taking part (my interest being I'm Irish).  It was challenged, amended, slapped with [citation needed] tags at every point for obvious/not-needed stuff, by tag-teaming editors with a very clear agenda, to the point where, when the ship ended up not taking part due to being damaged/sabotaged, it was nominated for deletion as not notable...  Have I been back to the topic since?  Just the once, to reinsert referenced material unaccountably being deleted from this article.  Will I be back again?  Not likely. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I have re-added the reliably sourced description of Rachel as a 'Peace activist'. I have done so as the the consensus at present is 'for' using the reliably sourced and uncontradicted 'Peace Activist' description. Revealingly, those here 'for' its usage cited wiki policy as reasons. Whereas all those 'against' gave reasons purely based upon their own personal opinions. Interesting that. I wonder therefore what to do with the more troubling aspect of this dispute, namely the claim for consensus by a possible tag-team of editors apparently sharing a Pro-Israeli partsisan viewpoint, which appears to be driven by an intent of skewing articles and hounding editors to have that viewpoint predominate. I hope to somehow have that also addressed by concerned editors who value Wikipedia as a non-biased information resource. Any suggestions?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I would suggest people stop being tribalists ie Muslim tribe, Jewish tribe, freemason tribe etc. Prunesqualor   billets_doux  01:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. But ... What to do if people do not wish to be less 'tribal' and refuse? What if certain editors' core motivation is largely or specifically to participate here purely from a 'tribal' perspective ? This latest example of non-neutral activity by certain editors on the Rachel Corrie page, done under the claim of 'consensus' over a period of months appears to be just one more example of many, and is why I feel this is perhaps a matter of greater concern than just the Rachel Corrie page? But I'm not sure how to address that concern, or where exactly, or if its already been attempted before.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 10:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I hope everyone realizes that you can play this game either way. On Highbeam, "Rachel Corrie" bulldozer gets 160 results, whereas "Rachel Corrie" bulldozer "peace activist" gets 22 results. So the vast majority of RS do not call her a peace activist. Here is The Daily Mail: "AN American pro-Palestinian activist run over by a bulldozer in Gaza...." Kauffner (talk) 05:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you would need to find some reliable sources that state she was not a peace activist, or at least engaged in behaviour directly contradictory to (I quote WP) "proactively advocat[ing] diplomatic, non-military resolution of political disputes, usually through nonviolent means". Jpatokal (talk) 06:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You discussing this as if it was a factual question of whether she was a peace activist or not. But this is an issue of tone, emphasis, and neutrality. The article on Bin Laden does not begin, "Osama Bin Laden was a terrorist..." Kauffner (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a factual question of whether or not she has been referred to as a peace activist in multiple reliable sources, and the answer to that is "yes". If you can find an alternative description used in more reliable sources, we're all ears.
 * And while I hesitate to drag Osama into this, the old saw about one man's terrorist being another's freedom fighter applies to him as well, which makes the label difficult to apply neutrally. In Carrie's case, though, I'm not seeing any sources that seriously allege she was engaging in anything other than non-violent activism that she genuinely thought would advance peace. Jpatokal (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Jpatokal for clearly articulating the point of this notice yet again. To Kauffner you appear not to have read the initial message of this thread, or to not understand it. Please may I ask you to read it again from the top. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 09:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I fully support the retention of this phrase, which provides well-sourced and unchallenged context for the reader which is important for the neutrality of the article. Mystichumwipe has already quoted my response from the article talk page so I won't add it again here. --Mirokado (talk) 23:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

User ‎75.51.171.155 violating NPOV
I've moved the following from WP:ANI. De728631 (talk) 12:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Unregistered user ‎75.51.171.155 is violating NPOV and persistently vandalising the article on White Terror (Russia) trying to turn it into a Communist propaganda piece, using clearly biased sources, refusing necessary warning tags, and insisting on pro-Red Terror remarks, thereby demonstrating his biased POV. He clearly thinks that the way to write a Wikipedia article is to start with a political position and to search for sources no matter how biased and unreliable to support that pre-determined viewpoint. Is this the right place to report this? cwmacdougall 10:17, 23 October 2012
 * IP notified. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Based on a report at WP:ANEW and a review of the conduct on the article, I've blocked the IP and a newly registered account for 72 hours for abusing multiple accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

One general issue has come up under this continuing dispute: have we discussed elsewhere the extent to which it is appropriate to rely on Soviet Historians? For a subject like palace intrigue under Catherine the Great or Napoleonic military tactics I think they could be very good, but for a subject like White or Red Terror I would think they would be inherently biased and unreliable, especially noting that they wrote under conditions of political censorship about a very political subject; I think they would be inconsistent with NPOV on Soviet subjects. Has a consensus been reached elsewhere? cwmacdougall 15:36, 29 October 2012


 * Lack of Neutrality is not really a reliability issue (few sources are ever neutral). The way to deal with bias in sources is phrase the information taken from them as an attributed statement of opinion.  Blueboar (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The impossibly biased editor is refusing even the most minor amendments to "his" precious article. I started by deleting supposedly factual and not terribly important items which turn out to have as their only source a Bolshevik propagandist (Victor Serge), before planning to move on to the clearly more difficult issue of apparently respectable Soviet historians. But he refuses even to concede that there is a bias problem with Bolshevik propagandists. How will he respond to more complex issues, and how do I respond to such rubbish without a reversion war? cwmacdougall 15:20, 3 November 2012


 * I tried modest amendments which an editor refused, and appealing to the NPOV and Russia groups. I have now filed a complaint on the Dispute resolution noticeboard. cwmacdougall 23:34, 5 November 2012


 * My first attempt at a Dispute Resolution complaint was rejected as not being clearly content rather than conduct. I will resubmit in I hope a more clear fashion.  However, while there is clearly a content dispute, it arises from an NPOV violation by the editor.  Unless he reforms and stops cherry picking sources, sometimes unreliable, to support his biased POV, and tolerates other editors editing the article, it is likely there will be many other content disputes.  It would be helpful if someone in this group could take an interest. cwmacdougall 22:11, 6 November 2012

Theopolitical Capital of Sikhs and Sikhism
The article seems to be a combination of the history of Amritsar and of Sikhism in general, from a definite Sikh slant. I know nothing about Sikhism and perhaps everything is true, but the language of the article is far from encyclopedic, for example: "at the hands of the intolerant, oppressive and bigoted Islamic government of Hindustan, who wished to stop the spread of the Sikh faith" . Will someone who knows the subject look into this? Ratzd&#39;mishukribo (talk) 05:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not just NPOV, the article itself is hopeless. I have AFD'd it. Jpatokal (talk) 23:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Help needed: "Criticism" section okay or not in RT (TV network)?
Input would be appreciated at a DRN case regarding the RT (TV network) article. The issue is whether or not the article should have sections entitled "Criticisms" or "Controversies"; or would the NPOV policy require that the sections be more neutrally titled as "Reception" and "Incidents" etc. The DRN discussion is here ... after clicking that link, scroll down to issues numbered 2,3,4 and 5. Please post any comments there, not here, to keep the discussion co-located. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 05:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Derek McCulloch
Given recent events regarding Jimmy Savile, the UK press have been looking at Derek McCulloch and examining a passage in John Simpson's memoirs. There's been discussion on the talk page and the material has been in and out of the talk page with discussions about how reliable the sources are. Given Andrew O'Hagan has authored an essay on the allegations and named McCulloch, and The Independent have reported O'Hagan doing so, I've amended the article as seen in this edit, with the proviso that I will mention the fact here to get more eyes on the material and perhaps solve the deadlock. Hiding T 11:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * There is more subsequent discussion of this issue at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard so anyone interested in responding here would be better off posting there. Hiding T 15:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Racism in France
There is currently a dispute at Racism in France over how much, if any, article space should be given to recent claims by right-wing politicians about anti-white racism in France. There seems to be no dispute that these are controversial claims, but there is dispute over whether that means there are weight concerns over their inclusion. The current text reads:

"On September 2012, Jean-François Copé, the leader of the Union for a Popular Movement (UPM) denounced the development of an anti-White racism by people living in France, some of them French citizens, against the 'Gauls' – a widespread name among immigrants for the native French – on the basis of these having a different religion, colour skin and ethnic background.[1][2] Marine Le Pen criticized that the UMP had denied the existence of such a racism during its five-year reign (2007–2012) and suspected a tactical move to win over voters and support from the Front National.[3]"

Considering that the rest of the article, based on a UN report on racism in France against Romani, is even shorter, this seems undue and overly specific. I have proposed the following replacement:

"Members of the right-wing French political parties UMP and National Front have claimed the existence of an anti-White racism directed against white French citizens."

