Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 37

NPOV dispute at Psychiatry and Forensic Psychiatry
has made edits to the Psychiatry and Forensic Psychiatry articles that me and another user have objected to. Here are the changes for the Psychiatry article. Myself, and have reverted this user's changes. On the talk page for Psychiatry, we have discussed the issue (See Talk:Psychiatry). I am in favor of including a few sentences or a paragraph on the controversies in psychiatry, but the paragraph that this user has included go far beyond NPOV and may be giving WP:UNDUE weight to minority opinions.

This user has made similar edits to Forensic Psychiatry (See here).

This user has also included a POV tag for both pages. I would like for this noticeboard to give advice on how to resolve this NPOV conflict. I apologize if I did not post this to the most appropriate place. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This same user has also added a POV tag to Bipolar disorder and has removed material. The material removed appears to be factual, just merely missing citations. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Reply - Please stick to discussing my edits and their sources, not discussing me. ParkSehJik (talk) 02:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * 1 I do not have a POV.
 * - I use MOS and BLP to write biographies and related articles strictly from RSS and MEDRS, wherever the sources may lead.
 * - I ruthlessly delete medical claims without MEDRS secondary sources.
 * - When an article fails MOS (lede) in not having significant controversy material, I add a POV tag.
 * That's it.


 * 2 Editors should rely only on what the MEDRS and RS say, whether they like what that is or not, and not accuse other editors of POV because they do not like what the sources say.
 * - MOS (lede) demands controversy material -
 * - The second lede paragraph of the DSM article at WP states "It has also attracted controversy and criticism. Some critics argue that the DSM represents an unscientific system that enshrines the opinions of a few powerful psychiatrists. There are ongoing issues concerning the validity and reliability of the diagnostic categories; the reliance on superficial symptoms; the use of artificial dividing lines between categories and from 'normality'... "
 * - There is no corresponding controversy material entirely absent from the articles on psychiatry, forensic psychiatry, and bipolar disorder, articles in the main dependent on DSM.


 * - RS and MEDRS based placement of such material in an article is not a matter of POV.
 * - Harizotoh9's removal of MEDRS and RS sourced controversy material, as cited by diffs below, is POV editing.


 * 3 The offending supposedly "POV" sources are peer reviewed MEDRS in mainstream and highly respected joirnals International Journal of Risk and Safety in Medicine and two from the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, and the source of the word "frequently" is New York Law School.


 * 4 Unsourced medical claims that I deleted per MEDRS were put back in[, with no sourcing at all, and an edit summary ''"this is pretty basic. I need to find the page from DSM IV TR but is core"'.
 * - Then this discussion was started with an accusation that I was POV as a result!


 * 5 My MEDRS based edits in the lede, per MOS (lede) - "summarize the most important points — including any prominent controversies", keep being deleted with edit summaries like "far too strong" as simply too strong, and sources disputing whether psychiatry is a science are in the minority"and "These edits blatantly push an anti-psychiatry POV".
 * - I was ignored when I repeated asked Harizotoh9 for sources for both of his claims upon which he based his deletions - that this was the “minority” view, and - that it was not a “significant controversy”,  as asserted by the sources I cited, International Journal of Risk and Safety in Medicine, Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, and New York Law School.
 * - Having no such sources to support his deletions, Harizotoh9 came here with a personal attack that is unrelated to the content of my edits or the quality of their sources, calling my deletion of unsourced medical claims per MEDRS “POV’, just because he wants to believe in the claims, sources or not.


 * 6 I posted notice of the MOS (lede) violating problem at the talk pages of forensic psychiatry, psychiatry], and bipolar disorder.

Summarizing -


 * Editors who apply WP policies and guidlines from mainstream MEDRS and RS sources should not be accused of POV because other editors do not like what the MEDRS and RS sources say.


 * The significant controversy material regarding scientific invalidity of part of psychiatry and related topics, all based on MEDRS and RS, should be restored, per MOS (lede).


 * Unsourced medical claims, which I deleted, must be deleted again. POV has nothing at all to do with it. This is a MEDRS issue, not a POV or TEND issue.