Can we get some fresh blood in here to build a consensus over this? Glaucus (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Given you have expanded the article yourself in the meantime with further sections on "racism against Jews" and "racism against Arabs", together two or three times as long, we can consider this dispute based on your own premises solved. In fact, your own examples given there are themselves mostly a list of particular incidents, more fitting to a "list of racist incidences in France". In any case, the section on "anti-white racism", by citing Le Monde, Liberation and Le Figaro, the three widest read newspapers of the country, remains the most reliably sourced, which settles the issue. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In fact, this article has been consistently vandalized for the past two years. Now, when I restore the vandalized text, you use it as an excuse to ignore the substance of the WP:UNDUE issues with the section under dispute. The relative size of the sections was part, but not all of the issue. The fact of the matter is that the section on "anti-white racism" is representing a clearly minority point of view, a fact borne out by every WP:RS reporting on it. WP:UNDUE requires that we treat it as such. That includes NOT giving detailed description or background.


 * Let me put it this way. If you truly believe that the section represents a widely held viewpoint in WP:RS, then describing it in terms of a specific politician's statements would be WP:UNDUE. Or, if you believe it is in fact only notable in light of those politician's statements, then the POV is itself WP:UNDUE. Either way, your unexplained revert of my WP:DUE compromise text is wrong. And do I really have to explain how moving the most fringe POV section to the top on account of it "affecting the most people" is blatantly POV? Glaucus (talk) 00:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Such articles are always going to be at risk of POV problems and being based around accretions of reports on one-off incidents (see also "Human right in Ruritania" and "Anti-Ruritanian sentiment"). That said, it's pretty common in serious literature on the topic of racism to focus on it as something that minorities or those with limited purchase in a power structure face. Following that, a WP article on the issue in France would and surely should focus on racism against Arabs & Muslims, Jews, Romani and Africans etc, whether French themselves or immigrants. The "but the real victims of racism in the West are the 'indigenous' white population" claim is at best an occasional whinge of the conservative right and at worst a rather nasty trope of the far right. The fact that the material here buttressing that view is being sourced to a piece of media-reported politicking not only reinforces that view but rather obviously suggests that there is an NPOV and UNDUE problem here, especially when it is placed at the top of the page and with the current level of detail. The page clearly needs reprioritising and some better, synthesised academic-style sources that address the broader topic as a whole (the UN report seems an obvious example of that).  N-HH   talk / edits  09:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I see no way of doing so while GPM continues to deny that any such WP:POV issues exist. Unless other editors are involved, I see no way of building a consensus here. Glaucus (talk) 17:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, GPM has issues with perspective and neutrality, as evidenced here and elsewhere. I'd suggest, as others have before now, an RFCU about their overall behaviour on WP. As agreed, this page needs a whole rewrite.  N-HH   talk / edits  23:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Another editor came in and made a remarkably similar change to the one I proposed above, citing a similar page in the French Wikipedia. Instead of correcting the miscitation (should have cited the wiki references, not the wiki article), GPM wholesale reverted, restoring his WP:POV changes under dispute. How exactly can a consensus be reached if there's just me and GPM and GPM is utterly unwilling to compromise or even acknowledge the (clear) POV issues? Glaucus (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

James Vicary
I'm not an expert on the topic, so maybe someone knowledgeable could review the last 2 edits by an anon editor: -- Grand  master  21:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Not an expert either, nor more knowledgeable, but I would be inclined to think something like...


 * James McDonald Vicary (April 30, 1915 – November 7, 1977) was a market researcher best known for pioneering the concept of subliminal advertising with an experiment in 1957. It was later suggested that the results of his experiments had been fraudulent. Vicary was unable to ever reproduce the results of his experiments.


 * ...might be considered more NPOV. Stalwart 111  (talk) 01:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I like your proposed version better. Grand  master  14:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No worries! I decided to be bold and make the change but you should obviously feel free to chop and change as you see fit. Cheers, Stalwart 111  (talk) 04:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC).

Category:Political prisoners and detainees of China
I ask that noninvolved Wikipedians weight in at the CfD discussion on Category:Political prisoners and detainees of China at Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 29. Cheers, Zloyvolsheb (talk) 02:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that discussion is closed now. It didn't really look like a POV issue anyway, but instead a practical matter of whether we can have a category for political prisoners of China without having a generic parent category. Apparently the answer is no. The Blue Canoe  03:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

NCsoft
There is a dispute as to whether the company's statement about shutdown of Paragon Studios and the impending closure of City of Heroes should be merely reported on or reproduced verbatim. I have attempted to discuss the issue with the other user, but not only were we unable to reach an agreement, another anonymous IP has reverted the changes.

I have doubts about my own neutrality on this subject due to possible WP:COI already, and I am not going to allow myself to be goaded into violating WP:3RR. Hence I'm reporting this here.


 * The first time it was reported on it was formulated as:
 * Reasons for the closure are still unclear, as the announcements only reveal that the game was removed "in a realignment of company focus and publishing support"'


 * An anonymous IP later changed it to:
 * In a realignment of company focus and publishing support, NCsoft has made the decision to close Paragon Studios.


 * I have noticed the change and reverted the change to:
 * The exact reasons behind this sudden closure remain unknown, the official announcements explaining it only as "a realignment of company focus and publishing support".


 * This has been reverted back to the official buzzwords by the same anon IP as before
 * I have reverted this again, giving a necessarily brief explanation in my comment
 * Another anonymous IP which might be or not be the same person, has re-reverted the page

My concerns with this are as follows:
 * 1) The official statement may sound impressively, but in reality it is a pile of buzzwords. The only meaning to be found in it is "we decided to stop supporting the the game and/or existence of Paragon Studios".
 * 2) It does not, in fact "explain" the closure in any way. Thus - reasons behind it remain unknown.
 * 3) As noted, it is made of buzzwords. WP:MODLANG and WP:UPE strongly discourage their use on Wikipedia.
 * 4) It is an official public statement by the company - and as such it is not neutral nor should it be portrayed as an objective truth. It is my belief that doing so qualifies as a form of propaganda, and therefore subject to WP:NOTADVOCATE
 * 5) Due to copying the statement verbatim, it appears to constitute WP:COPYVIO

What I believe is the right solution:
 * 1) I believe the statement should be reported on rather than copied verbatim as it was
 * 2) This means observing WP:INTEXT and WP:ASF.
 * 3) As the statement does not actually explain the reasons for the closure, the actual reasons behind the closure remain unknown. I believe the citation should make note of that situation.

It is my opinion that the wording I used (The exact reasons behind this sudden closure remain unknown, the official announcements explaining it only as "a realignment of company focus and publishing support".) is if not appropriate then at least close to being such. As noted, my own neutrality is questionable under the circumstances.

--The Fifth Horseman (talk) 03:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It would be routine for a company to say they are "refocusing their business" when their actual reasoning is "we're going broke." I would treat this more as a sourcing issue. If there was significant speculation as to the company's motives in independent and credible sources, we might include all viewpoints, including using the company's official position as one of them. Otherwise it's very difficult for us to cover a subject that is of a very speculative nature without the weight of expert commentary. Corporate 05:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Request to move Adolf Hitler's vegetarianism to Adolf Hitler's diet
Your comments would be appreciated at Talk:Adolf_Hitler's_vegetarianism. Nirvana2013 (talk) 19:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Technology in track Cycling
Misleading statements, false balance and synthesis has been used in in this sporting article to make it appear far less controversial than it really was. I am also unhappy with the recent Dispute Resolution procedure which was aiming towards a majority if not unanimous consensus but was then compromised.

It has been dogged with Anglo bias since I started it, and there is still a concerted attempt to either to remove it by previously uninvolved editors.

Before progressing to mediation or otherwise I was wondering if it may be acceptable to involve someone from the French version of Wikipedia to oversee it in some way, so that overall neutrality is maintained. This would provide far greater credibility to the dispute/mediation procedures which have not been helpful so far.

You may have to press show to see the comments here however I have temporarily amended the talk page for viewing, someone has attempted to hide it!

--Andromedean (talk) 21:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Andromedean which forum will I see you bring this up on next. Andromedean give it a rest please you are the only user who is still actively pushing this line that the section in the article is biased. It is not. It is an accurate reflection of the sources provided. You have continually referred to those who disagree with you with personal attacks and do so again by referring to "dogged with Anglo bias since I started it,". There is no evidence to support that fact-free claim of "Anglo bias". The section is now free from "Misleading statements, false balance and synthesis", the article did have those issues running through the previous version which you supported and in the suggested changes you bought up most recently on the article talk page. Andromedean no such "greater credibility" is needed, what is needed is an acceptance from you that you are pushing something which is against consensus and is now highly disruptive. None of the above suggestions are made in good faith, they are made in an attempt by Andromedean to attempt to "win" and ensure that "their" version is the only version of the section. Sport and politics (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify that two of the four DRN editors never agreed to the version used. I shall include one example of the type of 'accurate reflection' referred to above and why I think we need someone from .fr on board. Bear in mind this article is supposed to be about the influence of Technology on cycling, and this is a direct quote from the original BBC article:


 * This continued disruption of this section and this continued spreading out across Wikipedia your attempts to impose your preferred version of this section are highly disruptive. Any continuance of this behaviours will result in a report being filed, for bad faith editing, personal attacks and disruption to Wikipedia. Please cease and desist this behaviour. The consensus was to remove the previous version you had imposed on the article as primarily it violated BLP rules amongst other things. All other claims made by you on the version currently in the article are currently only supported by yourself in any active way. The other user you are referring to has made no active contributions on this issue to date, since the DRN was closed. I would also like to point out the disruption you engaged in by placing unwarranted warnings and un-collapsing the closed discussion on the talk page of the article. It was unwarrented and shows a lack of understanding of Wikiepdia. Sport and politics (talk) 14:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * S&P I didn't open this to carry on arguing with you but to obtain advice regarding bias, and this is the place for it. Now please stop your misleading arguments. Let's get the facts right


 * The DRN was only closed 2 weeks ago. Hiding the new talk page which was opened since then to censor the embarrassing truth is not appropriate. I notice in the history the title says "It's closed. Piss off."


 * You refused to discuss further because you got an extreme version through refusal to negotiate prior to the DRN and deception during it.


 * We were advised by the volunteer to carry on discussion after DRN to sort out wording and you have completely refused to do so.


 * Two out of four participants in the DRN, were very dissatisfied with the outcome so there was no consensus. This is the fourth time you have lied about consensus.--Andromedean (talk) 09:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the way I read this, is that everybody agrees with the final compomise except you. The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 14:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Banner, so if this is true why is one other member complaining? That is two out of four of us. Have you tried to read beyond the notice?


 * "Andromedean: let it be clear that I have not agreed to the version that 88 has put there on the page, not even close! I thought we were still debating various topics. Even on the discussion on "home advantage" issue, I have made my concession and made the suggestion I could accept. 88 countered with a different version which I haven't consented to. Personally I'm rather disappointed, to say the least, with 88's rush to put this version on the main page without a final roll call. Showmebeef (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC) "


 * and if three out of four of us plus the volunteer suggested we discuss the wording why is this request now being rejected? --Andromedean (talk) 07:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps people felt that giving in to your demands would compromize neutrality. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 11:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, demand is a strong word, the demands were placed on the original. The version the active editors, myself and showmebeef but not sport & politics) would have compromised to, was written by a DRN volunteer, but all the same I would be interested why you approve of this version: When asked if the British team will put some countries at a disadvantage, former head of research and development of the British Cycling Team, Chris Boardman replied, "Well, I'd like to think so, we haven't done our job if they're not." rather than the original text from the BBC article: But is Boardman not concerned that this high-tech warfare will put some countries at a disadvantage? "Well, I'd like to think so," he laughs. "We haven't done our job if they're not."


 * Are we reading the same material banner? Try to take some time to read the original article please, are you really saying the version which says 'British team', conforms to Wikipedia Policy? Are you saying it fairly reflects what that article in the BBC article says in any way? --Andromedean (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Repeated removal of Advert tag from Black Duck Software
The Advert tag claims says that the page should be re-written from a neutral point of view and not have external links. I believe that I have met both criteria. I would be happy to further edit the page to address anything that is considered promotional rather than informational but I cannot do that without some specific feedback. Pjgruen (talk) 18:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Pjgruen

Between July and November 2012 an Advert tag was added to the Black Duck Software (talk) page by three different users. Each time it was removed by user Pjgruen (Pjgruen), who has only ever edited this page and two logos belonging to either Black Duck Software itself or a website owned by that company. --ajchapman (talk) 10:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Diff:
 * Diff:
 * Diff:

New Islam-related templates
Editor Ibrahim ebi has created new templates for Hadith and Muhammad. The old, general Islam templates on dozens of hadith-related articles have been removed, and these new templates added. The Muhammad template is FAR from NPOV. It has a section for Miracles, and one for Durood, a term new to me, which is apparently the practice of verbal genuflection (PBUH, praise be upon him, and that sort of thing) after mentioning Muhammad's name. This template link goes to ONE article. I've learned a fair bit of Islamic terminology editing Islam-related articles, but this is new to me and would not be understood by 90% or more of Wikipedia users.

The hadith template seems to be in a state of flux -- I saw it change between page refreshes -- and one section of a template that may or may not be in play has a section on "Rightly Guided Caliphs", which would be seriously offensive to Shi'a Muslims.

What the @!#$@#%#@ is happening? Is this just one pious Sunni editor doing his thing or has this been discussed somewhere? Zora (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * From a cursory glance at the templates, the editor doesn't appear to have actually added any potentially controversial content. There was already a miracles section and durood was already there but not as a section title and I can't see "Rightly Guided Caliphs" anywhere. To me it looks like a good-faith attempt to improve the templates. They certainly look smarter (although maybe a touch too big). If there are NPOV issues, they possibly weren't introduced by the recent edits. Maybe talking to the editor about it would be a way forward. Formerip (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

P K Aziz
At the P K Aziz page, a particular editor has been deleting section "Indictment by Government Agencies" on the grounds that it is not neutral. Whenever I have tried to engage the editor in conversation, I have been threatened with blockage on the topic talk page and my own talk page, instead of logic or rule behind deletion. To quote this particular editor my action is "absolutely fucking" ( on summary of edit).

Now I have shown uttermost respect to this editor and others who have tried to correct me. On getting logical feedback from another editor I evened toned down my language considerably but despite this, the said editor continues to delete the section permanently rather than keeping it in a toned and neutral way.

I would love to hear what other experienced editors think about the matter Infinity4just (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The editor has explained very clearly what the problem with your edits was, namely that they are based on primary sources and violate WP:BLP, and that you are edit-warring, and should gain consensus for your addition on the article talk page. He has not "threatened you with blockage", he has warned you that if you continue to edit-war, you will be blocked. Big difference.
 * I agree with the editor. Frankly, your arguments in your edit summaries and on the talk page are nonsensical and betray a woeful lack of familiarity with our policies. I advise you to read the following policies and guidelines: WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:BLP. Throw in WP:IDHT for good measure. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Infinity4just... If you wish to discuss the indictment, what you need to do is find reliable secondary sources that discuss the indictment. For example, has the indictment been reported on in the press?  Once you have established that secondary sources discuss the indictment, you can  (in a limited way) expand on what they say by citing the primary documents for specific details about the indictment (A further caveat: when discussing the indictment, be sure phrase any discussion of what is alleged as being an allegation.  Do not present allegations as fact unless and until a trial has determined guilt).  Blueboar (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Understanding "prevalence in reliable sources" to determine weight
WP:NPOV states that "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources". In this discussion it has been argued that in determining weight, sources should be considered as "eligible" for weight if they have independently developed the information. My reading of prevalence, however, and that of dictionary.com, is that it refers to how widespread something is. If something is widespread, it already implies that it has spread somewhere from somewhere else.