ParkSehJik (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This editor appears to have an unusual POV and you are right to mention it here. I had a discussion with him at Talk:Pseudoscience.  I suggest warning him if he approaches 3rr and applying for a block if he exceeds it.  TFD (talk) 08:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * @The Four Deuces - What is your RS that my POV, based on info I got from the above cited mainstream MEDRS and RS, is "unusual"? Please strike your comment if you cannot provide a source for it, or as irrelevant, and stick to discussing the content of edits and quality or lack of sources. Why should I be "warned", even if my RS and MEDRS based approach to editing, such as deletion of unsourced medical claims, is "unusual"? ParkSehJik (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that the user's perspective on psychiatry is unusual, but it's underrepresented in the Psychiatry literature for obvious reasons. I have suggested to the user that they tone it down a bit and stick to reliable sources, and I've found them to be quite willing to listen and modify behavior.  They're fairly new here, and it takes editors time to learn to work in this space.  I hope that it does not come to blocking.  -- Scray (talk) 14:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Samples of edits indicating a failure to grasp Wikipedia policies and WP:TEND A small sampling of ParkSehJik's edits: This is only a quick glance: there is much more, it extends across many articles, and I've yet to encounter a correct edit in all that I've checked. Every indication of WP:TEND and pov pushing, little indication of understanding of WP:UNDUE. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 22:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Added dubious tag to common knowledge:  Psychiatry is the medical specialty devoted to the study and treatment of mental disorders.
 * 2) Added dubious to biomedical research:   Psychiatry is the medical specialty devoted to the study and treatment of mental disorders.
 * 3) On the above, I suspect he's way beyond 3RR; another indication of WP:TEND.
 * 4) Added POV tags based on dubious tagging of common knowledge above.
 * 5) Deleted common knowledge  most likely cited in the next source.
 * 6) Believes articles must have a criticism section:
 * 1. Re you "suspect" I am way beyond 3RR? Please retract your false accusation, not made in AGF.
 * 2. What is your source for your claim that it is "common knowedge" that psychiatry is all medicine. I cited sources asserting that areas of psychiatry are not.
 * 3. How is it WP:TEND to put a dubious tag up when the sources I provided in the controversy content questioned what you called "common knowledge".
 * - Freudian analysis concluding penis envy is not "biomedical research". The dubious tag is correctly placed.
 * - Psychiatrists working at Guantanamo are not "treating disease" - the "discomforts" they come up with so as to avoid the label "torture" is not in any way ''medicine devoted to the treatment of mental illness". The dubious tags are correctly placed.
 * 4. - I would not have placed the tags if it were worded "some psychiatry may be based on biomedical research", or that "some areas of psychatry is medicine devoted to the treatment of mental illness".
 * 5. I cited sources for my assertions and tagging - International Journal of Risk and Safety in Medicine and two from the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, and the source of the word "frequently" is New York Law School. What are your sources contesting these assertions? ParkSehJik (talk) 02:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I should also point out that this user's edits are still up on forensic psychiatry. Most of these issues don't even relate to forensic psychiatry at all. There is controversy regarding the motives and scientific validity of forensic psychiatry findings of mental disorders. Forensic psychiatrists are frequently called “whores”. In psychiatry, “politics and economics has replaced quality science”. Unlike evidence based medicine or even traditional medicine, psychiatry may use the term “disease” or "disorder" without a systemic etiology indicated, i.e. even without any observable and measurable abnormalities in anatomy, chemistry, and physiology hypothesized as causative for mental categories declared by psychiatrists to be diseases or disorders. Psychiatry may apply the term “disease” politically, for the mere belief that a cluster of symptoms must be a disease because the symptoms are very uncommon, to justify crude its own specialty treatments such as lobotomies, to justify involuntary commitments, and for financial profit to justify the sale of psychotropic drugs.

...Really? Whores? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Whores" is the word used in the mainstream article titles as being "frequently" used to describe. A wikipedia editor not liking what is in RS is not a basis for keeping the information out. If you have any experience in the field whatsoever, this is not just frequently used, as per the sources, it is uncommon for it not to be used. Please rely on the sources, not on your own opinions. ParkSehJik (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Above was also posted to WPMED: My response is there. -- Scray (talk) 12:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Scray, thanks for the supportive AGF. I expect editors new to reading RS on the topic will gradually come around per the RS and MEDRS, and stop making content-free, source-free ridicule such as the "...Really? Whores?" -- User:Harizotoh9. (But recall that Thomas Henry Huxley, who initially emotionally flew off the handle against Darwin's theory of evolution like most at that time, ended up becoming "Darwin's bulldog", and empirically proving for the first time in human history that explanations of the true origins of humans, the core of most world religions, was false. Perhaps some of the editors now calling me names and arguing by emotion will, after reading the RS and MEDRS, similarly become strong advocates for inclusion of the S and MEDRS content.)


 * 10% of legal opinions (re forensic psychiatry) termed or compared expert witnesses to “hired guns”, “whores”, or “prostitutes”. (source - Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 27:414 –25, 1999 – 2). Prosecutors made the plurality of the comments. This is not just a review of usage on the street, this is a review of legal opinions. 10% of legal opinions, the majority of which are by prosecutors, is significant per MOS (lede), and is in no way UNDUE. And that is just a citation of what is in the legal record, so it the very most conservative number on prevalence of opinion in the legal profession.


 * There is also RS that such usage has a rational basis in the way the profession is currently practiced, of which I am compiling. Here are four of many RS on the topic - (1. “Hired guns,” “whores,” and “prostitutes”: case law references to clinicians of ill repute, D. Mossman, Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 27:414 –25, 1999 – 2. Whores of the Court: The Fraud of Psychiatric Testimony and the Rape of American Justice, Hagen MA, New York: HarperCollins, 1997 – 3. Reel Forensic Experts: Forensic Psychiatrists as Portrayed on Screen, Susan Hatters Friedman, MD, Cathleen A. Cerny, MD, Sherif Soliman, MD, and Sara G. West, MD, J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 39:412–17, 2011.


 * Hagan criticized the methods of clinical assessment and psychological testing (in an evidence based and very reasoned and manner) and argued that mental health testimony is business rather than science, which is only a small part of the many bases of my placement of the Dubious tag on “medicine” re forensic psychiatry, and thereby on "all of psychiatry" being medicine. I was ridiculed as not being worthy of responding to re my arguments to keep the content I put in with MEDRS, with no sourcing for the ridicule, and simply because I put a dubious tag per the MEDRS and RS. This is not a good way to treat editors, nor is it a good basis for editing andarguing on talk, citing "common knowledge" to trump MEDRS sourced info.


 * Samuel Gross (a Michigan Law School prof) writes “The contempt of lawyers and judges for experts is famous. They regularly describe expert witnesses as prostitutes.” This is RS for the use of “famous”, in addition to the source I provided describing “frequent” use of the expression. No wiki editor critical of my edits is citing any sources to base their opinions. The New York Times published similar remarks re being partisans rather than science based medical practitioners (In U.S., expert witnesses are partisan, Liptak A, New York Times. August 12, 2008, p A1).


 * This is not just a “minority” “opinion”, and my recitation of what is in highly MEDRS and RS sources is not POV. It is citing sources. Deletions based on editors (likely as yet uninformed) opinions are not justified. I expect that in the end, these editors, likely deleting in good faith, will read the RS and MEDRS literature, and the material will gradually go into the article. In the meantime, editors should stop attacking me because they are uninformed as to what is in the MEDRS and RS sources, and is a prevalent, if not dominant, view in the legal, medical, and scientific community.


 * This discussion belongs here, as well as in the three articles whose content and POV is in dispute, because of the general points I raised at the top of this section. Please read the sources, or refrain from comenting, and in any case, as I requested at the outset of this section, please comment on the sources, not on me. I am simply regurgitating what is all over in the RS and MEDRS, all evidence based, like it or not. ParkSehJik (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * ParkSehJik, a few observations:
 * (1) MEDRS does not work like a magic cloak so that nothing can possibly be wrong with your edits so long as you are following it. You still need to represent the sources accurately and fairly and ensure that you observe WP:WEIGHT. Some piece of information being in a journal does not give an automatic pass to its inclusion on Wikipedia - far from it.
 * (2) While there should be room for criticism of psychiatry is both articles, it ought to be obvious that neither article should begin with a one-sided rant against the subject of the article. If you disagree, then my advice is to just give up now because there is no way you are going to get anywhere.
 * (3) It's necessary always to consider how significant and widely-held particular views are in deciding how much coverage - if any - to give them in the article. It is also necessary to consider what contrary views are held and to ensure that the article offers the reader an appropriate balance of opinion, reflecting what the current state of thought is among experts.
 * (4) It's important not to make the mistake of generalising debates and controversies within psychology into denials of the validity of psychiatry. Of course, there are many outmoded and doubtful philosophies and practices in the history of psychiatry. But currently fashionable practice is, by definition, not outmoded, so be careful not to confuse past and present tense. How much focus would you give to leaches in a general overview of medical general practice?
 * (5) Be sure that you fully understand the implications of research you are citing. To what extent is a negative description of US courtroom psychiatrists reflective of the shortcomings of psychiatry (I don't say not at all) and to what extent does it reflect shortcomings in medical training and the court system in the US (I'd say, probably, quite a large extent)?
 * Hope that's helpful and you'll think about it. Formerip (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Formerip gives well reasoned and good advice.
 * re WEIGHT in the psychiatry and bipolar and related articles, the issue of weight does need addressing. I am not sure that including a WP:MOS (lede) paragraph with content from mainstream RS re substantial controversies, especially in a context in which these are so great that DSM 5 is now being called off for publicatin by the Chair of DSM 4, can be accurately characterized as a "rant".
 * re WEIGHT in the forensic psychiatry article, it only has possibly UNDUE weight because of a lack of RS based content about the topic. This indicates a need to add more RS based conent to the article, not to delete the MOS (lede) RS content I added. The content I added is sourced to possibly be the majority, not the minority, view by legal and psychiatry experts in the field.
 * Clarification - In light of Formerip's "magic cloak" comment re MEDRS, I need to clarify that MEDRS should be ruthlessly enforced insofar as deleting medical claims that do not have MEDRS sources, and WP:UNDUE is irrelevant in such cases, but I am in full agreement with Formerip that MEDRS is not a magic cloak for including content, even with MEDRS sources, since UNDUE and other policies need consideration. ParkSehJik (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion re MEDRS questions raised by the above NPOV concerns - In light of the above discussion and related discussions at associated talk pages, discussion re uniform application of MEDRS standards to all WP articles is here. ParkSehJik (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Should these pages still have a neutrality tag? This user is the only one who has problems with them, and their changes have been opposed by several users. Any problem with these pages likely does not warrant a neutrality tag. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