The context here is that a poll was published in an Israeli newspaper (Haaretz), and a large number of international publications, including the Guardian, the Independent, the Telegraph, the Globe and Mail and Sydney Morning Herald ran articles on the poll, citing the Haaretz article. (see here for a list of sources). It has now been argued that since these international publications are "based" on the Haaretz article, they are irrelevant for weight. In my own opinion, the opposite is the case as the story has "spread" to them and thus become "widespread", which is how prevalence (the term in the policy) is understood. I searched the archives but didn't find a discussion where this issue would have been covered. There are a few other wrinkles in the discussion as well, but the point in this section is the determination of weight as described above. Opinions on which it would be? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That is not an exact description of the dispute.
 * Here's what the Globe and Mail says: Other major newspapers, including The Globe and Mail, The Guardian, The Independent and the Sydney Morning Herald carried stories citing the Haaretz poll and interpretation.
 * In other words, there's one source which is Haaretz. There are other sources that repeat what Haaretz published. They haven't seen the poll themselves nor published their own interpretation of the results (which is quite obvious, since they haven't seen said results for themselves). So there's one source for the poll and interpretation of the results, which is Haaretz. There are other sources that say "Haaretz said X".
 * So the question is if the poll and interpretation, which was published by Haaretz, gets the weight of all the sources that cite it to Haaretz as if they're independent sources verifying the information. Another question is what weight does criticism of Haaretz's interpretation, published after most of the sources published their article gets. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * NMMNG, you seem confused about what WP:WEIGHT is for. It isn't about replicated generation of information in order to demonstrate that it is true. It is about repeated mention of information in order to demonstrate that it is noteworthy. So, if something first published in Haaretz is picked up by international media, that makes it more noteworthy and more likely to be appropriate for inclusion per WEIGHT. If you have reason to doubt that the information in Haaretz is sound, that's another issue. If there is good reason to suppose that it is unsound (ie erroneous), then it should not be included, regardless of where it has been republished. But, in terms of WEIGHT, republication in other media is always going to count.
 * The weight that the criticism should get depends on how substantive and widespread the criticism is, so it is difficult to answer in the abstract. If we are talking about something that has been totally or virtually debunked, then the criticism should be promintently included. If it is something that an op-ed or two has called a bunch of crap, then we have to make a realistic assessment about how important those criticisms are in the scheme of things. Formerip (talk) 01:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's put it this way. Source A says "B=C". Sources D, E, and F say "A says B=C". If I understand WEIGHT correctly, we have quite a bit of support for "A says B=C", but not necessarily for "B=C" on its own. Now let's say sources G and H say "source A was incorrect when it said B=C" (then A makes corrections). How much wight should the criticism get? Are we weighing A, D, E, and F against G and H, or only A against them?
 * Out in the real world, Haaretz changed its headline after the criticism was published, and most of the sources which were citing Haaretz changed their headlines to reflect the Haaretz change. That also strengthens the idea that they stand behind "A said B=C" but not necessarily "B=C on its own". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, as I said above, it does not seem to me you are understanding WEIGHT correctly. It's purpose is not to support the truth of facts, only their noteworthiness. So, what is said in Haaretz in this case is more noteworthy the more it is reproduced or commented on. It is simply a matter of how much attention we should be pay the facts in source A.
 * We may then wish to mention sources G and H, but WEIGHT dictates that we need to consider how important they are in the scheme of things.
 * If Haaretz changed its headline, we need to consider how that affects what we write. Quite possibly, we should reflect the modified headline rather than the original one. But changing a headline suggests to me either an error in the detail or an editorial decision to change focus, rather than the invalidation of the whole article (i.e. Haaretz presumably still stand by B=C if it still says B=C on their website). Formerip (talk) 02:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there a difference in how much weight we should give (and to what exactly) between a situation where 5 sources say B=C and where 1 source says B=C and 4 sources say "A said B=C"? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Nothing to see here. The same arguments being repeated over and over again editors who refuse to find a resolution and enjoy forum shopping since there is an obvious stalemate. ARBPIA3 is the only correct venue.Cptnono (talk) 07:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Your comment is unhelpful and unwarranted, you should stick to the relevant discussion or stay quite, do not derail. If a group of editors in in an article are refusing to abide by the core policy of WP:NPOV, making sophistic lawyerly arguments why they don't have to represent viewpoints in proportion to their prevalence in RS per WP:NPOV, then bringing the issue to the wider Wikipedia community is a reasonable step to take, in fact that is what this noticeboard is for. Dlv999 (talk) 07:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Putting aside your accusations of bad faith, there's nothing sophistic here. It's common sense. What makes sources like these reliable is that we assume they check their facts. Without access to the primary source the only facts they could check is that source A said something. They can't know if it's true or not which is why they attribute it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Re: Is there a difference in how much weight we should give (and to what exactly) between a situation where 5 sources say B=C and where 1 source says B=C and 4 sources say "A said B=C"? First, a lot depends on what the specific topic of the article in question is... if the article is a bio article about A, then all that coverage of A's view goes towards the notability of A... and it would be appropriate to give a fair amount of weight to A's views.  If, on the other hand, the article is about B, then we must look deeper into what the sources that mention the fact that "A says B=C" say about A's conclusion... for example, suppose that after mentioning what A says, they all go on to say "However, A's conclusion does not take into account X... therefore we think A's statement is flawed".  This indicates that we should pay less attention to A's conclusion about B (we would give it less weight per WP:UNDUE).   Blueboar (talk) 17:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In this case A is a newspaper and "B=C" are poll results and interpretation that were not published elsewhere without attribution to A (except in the case of one other newspaper, and we have a 3rd that says the second newspaper (and others) got the results and interpretation from A). None of the other sources deal with whether the data is valid or not, they just repeat what A said, with attribution. Additionally, when A corrected its headline, so did most of the sources that were reporting "A said B=C". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So the paper's (Haaretz) view of the polling data is extremely prominent in RS, having been published by numerous international news media. The weighting of the article should reflect that per WP:NPOV. Dlv999 (talk) 18:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * To know how much weight to give the poll, we need to know the specific context in which you wish to mention the poll. Could you link to the article (preferably with a diff to show how you wish to present it)? Blueboar (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The question here is how much weight to give to the findings of the poll, as opposed to how much weight to give to criticism of the poll. The findings were reported in the initial report ("A") and in numerous international media, citing A. The criticism of the poll is published in far fewer sources than the findings. The view, with which I don't agree, that prompted me to open this thread is that the majority of sources reporting on the findings wouldn't quality when assessing weight, since they didn't "independently" come up with the information. Here is one suggestion for covering the poll in the article Israel and the apartheid analogy, there are a few other proposals in the talkpage as well. So the question is rather simple really, should we give more weight to the findings since the findings are more prevalent in sources? Or are sources disqualified from WEIGHT if they cite another source. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Your comment is rude and disregards the obvious, Dlv999. This discussion was derailed years ago and is not getting back on the tracks via this forum. You may not like it but it is the way it is.Cptnono (talk) 05:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * A story may get widespread attention at the time but that does not mean that it deserves weight in the article. If the article is Israel, a single poll that was mentioned by the international press may be of minor significance compared with the hundreds of thousands of pieces of information about Israel that have been mentioned in the international press.  TFD (talk) 02:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

If I read this rightly, a newspaper made a claim about a poll it undertook which it later determined did not fairly represent what the actual findings of the poll were. This would be relevant to an article about that paper, but not strongly relevent to anything else. The actual findings of the poll might be relevant in other articles, but the misuse of a word, ain't. Collect (talk) 13:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the issue here is whether the international sources count for WEIGHT if they cited the original Haaretz article. Ths involves material that either isn't connected with the correction in the article, or reflects the content after the correction. The Wikipedia article in question isn't Israel, see my earlier comment immediately above. The issue is in fact very simple. --Dailycare (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * More precisely, the question is what is the thing that gets WEIGHT, what Haaretz reported as a stand alone thing (that is, are the other sources supporting the poll+interpretation when they publish it cited to Haaretz) or that Haaretz reported it (that is, are the other sources supporting the fact that Haaretz reported a poll+interpretation). Another question is how much weight to give to criticism of the poll, which was published after most of the other sources reported that Haaretz reported something. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the issue really is, as repeatedly stated above, whether citing another source disqualifies a source from WEIGHT. So far no-one has presented any policy-based reasons why this would be so, so the case seems settled. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Edward Said
The Edward Said article has serious issues with its NPOV. See, for example:

"Character assassination:

To undermine Edward Saïd as a public intellectual qualified to speak of and about the Palestinian dispossession by Israel, Justus Weiner, an American lawyer and resident scholar at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs think-tank, said that Saïd was dishonest about his childhood biography. In the Commentary magazine article “My Beautiful Old House and Other Fabrications by Edward Saïd” (1999), Weiner impugned Saïd’s intellectual honesty and personal integrity when he said that Saïd lied when he said: “I was born in Jerusalem, and spent most of my formative years there; and, after 1948, when my entire family became refugees, in Egypt.”[76]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Said

To describe a critique of Said's biographical claims like Weiner's as "character assasination," and attribute motives to him like "undermin(ing) Said as a public intellectual qualified to speak of and about the Palestinian dispossession by Israel" reflects an inappropriate degree of political bias and lack of objectivity.

The entire article has a similarly biased tone. I request an NPOV disputed tag until it's re-written to comply with Wiki policies.