neutrality of Breast cancer awareness
I'd like to call attention to the article Breast cancer awareness. I'm concerned that there are major neutrality problems with this article, specifically that it advances a viewpoint that the most well-known elements of the Breast Cancer Awareness movement (such as the Susan G. Komen foundation) promote a kind of falsely-cheerful type of activism that hurts patients. This is a point of view that has been advanced by some serious people (Barbara Ehrenreich for instance) but in this article it is given undue weight and claims made by these detractors are treated as fact. Given that this movement enjoys widespread popular support, the lack of balance is quite striking. The following are examples of problems that I see: "'Mere symbolism itself does not prevent cancer, improve treatments, or save lives. However, it is an effective form of promoting the pink ribbon culture: fear of breast cancer, the hope for a scientific breakthrough, and the goodness of the people who support the cause. These supporters may feel socially compelled to participate, in a type of 'obligatory voluntarism' that critics say is 'exploitative'"
 * The article makes sweeping generalizations and states them as facts, rather than as opinions. For instance: "Mainstream pink ribbon culture is also trivializing, silencing, and infantilizing (Sulik 2010, page 98)." Sulik may conclude that it is, but I doubt so many people would contribute money and time to these organizations if they agreed.
 * The article gives massive weight to critics of this movement and comparably little weight to proponents. The section on the social role of the breast cancer movement, which discusses the negative effects that the movement has on survivors is 12 paragraphs long, and placed above the section on the achievements of the movement, which is seven paragraphs long. Following this is a five-paragraph section titled "Risks of too much awareness" and then a five-paragraph critical section titled "Independence of breast cancer organizations" and then a four-paragraph section that starts by accusing major foundations of ignoring possible environmental causes of breast cancer. Following this is a three-paragraph section called "Dissent through art"
 * When summing up organizations or elements of the breast cancer awareness movement, the article takes a dismissive tone. For instance, the last paragraph of the section "Events" says this:
 * This portrays participants in awareness events as both self-satisfied and exploited and engaged in meaningless work. It also takes a much harsher tack than the cited source: it ignores benefits of these events that the cited source points out just one paragraph earlier - that they enable breast cancer patients to meet others in the same predicament and to feel comfortable receiving advice and support. It also changes the source's tone by suggesting that this movement IS exploitative when the source says it "can be".

I think this article would benefit strongly from a fresh perspective and I encourage you to take a look. (note that I've copied this from Jimbo's talk page). GabrielF (talk) 20:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The article takes constructs from social science research and presents them as facts. For instance: "Breast cancer culture values and honors suffering, selecting its she-roes by a "misery quotient" (Sulik 2010, page 319)". Is this "misery quotient" a term universally excepted in social science research, or is it something that Sulik came up with?
 * The article talk page includes an FAQ titled "Why is this article so critical" that suggests to editors that changes are unwelcome.

Improvements at the Alternative Medicine article
There have been numerous editors that have commented that the current lead of the alternative medicine article fails WP:NPOV, (see and  ). Some editors have disagreed that the lead is POV, but most challenges to this claim have simply been anti-alternative medicine rhetoric (again, see above links to past discussions). As such, I am posting notification of a new discussion here, in hopes that some reasonable editors will like to review the issues raised and comment. The newest discussion of changes that might improve the article are here:. Thanks Puhlaa (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * When recruiting editors from a noticeboard such as this one, neutral wording is very important. -- Scray (talk) 02:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My proposal asks to give a bit more weight to a NPOV definition of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) that is supported by ample reliable sources. There have been a few comments, but no one has commented on the concerns that the lead currently gives more weight to one POV, no one has challenged my proposal based on policy or reliable sources, no-one has even commented on the merits of this idea, or how else we could improve the article. However, there has been plenty of critical remarks made about homeopathy, faith healing, acupuncture, etc. There has also been a 'challenge' over if the CAM definition that BMJ quotes and attributes to Cochrane is really from Cochrane, as if this has any impact on the POV of the article or my proposal. This has been the trend in the past 3 threads started regarding concerns about this aticle (see and  ). I have appealed here because it appears that things are not neutral over there. Is that not the purpose of this noticeboard? I am not at all new to wikipedia, but I am not experienced with the protocols on the noticeboards, what can I do different in my situation that would more consistent with the 'rules'?


 * The sources of the allegedly POV “anti-CAM rhetoric” in the lede first paragraph are -
 * 1. National Science Foundation
 * 2. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
 * 3. Academic Medicine
 * 4. Nature Medicine
 * 5. American Psychological Association
 * 6. Journal of the Association of Medical Colleges
 * 7. Medical Journal of Australia
 * 8. Canadian Medical Association Journal
 * 9. Carl Sagan
 * 10. Canadian Medical Association Journal
 * 11. Nature (journal)
 * 12. National Institute of Health – NCCAM
 * 13. British Medical Journal
 * 14. World Health Organization


 * As I and many others repeatedly explained at the talk page, all of the sources and their definitions and descriptions are consistent with each other, are MEDRS, and are NPOV. ParkSehJik (talk) 05:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * None of these sources are challenged in my proposal. Please see here . I have only asked to give a bit more weight to a more NPOV definition of CAM that is supported by ample reliable sources.Puhlaa (talk) 06:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What is CAM? Insider talk? HiLo48 (talk) 06:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Complementary and Alternative Medicine 06:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParkSehJik (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks. So it's just a redirect. Why not use the main title of the article? Is this part of our problem? HiLo48 (talk) 07:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I should have been calling it AM (for alternative medicine). I am sorry that I didnt do this from the start to avoid the confusion, but too late.... Our article clumps complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) into one article under alternative medicine (AM), I am used to sources calling them CAM not AM. Sorry for not staying consistent, however, this is not at all the problem. At the talk page, I have provided evidence for why the lead of the article represents one POV and have proposed moving a single sentence in the lead to help remedy this. Puhlaa (talk) 07:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Specifically, the lead was recently changed, including a change to the definition, and his proposal is to change the definition back. The section he links is only the most recent of a very long and convoluted discussion about the lead, and is a restatement of arguments that have mostly been responded to above that talk page section, not below. Arc de Ciel (talk) 11:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The issue of immediate concern is the continuing lack of explanation for the most glaring and elementary fault in the lead's first paragraph, mentioned at []. Qexigator (talk) 16:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The upshot of Quexitor's "continuing lack of explanation for the most glaring and elementary fault in the lead's first paragraph" is his own unresponded to comment - "Citation 1 is to "Wallace Samson" as author of "The Flight from Science and Reason: Antiscience Trends in the Rise of the "Alternative Medicine Movement", Volume 775, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. Is there anything to vouch for his authenticity?" I believe since the citation links to the NYAS Annals itself, he is alleging that someone went in an hacked the New York Academy of Sciences website, a speculation that other editors did not bother to respond to as being an unsourced and bizarre speculation. That is not an NPOV issue, but an issue of not respoding to bizzare speculations unsupported by RS.
 * As Arc de Ciel indicates, a handfull of editors, dissatisfied with the outcome of discussion in talk page sections, restart new sections on identical issues, to which editors who already commented above do not respond again and again, and whereby new editors coming in will not see the reasoning by which consensus was reached in identical sections above. ParkSehJik (talk) 18:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * As we all know, National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine is a part of NIH. After reading new version of intro, one could conclude the US government funds "pseudoscience and fraud". This is not the case. A lot of things in alternative medicine is simply not science or has been disproved. But a lot of other things can be studied by scientific method, although I can see this. I suggest to make a more neutral version. Also keep in mind that this subject is currently under discretionary sanctions (on pseudoscience) and edit warring there can be reported to WP:AE... My very best wishes (talk) 06:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Don Sundquist
Could somebody other than me, somebody who didn't leave Tennessee forever because of politicians like him, take a look at Don Sundquist to see whether it's as fluffy and spun pro-Sundquist as it appears to my jaundiced view? -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  16:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently there's several vastly-unsourced related articles including John Jay Hooker, Phil Bredesen, Winfield Dunn, Jim Sasser, Russell Erxleben largely written by a now-awol former admin User:Rlquall. It looks like this user created a lot of articles in the early days of wikipedia, and while some of them later had references added in, some of the more obscure ones survived mostly in their original condition.  a13ean (talk) 16:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Articles on living people are usually a bit "fluffy" and "pro". This is because WP:BLP limits the negative to some extent. Blueboar (talk) 13:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Andrew Wakefield
Summary as follows, help requested on NPOV and BLP noticeboards. NPOV tag added but hopefully will be removed shortly


 * Problem: First sentence of article states a seriously contested assertion (fraud) as fact
 * Issues: Libel and NPOV
 * Definition of Fraud: would a lay reader interpret the first sentence as relating to scientific or criminal fraud ?