Kamandi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.28.75 (talk) 01:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yea, I agree that the wording there isn't ideal. No need to label this as "Character assassination," and you can simplify the first sentence to something like "Justus Weiner, an American lawyer and resident scholar at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, questioned Saïd's credibility as an expert on Palestinian dispossession. In particular, Weiner wrote that Saïd had misrepresented himself when he claimed such and such..." Is that a little better? Or do you have other suggestions on how it can be improved?  The Blue Canoe  06:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Squatting in England and Wales
The article for Squatting in England and Wales appears to be created, and extensively re-written – after being copy-edited for neutrality (by the User:FT2) – by the User:Mujinga – who, from his overtly positive and flattering contributions, especially to the article for the UK Social Centre Network (an organisation of sorts, or a collective, of so-called "social centres" set up in real properties, mostly of the commercial kind, that are being occupied by squatters, in London, Edinburgh, Dublin, Cardiff, at Glasgow and some other major cities in England) – probably himself has links, associations or affiliations of some sort to the anarchist "Squatting" movement here in England – to show a continuing pro-squatting bias. Is this actually so, or am I mistaken? The tone of the article certainly (still) does not sound or read right, or at least neutral in tone. And ought some of the links to more "outrageous" external sites and references thereto be removed? -- KC9TV 11:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Great Chinese Famine
Here lies a problem of stating "fringe" view of the Famine or not. It started with the removing of some lines by a former Chinese dissenter Li Minqi, because his words are contracting with all lines above. In my opinion, there should be a space for those who believe this Famine is not the greatest. The death number of Famine is varied (and controversial), the death number of Republican era famine also varied, so there does exist a possibility. So I add more supporting Li's view, but I could only find this from internet instead of reference books. --WWbread （Open Your Mouth?） 04:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not sure why this minor question was brought on the noticeboard. Please see my last comment. According to claim by a single source, the death rate was actually decreased during one of the worst famine in human history. This is so improbable and contradicts all other sources that: (a) I asked to clarify what this "dissident" source actually tells with pages (the burden of providing exact quotation and checking the source is on Wwbread who restored this information ), and (b) I suggested to remove this claim as an obviously "fringe". There is nothing special here. My very best wishes (talk) 04:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

RfC on neutrality and citing names (with diacritics) in WP:BLP
RfC on Reliable Sources for Names in BLP. LittleBen (talk) 12:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Ahmad ibn Ibrihim al-Ghazi
the ethnicity of this individual is disuputed/or unknown so wouldnt it be neutral to not include an ethnicity as the header seeing there is an ethnicity section in the article already? some editors on the talk page brought up undue weight but if other encyclopedias dont put any ethnicity as the header then why should wikipedia? Baboon43 (talk) 00:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The article body states that his ethnicity is disputed - and on that basis we cannot assert it as a fact in the lede. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Reuven Feuerstein
This ostensible biography is on the most part an overly-detailed advertisement-like description of the subject's invention, the "Feuerstein Method". In addition, the "theory" presented in the first line of the article as the subject's claim to fame does not seem to say much. = WP:SPAM + WP:NPOV +  WP:COATRACK. Note that these issues were already once addressed in part on the article's talk page; apparently an NPOV tag had been removed.

<span style="font-size:125%; font-family:David, 'Times New Roman'" dir="rtl">הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 05:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Joel C. Rosenberg‎

 * The tone here is bizarrely laudatory, with odd claims of near-prophetic powers on the part of this ideologue/novelist. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  08:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Alliance Defending Freedom

 * There's a dispute here about including a recent incident involving an attorney linked to this organization by press articles. While the tone was reasonable at one point, sadly it's now descended to claims of a "media smear" and similarly accusatory language. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  08:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The talk page of the article is full of accusations that the press only mentions the lawyer's links to ADF because of involvement or pressure or something (it's a bit unclear) by unnamed (presumable secularist) blogs. The only refutations offered have been from conservative blogs, and a statement by the organization itself. I'm not trying to lead a smear campaign here; but the mainstream press (NOT Wikipedia) has been drawing the connection, and I think that claims of a smear campaign are red herrings. I just want to make sure we keep a proper NPOV here, regardless of whether the Biron material stays in or comes out; I make no accusations of ill faith on the part of other editors. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  14:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Orangemike, I saw the reply on the talk board which I appreciate. I responded: Orangemike: The last sentence was in reference to the previous statement: "The false impression of a closer linkage has been manufactured by blogs" It was not pointed at you personally - sorry if there was confusion. Thank you for the dialogue ...it truly makes wikipedia great.

As you stated in your NPOV board...I truly did not mean it to be inferred as accusatory language and if allowed I would gladly edit out that last sentence.

Earlier I was merely stating the 'false impression' produced by many blogs that many of the news sources picked up and presented as fact. Again I was not insinuating that you personally were participating in a smear campaign and again I can clarify by removing those parts to merely present the facts with proof links.

Orangemike - I appreciate you and I have a lot to learn from you. I checked out your page and I'm truly impressed by your dedication, helpfulness and contribution to the Wikipedia community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.239.13 (talk) 17:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

QlikTech
QlikTech seems to be written like an advertisement. Just the 3rd paragraph in the introduction is almost like a sales pitch:

"Traditionally, presentation of information is put into printed reports via a process whereby data and notes are gathered from a wide range of sources (eg, spreadsheets, printed material, etc.). The end result of using this time-consuming process is a paper presentation filled with colored graphic charts and pictures. While fancy, the information on printed presentations is all static and user interaction with it is passive. If someone wants a chart in the report to display certain data differently (eg, change some numbers based on years to basing it on months), then a new paper report would have to be generated. With Qlikview, endusers are given presentations on an interactive software program that allows them to enter new data (depending on the dashboard setup) or simply move saved data around (within the parameters of the template) so that they can see the same set of data from different viewpoints on the same presentation. In effect, QlikView creates real-time customized presentations by allowing endusers to move and change data within it instantly."

The Talk page has mentioned that this is indeed in need of a Neutral Point of View, yet nothing has been accomplished ExilorX (talk) 21:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

NPOV is an Oxymoron
The Propositions:

1 A point of view (POV) is a view that an observer takes from the position occupied by the observer.

2. Using the adjective "neutral" to describe a POV implies that the POV is independent of any observer.

Conclusion:

The term "Neutral Point Of View" is misleading because it does not and cannot exist. It is an oxymoron.

Suggestion

Rather than requiring a neutral point of view, it seems to me that it would be better to require a contributor to explain the "position" from which he or she is viewing the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The ken evans (talk • contribs) 21:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Second "proposition" (premise?) is wrong, therefore the conclusion is false. (Even if both "propositions" were true, they do not lead to a conclusion of impossible and oxymoron.) Therefore the suggestion is baseless. Poster is advised to study WP:NPOV. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This discussion should be at the talk page for the relevant policy not here. However it is probably best just to abandon it.  TFD (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Simple: Consider acids and bases ... H+ is "acid" and (OH)- is "base." With a pH of 7 - there are an equal number of each -- but the acid H+ is still "acid" and the (OH)- is still "base" - the "neurality" comes not from having "all particles be neutral" but from having a balance of each. Is this analogy clear? Collect (talk) 13:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the confusion here is that in this context, "NPOV" means "The point of view of a hypothetical neutral observer" - so (for example) in a war between two countries, a neutral observer is one who is from a country that is not involved with the war and who has no special interests in any of the issues relating to it. It may be tough to find a truly neutral observer in some situations - but that doesn't invalidate the concept. Hence proposition (2) is false and NPOV is not an oxymoron. SteveBaker (talk) 15:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Wonders of the Invisible World
This article is almost entirely an attack on the book that the article describes. The analysis section read like an editorial rather than the proper encyclopedic description of criticisms that have been voiced against the book. It also resembles some kind of student essay, as it sourced only on a brief excerpt found in an anthology. --98.24.43.97 (talk) 01:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It certainly looks problematic - as you say, it is more of an essay than a proper article, and seems to contain original research. I'd have thought that there might be more material available on the subject, and there may be the potential for improvement. I'll look into it if I get the chance, and see if I can find someone with knowledge of the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed a lot of SYNTH and editorialising. It is interesting that Cotton Mather was an early proponent of smallpox inoculation etc. and was far from the hellfire-and-brimstone preacher this essay seems to wish to depict.  In some ways, Mather was a precursor of Franklin in promoting scientific inquiry in America.  More recent studies than his contemporary Calef, who might not have been NPOV per Wikipedia standards <g>, seem to give Mather blame for holding common opinions of his time on the Devil, and for being ahead of his time on using science and not just the Bible - thus foreshadowing Darwin in some ways.  I had not realised just how complex this preacher actually was. Collect (talk) 13:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

How to keep P & I pov warriors off the page on indigenous peoples
If someone has an idea about how to keep Palestine/Israel POV pushers off the page about indigenous peoples which frankly has no relevance to that dispute I would be thrilled to hear it. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