If criminal, then Wakefield has an over-riding presumption of innocence until there is a verdict regardless of his approach to litigation. If scientific, then can we use the ORI definition (http://ori.hhs.gov/definition-misconduct) which would fit with the Lancet / GMC statements. Grateful for help and advice Nernst (talk) 15:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Note that this is being forum-shopped at WP:BLPN, as well. Suggest keeping the conversation in one place, over there, rather than duplicating the same argument in two or more venues.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Times of India opinion - Fringe?
In regards to Death of Savita Halappanavar, an editor has expressed concern that the Times of India's editorial opinion as expressed In an editorial on 17 November, The Times of India said, "There appears to be a tendency to view this issue in terms of India versus Ireland or the Catholic faith against other religions. To fall prey to such tendencies would be a serious mistake and a great disservice to the memory of Savita. ... Adding a nationalist or communal tone to the debate detracts from the merit of argument rather than enhancing it." is a fringe view that should be removed from the article. (one would be negligent if one also failed to include the fact that this very same editor created the section heading "Removal of vital information from the lead" in which they vociferously argued "Three points have been removed from the lead, (1) that prima facie Halappanavar's death was caused by denial of termination of her pregnancy when it was indicated. (2) That it were Ireland's Catholic laws and ethos that were responsible for the decision that her caregivers took. (3) that ther family was unhappy that Catholic religious laws applied to those like Halappanavar who was a Hindu and not a Catholic.  )

so is the Times of India opinion Fringe? or not fringe? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm at a loss to understand what the problem is here. The TOI is clearly speaking from an Indian perspective - so its describing a common view among Indians. It may not be a significant way in which the debate is seen in Ireland, but that's a different issue and it is no basis for claiming that the TOI's opinion is "fringe" in Wikipedia's sense. It might be claimed that the views of Indians are somehow of marginal relevance to the article, but that's a weight issue: nothing to do with WP:FRINGE. Paul B (talk) 10:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * (side note) the death lead to the indian ambassador being called home and then coming back and having a special session with ireland's PM - so even if the major impact is vis a vis ireland and its laws, the event is a pretty big deal in india and receiving regular news coverage there. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've no doubt it is. I didn't mean to suggest that India reactions are justifiably regarded as marginal. I'm still unclear what the issue is. The TOI says the death shouldn't lead to nationalistic or communalistic name-calling (ie. India-is-better-than-Ireland or Hinduism-is-better-than-Cathloicism). It's a fairly reasonable, but also fairly banal, point. Such communalistic name-calling is common in Indian politics, as it has been in the past in Ireland. All the TOI says is that the death should not be demeaned by point-scoring in national and religious rivalries. Fairly unremarkable. Paul B (talk) 19:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So, far from being FRINGE, you are indicating that it is probably so "sky is blue" that it probably doesnt bear mentioning? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

A scrutiny of the sources makes it clear that TOI's opinion mentioned above has not been shared by others, whereas the statements regarding the deceased's religious persuasion etc. are statements made by her mother and her husband as quoted by multiple reliable media sources. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Without having read the article in question, may I draw to attention that the Times of India has a daily circulation of 8 million - more than any other English-language newspaper in the world. From that point of view, I would hesitate to use the word "fringe", maybe the word "dissenting" might be appropriate. Martinvl (talk) 09:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ToI is fine for its own opinion, especially given its circulation. As long as we make it clear that this is what that source says, I do not see what the problem is here. If something else says differently - eg: the famiy, as Yogesh suggests - then we can contrast the two. Families, Yogesh, particularly in India (see caste articles, ad infinitum), are not unfamiliar with the concept of massaging things. Unless it is a BLP issue, which it isn't, this seems pretty straightforward. - Sitush (talk) 09:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (1) What would in Wikipedia's context be the difference between "fringe" and "dissenting". (2) The media consensus is with the family's version. We can't be smarter than our sources? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I would be happy if the TOI comment is described as a "dissenting view". Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Dissenting" from what view? where are there sources (heck even one source) that describe anything in a way which would make the TOI view not highly representative? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please present one source that says the same thing as TOI does please. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have a serious problem characterizing any major newspaper's editorial page as "fringe" (biased? misinformed? erroneous? perhaps... but not "Fringe").
 * That said, I note that this concerns the lede. I don't think the lede is the right place to go into opinions on any event.  That should be presented later in the article.  Blueboar (talk) 13:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * TOI's opinion isn't shared by anyone, to the best of my knowledge. What would you call such a opinion? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * An opinion... nothing more, nothing less. I would avoid attaching a label (and if forced to do so... I would probably use "mainstream opinion with a unique perspective".)  When it comes to calling the opinion of the editor of a highly respected news source "fringe" I don't think it is enough to merely say "no other sources agree"... I think you need to establish that the rest of the media actively rejects the opinion, and actively supports an alternative. Blueboar (talk) 15:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Unique: Existing as the only one or as the sole example. Mainstream: The dominant trend in opinion. You've just created an oxymoron. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Not quite... if we can not identify a truly dominant opinion, then we either have to say that there is no "mainstream" opinion (and, in which case, there is no "fringe" opinion), or we have to say that the mainstream consists of multiple unique opinions. Which brings me back to the need for active rejection rather than an absence of support. The question is this: is there really a dominant opinion here that we can call the "Mainstream view"?  Are there sources that say the TOI editors got it wrong... that actively reject its opinion. If so, then we might be able to call it fringe.  Otherwise, no. Blueboar (talk) 18:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * TOI has created an us v/s them strawman where none existed and then has attacked it, no one else has painted the picture quite like that, not even the pro-life camp, which has remarked that the issue has been used to attack its position on abortion, and sees no attack on the Catholic church in itself, no-one has considered it an India-Ireland issue, TOI's editorial is unique as you correctly describe it, yes TOI belongs to the mainstream media, so what? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

White flight


This article has been subjected recently to edits by a couple of IPs (in the same range, and presumably the same person with a dynamic IP address) to defend the legitimacy of restrictive covenants as preserving the "cultural homogeineity" rights of "European Americans". I don't know if this is a sock, but I'd rather have somebody look at it who is not myself (a white refugee from the South, and a resident of the inner city of one of the United States' most segregated cities). -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  21:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You should be able to solve the problem by finding reliable sources that link these specific events to the concept of white flight. The connection seems evident to me, but it's not very well supported by sources right now. (Here I'm referring to the stuff that the IP editor(s) deleted, not what they added / rewrote per se). You might benefit also from trying to take it to the talk page. Might not work, but you know, in the spirit of good faith compromise....  The Blue Canoe  02:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Kool Smiles
You may want to watch Kool Smiles. Based on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kool_Smiles&action=history An editor added corporate-sounding promotional language to the article and removed large chunks of content saying that they were "non-factual entries as well as entries based on non-factual media accounts" WhisperToMe (talk) 09:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012
THe article Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 went through an WP:AfD. The "consensus seems to be that the article needs substantial work to become unbiased, but the tool for that is an editor's pen, not an admin's axe.". I wanted to ask for suggestions to move the article towards being unbiased. Any thoughts or useful edits will help. Thanks. Casprings (talk) 03:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I was just skimming the article. It looks pretty good, but does seem to have some issues as far as neutrality. For example, the intro says that Mourdock "said that pregnancy from rape was 'something that God intended'". That's not really what he said though. Mourdock's apparent meaning was that life—not rape—is something god intended, and so it should be preserved regardless of any unpropitious circumstances. Do you see what I mean?  The Blue Canoe  03:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually it sounds like "the unborn child was destined to be conceived the was it was", fatalist should I say? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, what I took from it is basically what you said. Life is something that god plans and it is never unintended. The relationship of that basic thought and rape is why it was a newsworthy statement that lost the election.  Casprings (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * News personnel considered it newsworthy, and they attribute the election loss to it (according to my very limited study of the subject), Wikipedia mirrors RS. Is my analysis wrong? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