User:EnlightenmentAchievedAgain and Esperanto
This new user (or returning?) user has done nothing except to tag almost every article about Esperanto institutions as "purely promotional"; and has starting instigating AfDs against many of them (initially as a bundle, although that one has been closed). The level of sophistication in the edits and moves, makes it hard for me to attempt to assume good faith. Full disclosure: I am an Esperantist. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  18:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to recuse myself from this discussion as I have been previously identified as racista against esperantuloj.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Identifying terrorism
Not sure if this is better asked here, at WP:NORN or maybe even somewhere else, sorry. Do we have any sort of standard definition of what constitutes "terrorism", "terrorist" etc? For example, in articles such Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2012 it sometimes has seemed to be the case that people have added incidents that, yes, may be terror-related but could equally well be "mere" criminal acts (armed robbery, for example), tribal disputes, honour killings relating to marriage etc, retribution against corrupt police, etc. Where do we draw the line? Can we limit it to instances where the source actually uses the word and, if so, does a "sectarian attack" amount to a "terrorist attack", does "persecution" amount to terrorism ... and so on. It is a bit of a semantic minefield, I'm afraid, but articles such as this can be prone to POV-warring. In fact, articles relating to India-Pakistan are especially prone to it, particularly with those supporting India doing whatever they can to make Pakistan look bad, and vice versa. How do we achieve neutrality here? - Sitush (talk) 07:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no easy answer here. I think that sources should be our first resort - does sources explicitly call an event "terrorism"? Amid political controversy, we might find that some sources do and some don't - so we need to be alert to the risk that somebody will cherrypick a source which calls an event terrorism when other sources don't. If no source explicitly calls an event terrorism, there should be a very high bar before we apply the label. bobrayner (talk) 09:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's not easy. The conservative media in my city called our local Occupy demonstrators terrorists. It would be quite wrong to do that here. In 1975 Gerald Seymour wrote in Harry's Game "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". HiLo48 (talk) 10:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * When there is a debate in the sources as to whether to apply the term terrorist/terrorism to a group/individual/act... the key is Attribution. The article should explain who uses various terms to describe the group/individual/act.  So... if one newspaper or governmental agency calls a group "terrorists"... and another calls them "freedom fighters" ... we neutrally note both labels (without trying to "prove" which is correct).  We say something like:  The Gotham City Tribune has labeled the group "Terrorists", while the Metropolis Times has labeled them "Freedom Fighters". Blueboar (talk) 14:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a very good point. bobrayner (talk) 16:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Generally, the deliberate attack on civilians by a state or non-state political entity to instill fear, i.e. terror. See Terrorism. Usage by generally accepted sources should not be problematic. I agree with Blueboar, that non-standard usages should be flagged as "X says ..." Jason from nyc (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll have a think, based on the comments above. Thanks, everyone. - Sitush (talk) 03:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We should only call something terrorism if there is consensus in reliable sources that it is terrorism. Even people who commit terrorist acts should not be called terrorists, unless there is consensus.  Overt actions by governments, including torture and assassination are not considered to be terrorism, although they would be if carried out by insurgents.  TFD (talk) 05:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Shock and awe has always seemed to me to be a form of terrorism. It's certainly intended to make the targets feel terror. HiLo48 (talk) 06:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * See Global anti-terrorism law and policy, p. 20: "Even when definitions of terrorism allow for state terrorism, state actions in this area tend to be seen through the prism of war or national self-defence, not terror, such as the allied carpet-bombing of civilians in the Second World War, the United States' use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the American use of more than seven million tons of bombs on Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos".  Notice that the law treats them differently, compare for example the different treatment of suspected war criminals and suspected terrorists.  TFD (talk) 06:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Eliding the tangents presented above: Wikipedia has no fixed definition of "terrorism" but it appears to be like Potter Stewart's standard for "hard-core pornography": "I know it when I see it." In international politics, it frequently depends on the POV of the writer, so, as ever, I suggest we ascribe the label as an opinion, properly ascribed to those holding that opinion. "Persecution" moreover rises to "terrorism" if, and only if, some level of violence is threatened or occurs - which is fairly rare, fortunately. Requiring "consensus" is futile as there will always be sufficient people with the opposing POV for anything other than "personal terrorist acts" meaning no one is ever a "terrorist" other than someone like Manson. Collect (talk) 13:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Defining terrorism is difficult inside Wikipedia and also outside it. If some sources describe an act as terrorism and some don't, attribution can be used or we can say something like "has been described as terror". If reliable sources are unanimous in describing it as terrorism we can simply describe it as terrorism. If no reliable sources call it terrorism we can't call it terror even if some editors feel it meets some definition of terrorism. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think it would be unhelpful for us to get too bogged down in defining internal rules, in wikipedia-space, on what can be called "terrorism". Let's just reflect what good sources say on each subject; the same as we do for a thousand other controversial labels. bobrayner (talk) 15:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Requesting more input for RfC concerning La Luz del Mundo
Hi, according to this I am able to publicize an RfC on content by posting a notice here. The RfC can be found here Talk:La_Luz_del_Mundo and it deals with a concern regarding neutrality. Thank you for your time, Fordx12 (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Panamanian Public Forces
IP editor is changing the existing text to what reads like a very POV version without any sourcing that uses his pointed language. Last version is here. Opinions? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the same IP keeps inserting the claim "The center provided pro-war propaganda in the run up to the 2003 Iraq War." without sourcing and reverting when I remove it and ask for a source to return it. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for highlighting this. The original unsourced pro-US propaganda read like this - "The final military dictator, Manuel Noriega, had been belligerent toward the USA culminating in the killing of a US Marine Lieutenant and US invasion ordered..." This is NPOV and a justification of Bush's military adventure masquerading as neutral history. Please advise --192.223.243.6 (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you even pay attention to what you say. You just said the passage you removed is NPOV. That's great! It SHOULD be NPOV. You did the same thing here . You DO understand what NPOV means right? And that we desire NPOV? Can you honestly say you think your wording is neutral? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I meant NPOV violation. The point stands; someone please advise us. --192.223.243.6 (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My question still stands: Do you honestly think your wording is neutral? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I do, just as I'm sure you're convinced that your version is the truth. I think you're wrong about the facts but, as some sort of patriot or whatever you consider yourself, can't see the neutral truth. Requesting outside help or a declaration that the article itself maybe be biased. I'll then stand down.--192.223.243.6 (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's not "my version". It was the existing version and you changed it to add very non-neutral language that had no source. Second, this isn't about "truth". Wikipedia isn't really about truth. I HAVE requested outside participation. It was ME that started this discussion, so let's not pretend that you're the one who decided to seek outside input. Lastly, I'm really not the guy you want to start doing the snarky/sarcasm bit with, so keep your uneducated opinions about what I consider myself to yourself.Niteshift36 (talk) 21:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You reverted and therefore defended the supposed NPOV nature of the existing article, so you're wrong on facts, ITG. I'm endorsing your decision to let the community decide, even if they decide incorrectly, i.e. with you. --192.223.243.6 (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't tell me what I endorsed, especially when you are wrong. I reverted your change from the existing article. It was reverted because it was very POV and wholly unsourced. That does not mean I would oppose re-writing the passage in a more neutral tone. It means that YOUR version was far from neutral and actually made the article more biased. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

192.223.243.6, Please read the Wikipedia WP:BRD guide. Articles here are developed by consensus. There is an assumed consensus on the preexisting version of the article. You made a WP:BOLD edit and it was reverted, so it's now time to discuss your proposed change on the article talk page and develop consensus among other editors that the change is warranted. Mojoworker (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Health care articles

 * Public opinion on health care reform in the United States
 * Single-payer health care
 * Public opinion on health care reform in the United States

We have an issue of factual inaccuracy here, as User:Scjessey insists on calling a reputable poll a "push poll" and giving an incorrect portrayal of said poll in article as well as mischaracterizing the nature of certain polls with User:CartoonDiablo. Upon request for evidence of Scjessey's claims, he instead claims the factual assertions are "fantasy land comments" and will not provide even basic documentation for his claim. CartoonDiablo, also, insists on keeping certain sections as a table, creating a strange situation where the POV of certain ideologies gets undue weight, and is questionable for MOS issues considering the way the articles are structured.

Some assistance on this would be worthwhile. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm calling it a push poll on article talk pages and edit summaries because it is a push poll. It is obvious from the wording, and implicitly obvious because of the skewed result it yielded at the time (almost all other polls in the field have yielded results that are more or less the opposite of this one). I have not referred to it as a push poll in any actual article and I have not removed it from any article. There is no NPOV issue with my editing. In contrast (to use the same original research neutral wording as Thargor does in the article), Thargor Orlando acts as an SPA using Wikipedia to push a US-centric, right-wing agenda - something that is more for the auspices of WP:RFC/U than this noticeboard. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue is the NPOV pushing, really. It requires no request for comment, just for the editors in question to follow basic policies and stop POV pushing.  Rasmussen does not push poll, and few other polls have yielded an opposite result.  This is a fact that you're unwilling to concede, which is why we're here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Dude, I am not pushing anything except neutrality. You are trying to take certain articles and impose your personal point-of-view upon them. In this particular case, you are inflating the importance of a single poll that asks a question about single-payer healthcare (after a bunch of other questions asking about Occupy Wall Street protests) and attempting to give it equivalence ("in contrast") with the scores of polls that say the complete opposite. That's as pure an example of POV pushing as I've ever seen, and sadly reflects the bulk of your Wikipedia contributions. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not neutral to mischaracterize a reputable poll as a "push poll," to claim that polls say something they don't. Two questions about Occupy does not make a 9 question poll about it, sorry.  You couldn't be more wrong on this, and I look forward to the noticeboard volunteers to look at this. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether or not I am "neutral" (by your definition) on talk pages is irrelevant and of no interest to this noticeboard. All that matters is editing performed in actual articles. In this respect, my actions are beyond question and your own lack of neutrality borders on shocking. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well a few things: there is criticism of Rasmussen's polling methods but not in that particular poll. If we used criticism in general and applied it to the one example I think it would be synth since there is no RS criticizing that poll. Personally I think it probably is skewed since it's the only one with a majority opposed but that's not really a basis for removing or commenting on the poll.

That's not what a push poll is. A push poll is when a poll is used as a guise for efforts to convert somebody. It's not a poll that is handled in a manner that is designed to create a particular result for the poll. North8000 (talk) 00:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Single payer polls/chart

 * That aside, there is another issue in those articles regarding the polling sections. For what seem like obvious POV reasons, North8000 and Thargor Orlando reverted the charts to the earlier prose that they originally disagreed with. I think its obvious the charts were both easier to read and gave more information. CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been moved to DRN.
 * I do not support this. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that the DRN has been closed, care to actually try and fix this? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I asked for a third opinion regarding the polls. Just for the sake of reference there are two issues:

1. Are these single-payer polls or polls of "various levels of government involvement in healthcare"?
 * As the previous edit points out (diff) there are six sources including the Washington Post and NPR calling them single-payer polls, Thargor's revert was "rv per facts" which "facts" undermine those six sources he did say.
 * The source is the questions themselves, which do not ask about single payer. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

2. Whether or not to categorize the polls as a table.
 * In my opinion it seems clear that giving the orignal source material as well as showing over a dozen polls works better as table than it does in prose. CartoonDiablo (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The articles are prose, especially the entire one about public opinion. Organizing them this way gives certain points of view undue weight, as well as misstates what the polls say and are given the incorrect insistence that they are "single payer polls." Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The Washington Post and NPR call them "single-payer polls." Unless you have a good reason as to why what you think the polls are trumps the Reliable sources' definition, this discussion is ridiculous. CartoonDiablo (talk) 02:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What trumps these claims are the actual polls, which do not ask about single payer. "Universal health insurance" is not "single payer" and not understood as such, for example - the Politifact piece in the article makes this expressly clear.  Your continued insistence on this is baffling. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Now I want to be clear here: that is YOUR INTERPRETATION of what constitutes a single-payer poll.
 * The Washington Post, NPR, PNHP, Healthcare-NOW! etc. all consider the polls that are posted to be single-payer polls. If you revert it again it will be reported as an incident of POV pushing because unless your definition outweighs those sources then that is exactly what you're doing. CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not my interpretation. This is the language of the polls, something you refuse to address.  Stop threatening people and start working to fix the problem. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So how come six sources say that that language is appropriate? Should we go by The Washington Post or Thargor Orlando? CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know why the media would misrepresent the polls. We should instead go by what the polls actually say.  Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * In this area, the selection of the wording of the poll determines the result. So the actual wording from the poll should be used.   It should not be changed by the editors, including by placing it under a table heading which is such modified wording. North8000 (talk) 00:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please explain why editors should impose their POV of what the polls are when the consensus of the sources say they are single-payer polls. CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * (added later) That "question" has two false assertions put in as false implied premises and so is too faulty to answer. North8000 (talk) 10:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We're trying to stop you from imposing your POV. That's why we brought this discussion here. Thargor Orlando(talk) 00:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * To Thargor, whether or not you seriously believe that to be true I hope you realize you're replacing what The Washington Post and NPR say is a single-payer poll with what you think the poll is. No matter how you frame it, it's pushing a WP:Fringe POV. CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not what I'm saying, but what the polls actually say. Politifact notes this. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Politifact is saying that wording matters, I'd like to hear what you think those six sources as saying. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The "six sources" are not asking about "single payer" but rather about things like "government insurance" or things "like Medicare." You've been told this countless times, and you ignore it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This POV pushing must stop. Thargor is trying to create a false equivalence by suggesting that one poll (conducted by the right-leaning Rasmussen pollster with dubious wording) somehow balances the fistful of polls indicating that Americans overwhelmingly support the adoption of some form of single-payer system (link contains analysis of polling, including trashing the Rasmussen poll). -- Scjessey (talk) 01:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This comment encapsulates the problem exactly - disparaging a mainstream source in one line, and then outright misstating evidence in the next. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

To cut through all the argument... why does the article in question rely so heavily on polls as sources in the first place. Poll results are time and time again proven to be inaccurate and flawed. Polling is a very unreliable art. Surely there are more reliable sources we can use for the topic. Blueboar (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In at least one of the articles, the article is specifically about public opinion. The other two are polling sections.  Removing them in those areas may make some sense in this context, especially given the bad information bandied about, but the problem in the public opinion article would still remain. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Surely there are more reliable sources to support an article about public opinion than inherently unreliable polls. Blueboar (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree with you that polling is unreliable, but that's a different discussion than the problem being created in these articles. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose I am suggesting that the solution to the problem is to rewrite the articles so they don't rely so heavily (exclusively?) on polls. Start over, and find other more reliable sources to base the information on. For one thing, polls are a form of primary source, and articles are supposed to rely mostly on secondary sources. Blueboar (talk) 19:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. North8000 (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No disagreement here, either. CD, SCJ? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I would argue that the article is a candidate for AfD. It has a very limited scope and relies on sources that are mostly several years old. There are other articles where the good stuff can be used. But if it is going to stay, the polling data is absolutely essential because it gives the clearest view of what "public opinion on health care reform in the US" actually is. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not quite... if the polls are old, then the most we can say about the polls is: they represent what a given sample of the public thought about health care reform in the US, at the time that a given poll was conducted. Blueboar (talk) 13:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Should we just merge the public opinion stuff into the health care in the US article? It still means we have to figure out how to stop referring to the polls incorrectly, but it at least solves one problem. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't refer to the polls at all... leave that sort of thing to the secondary sources. Blueboar (talk) 13:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree. Polls are inevitably cherry-picked primary sources. A few objective, intelligent secondary sources would be ideal for this, much better than cherry picked lower grade / biased secondary sources which would be the next issue as this moves along.  I think that by wp:notability and scope this article can legitimately exist as a separate article, but it's almost inevitably a huge coatrack for cherry-picked material. I'd probably say nuke it to a stub, and start over with quality secondary-source material and keep the article.  But if "nuke it to a stub" can't be agreed on, then delete the article. This article is too sick to be fixed in my lifetime by edits in contentious environment.  North8000 (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Disagree. If the article exists, it must contain the polling. It's an article charting public opinion, so removing the polls would be ludicrous. I think there is an inherent problem with the article's existence because public opinion changes all the time. That means the article is constantly out of date. The only way around this is to show polling trends, but finding secondary sourcing to describe these trends is nigh on impossible. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So again, why not just merge the worthwhile information from "public opinion in the united states" into "health care reform in the united states"? We still need to work out the POV problems that started this mess about how to categorize the polls into that section, but it will solve one major issue, at least. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there objection to this option for the public opinion article, at least? Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think, with no further objection, we can just do the redirect. I'll wait a little longer to see if there's any other debate. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect complete. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous, polls are the gauge for public opinion. If we went by that logic we would have to delete about a dozen different articles and deny the basic statistics of how polling works. CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Fixing the remaining issues
We still have the issues of the table and the misstatement of the polls in the remaining articles where this dispute sits. Some extra help on this would be very useful. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * At this point, the people with continued problems are not looking to engage, so I'm not sure where to go from here. Further attempts to fix the NPOV problems will likely create a storm of controversy again.  Anyone else reading this at this point? Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

NPOV issue, as usual, on Kashmir Conflict
See these first:
 * 1) diff
 * 2) Talk page
 * 3) Interview link

Note:Please do not succumb to non sequiturs and red herrings. This is what the issue is all about.

The lines that were added in the lead by none other than Killbillbrowser, are downright irrelevant and lending undue weight to one man's POVs (which is most likely deliberate). Contrary to Killbillbrowser's claims, you will hopefully notice that they are not actually balancing any other POV. In fact, there is no other POV inside Musharraf's interview there in the lead. He admitted (it's not his POV) to forming terrorist/militant groups and turning a blind eye towards there existence simply to force India re-enter negotiation. This is what he himself admitted. This is what Indian Government always accused Pakistan of doing. Now, it has been conceded/confessed.

Even if I agree that the mention of that POV statement is needed to give more clarity to the previous admission, I submit that there is no need to use quotation. The quotation is being used without pertinence. Wikipedia is not a list or repository of loosely associated topics such as quotations.

A. Paraphrasing conveys the meaning more neutrally than his POV-laden quotation ever could. A summary or paraphrase of a quotation is often better where the original wording is excessively POV-ridden. In a sensitive article as this, I think, we should consider an extra dose of neutrality. B. This quote may be hidden in the reference as a footnote to facilitate verification.

Furthermore, whether or not India is killing civilians, this question is covered (according to some, excessively) in detail in subsequent sections, other articles this one and this one. Perhaps, Musharraf's direct quotation about India Killing civilians in Kashmir is more suited there. But other than that section it's not needed to use direct quotation.

P.S. If only a direct quote can convey the message and not the paraphrasing, if all this is pertinent, then I think we should copy-paste the whole interview there. Thanks to all in advance. Mr T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 08:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Indian government is involved in killing innocent Kashmiri civilians. This is what a significant part of the world was always saying. Now this guy has said that again in the interview. Secondly I do not understand what this statement means he himself admitted. This person is being interviewed in an individual's capacity. He was part of an illegitimate government in pakistan, currently does not speak for the government of pakistan and if India was always saying this, meaning even before this guy's tenure, then obviously his statement does not mean much unless verified by the Government of Pakistan as an official stance. There have been tons of confessions from Indian military and politicians about human rights abuse and staged exodus of Kashmiri Pandits. When Mustafa Kamal's confession that government was involved in hindu migration was added to article, none other than Mrt3366 had an issue with that and claimed 'one mans opinion'. That is what Kashmiris have been saying all along and that is what Kamal confessed/conceded. So, why did Mrt3366 suddenly have an issue with that? Anyway, not to get sidetracked, the statement 'strategic deals with India' was completed taken out of context by Mrt3366 in his edit. It was incomplete and misleading. Musharraf had said it in the context of people blaming pakistan and not India for what it is doing. However, Mrt3366 conveniently decided to ignore that part. This sentence puts the statements into context. I invite the readers to read the link and figure it out. First of all this matter should not be in the lead at all. Secondly this is a confession no less than Kamal's. Thirdly these quotations are not loosely related. They put the whole sentence into context without which the reader is misinformed. Now one can choose to paraphrase it, however, Mrt3366 has a flare to weasel the balancing view and emphasize the Indian sentiment as is evident from all the edits. One should read the number of times he uses alleged and claimed when an editor adds a view point something that is against his POV (Indian sentiment). At this point, Musharraf's interview is no more than a claim. Calling it a confession on part of the Government of Pakistan is blowing it out of proportion. Killbillsbrowser (talk) 12:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like to humbly refrain from replying to KBB's bogus claims here. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 13:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Suggest that the word "stated" would be more neutral than either "admitted" or "claimed". Blueboar (talk) 14:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ....non sequiturs and red herrings. This is what the issue is all about. WRONG. This is all about WP:CPUSH, always is with Mrt3366. Anyway, my edit is here. Please suggest the language. I have been extremely fair and did not remove any content added by Mrt3366, plus someone needs to read WP:CIVIL to Mrt. Killbillsbrowser (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * while we are still in discussion, Mrt claims waited long enough and reverts to his changes. STOP. There has been no resolution and long enough is not your discretion. Killbillsbrowser (talk) 11:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * much as a i hate myself for doing this, i had to undo the recent edits (war) by Mrt3366 given that there was no resolution, yet Mrt decided that he had waited long enough. Here is the resolution I propose, feel free to amend it till we feel comfortable and then we can edit the article. 1. Take it completely off the lead (undue). 2. Change the confess/claim/admit to stated as suggested by Blueboar, both for involvement in training groups (section title and text) and killing of innocent civilians by India 3. No need for according to Musharraf since, given we change it to stated, it is according to him automatically. Killbillsbrowser (talk) 11:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ignoring all those Ad hominem attacks and non sequiturs, I would humbly like to suggest KBB not to <U>filibuster</U>. Okay, I will wait even longer. You know as well as me that Wikipedia policies actually advises against overuse of quotations and nothing in that quote actually mandates that it be a direct quote. KBB simply wants to keep it that way because it is a derogatory claim against India. Of course Mr. Musharraf will see every one killed at the hands of Indian Army as "innocent civilians" but that doesn't mean we must insert them injudiciously. Also, note that when I first inputted the info about this interview KBB quickly deleted all of that leaving it for me to put it in the correct section and back in the article. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 17:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

WAIT A SECOND: The quoted portion "doesn't question India about the killings of innocent civilians in Kashmir" doesn't even exist in the sources. It was not even an assertion, it was a rhetorical question..He said, "The West blames Pakistan for everything. Nobody asks the Indian prime minister, Why did you arm your country with a nuclear weapon? Why are you killing innocent civilians in Kashmir?" and that was before he admitted that The Pakistani government formed militant groups. This That line was personal and biased opinion of Killbillbrowser all along. Mr T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 17:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "KBB quickly deleted all of that". WRONG!! It was never deleted. In fact, so it can be easily copy pasted into the correct section, I only commented it, leaving the entire text there. Don't look at the page as rendered. Look at the content of the page - any novice editor can see that and Mrt3366 is no novice. He is just trying to gain some pity points here. As far as the statement is concerned, am I missing something? "Why are you killing innocent civilians in Kashmir?" What does this mean? Isnt this what is added to the section? So, how is this my personal opinion? And 'he admitted Pakistan'. Who is he to admit it? Is this a statement from a democratically elected official of Pakistan? Is this the official stance of Pakistan? He stated it just as he stated killing of innocent civilians. WP does not judge who is innocent or who is not, based on opinions of some editors. It presents information, from all points of view, neutrally. So, it should not be used to further any agenda. Killbillsbrowser (talk) 03:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "It was never deleted" - admit it you hid it and in the rendered page it's tantamount to delete. I didn't need you to make it hidden. I would have gotten the way I got the first time or the way one gets his deleted info back in Wikipedia. Enough of your damn silly arguments. "What does this mean?" - This means it's your synthesis of the source. That quoted should never have been attributed to Musharraf. They were never his original words. Also this word you keep using, "exile", why? He, for one, has claimed in that very interview that he still has hundreds of thousands of Pakistani fans. Notability is not temporary, one person or an event does not need to have ongoing coverage (one time significant coverage is enough). Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 08:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Latest news: Pervez musharraf is going to run for President in 2013 elections in Pakistan. He even claims that he will win Pakistan's 2013 elections (see this ). What Exile were you referring to, huh?? Mr T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 08:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * first: you watch your language. second: I am running for the President of the European Union this year and I am going to win. Killbillsbrowser (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

See my dear, if you could prove to me that you were the president of EU earlier and going to run again while feeling confident, I would believe you. The fact of the matter is, Musharraf in "exile" is your own synthesis. Pakistani people love him now and always will. Besides, like I told you these are all off-topic, notability is not temporary. Mr T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 08:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Pakistani people love him now and always will. This is an unsubstantiated claim and completely your opinion. I have no reason to believe this. It might be true, it might be completely bogus. Regardless, it is a known fact that he was part of an illegitimate government formed after a military coup and removal of a democratically elected government, so his statements can never be used as a stance for a democratic country (Pakistan or whichever) and is currently in exile . I was the one that agreed that this is relevant information for the article, but need to be put into context and stated as Musharraf's POV, not as a fact Killbillsbrowser (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "This is an unsubstantiated claim and completely your opinion." - I am choosing to ignore that word "unsubstantiated", but yeah the idea that Pakistani people loved, loves and will always love that dictator Musharraf, is entirely my opinion here. FYI, I didn't want to put it in the article. All this is beside the point anyway. If you want to chat with me or vilify or malign me, then I suggest you do it on my talk page instead of creating clutter here while groping for shoddy pretexts to impugn me as opposed to addressing my concerns. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 10:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to push this discussion towards a resolution, I won't mind if one inserts the full quote in proper context. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 09:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If you see my posts, I have always asked for exactly that. Feel free to add the exact quotes, use stated instead of confessions/admitted/claimed etc. as suggested by Blueboar. In order to avoid multiple edits, please add here how you want to change it (both in lead and the section: heading as well as text) instead of editing the main article. If it is neutral, then I will request you to add it to the article Killbillsbrowser (talk) 14:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I eventually will change the article and then if you revert me I will report you. But I think some third party input will be helpful to our case. This has come this far why not wait and ask what should be the appropriate way to deal with this. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 19:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And if you change the article without a resolution, like last time, I will revert it and report you as well. I can surely wait for others, but as requested earlier, I would suggest you type here how you would change the article (exact text) instead of changing the article directly. Other editors, including myself, will have an opportunity to comment on that language. That will prevent unnecessary edits and reverts on the main article. Does that sound reasonable?Killbillsbrowser (talk) 04:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)