"one of the world's largest facilitators of illegal downloading" (The pirate bay solely description in lead)
The quotation "one of the world's largest facilitators of illegal downloading" is currently being used to solely describe what the pirate bay is in the article lead, and is taken from a story article produced by Los Angeles Times. No other media description is used in the lead, and when looking what international news outlets like bbc, Der Spiegel International, and New York Times say, they all use a quite different style of description, where the most common one is "one of the most famous file-sharing sites". Consensus is however that even if the LA times quotation is "overdramatic", they rather use that one and only that one. Belorn (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * How comprehensive was your search for descriptive terms? I was able to find other results that describe the illegality of The Pirate Bay with ease. It's possible to find articles that describe TPB as a "popular" filesharing site, and a "resilient" filesharing site, sure, but the LA Times description has the added benefit of conveying a legal ruling. Nothing dramatic about that at all. — ThePowerofX 09:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Feel free to provide the results. If the argument is that LA times general description of the pirate bay is in common use by reliable sources, then there should not be a problem to provide sources to that fact. The question does however still remain in using a single "overdramtic" description over a prevailing common used impartial toned description. That is the NPOV issue I brought up, and which the current consensus do not address. Belorn (talk) 09:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm under no obligation to provide anything. You said, categorically, that other media "all use a quite different style of description", which is something you can only provide evidence for if you have performed a careful and detailed search through their archives. And clearly you have not. The answer to your question, provided to you by multiple editors, is that the LA Times is useful because it encapsulates the nature of TPB, its popularity, and its legal status in a single concise quote. Why add four separate quotes to say the same thing when one is perfectly fine? — ThePowerofX 10:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Belorn, you could start with your own refs. None of the articles that you ref are really about Pirate Bay or even Sweden. The first is about ISPs in the UK. The second about the Pirate Party in Germany. The third is a very general article starting with YouTube and not mentioning TPB until the eighth paragraph. But, all mention illegality -- you just didn’t include those parts. In fact, the first article states about TPB, “In April 2009, the Swedish courts found the four founders of the site guilty of helping people circumvent copyright controls.” It would be irresponsible for WP to provide an article on TPB with a lead that contains glowing, positive phrases while neglecting to mention that the site is illegal.74.108.115.191 (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * All four of the founders were sentenced to prison. All appeals have been completed. Two of the founders are fugitives, one was deported from Cambodia and is being detained, and the last is begging for mercy.  The site is illegal. Why would you remove that from the lead? Why is calling an illegal site illegal “overdramatic?” What is not “impartial” about a matter-of-fact, accurate description by a highly reliable source? These constant attempts to whitewash the TPB story and your noticeboard-shopping (three noticeboards last time you failed to gain consensus) have become tiring. 74.108.115.191 (talk) 12:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The pirate bay article is unique in having the text "world's largest anything" as description in lead for a brand, service or product. You do not see windows having that in their lead, or Iphone, or *add your brand here*. Not even Ford Fiesta, know as the most sold car in the world, says so in the lead. Having a "world largest anything", is sensational and not made in a impartial tone. Thus overdramtic was a spot on description, not made by me but by someone else on the talk. It goes again Manual of Style, if one looks at WP:MOSBEGIN. Belorn (talk) 08:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * First, you have twice stated that a nine word phrase in the TPB lead is the sole description. This is not true. Further, the lead does NOT claim that TPB is the world’s largest anything. It claims that it is described as one of the largest, an important aspect of TPB considering that it operates illegally. You appear to be suggesting that this be replaced with a description that TPB is "one of the most famous file-sharing sites". That would seem to be no less wp:exceptional than the current quote. I try to assume good faith. But, it appears that you would like the quote replaced because it mentions that the site is illegal and are using exceptionality as the reason; so it can be changed to a quote that does not contain the word illegal, but is no less exceptional.  It also appears that you wish to use positive sounding extracts from three sources suggesting that these  sources are talking positively about TPB, when in fact, all three are actually talking about problems related to illegal activity and are in no way endorsing TPB. These would appear to be misrepresentations. Kind of like ads for a movie that extract positive sounding words from negative reviews. 74.108.115.191 (talk) 15:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

It is important to maintain a neutral point of view as per policy WP:NPOV. It's worth noting that the LA Times article dates from 2007 - that is old and I'm sure more recent article can be found. Due to the age of the article, it's out of date...it was written about the founders and previous owners, not the current owners who acquired the site in 2009. There are some people above stating that it operates illegally - it wasn't the website but the previous owners who were convicted of assisting copyright theft. There's a difference. --HighKing (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your opinion. But, claims that the original owners are no longer connected to TPB are either anonymous or by the convicted owners themselves, and self-serving. In fact, they all denied that they ever had any operational responsibilities during the trial. The courts did not accept these claims. There is no actual evidence that the current site is any different or has moved. This is an ongoing problem with the TPB article. Many sources are based on anonymous original sources and claims are often found to be false. Also, the courts specifically stated that the site itself was illegal, not just that the owners violated the law. Yes, it is important to maintain a NPOV. I don’t see how that is accomplished by relying on anonymous, possibly self-serving claims. 74.108.115.191 (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * @HighKing That is the same argument advanced by TalkTalk legal representatives when they attempted to torpedo a British high court blocking order. Nobody knows who oversees TPB operations today. Peter Sunde might be involved, he may not. The court found this argument irrelevant, in any case, because the site was continuing to facilitate the distribution of protected works. — ThePowerofX 18:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, it's important to represent a *neutral* point of view. In case that's not clear, that means not just putting forward one side or the other.  Regardless of what any individual editor perceives to be the "truth".  For example, it takes absolutely no time at all to find a reliable published source referring to TPB's new owners - here for example is a BBC article.  There seems to be much more too.  As to the claims of the anon editor above, claims that the site is "illegal" don't have universality or global scope.  There are equally lots of countries where no "illegal" rulings have taken place.  Also, to be pedantic, the site isn't "illegal" per se, but in some jurisdictions the various courts have ruled that the site has been found to have engaged in illegal activities.  That's an important distinction and WP should strive for accuracy and neutrality.  And don't get me wrong - it's not about suppression of facts, or disallowing information relating to various rulings, but it is important to represent these facts neutrally, and it's important to represent a fully rounded picture of TPB including it's popularity and the good things reported.  --HighKing (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you made my point. You make a ref to a BBC article calling it a “reliable published source referring to TPB's new owners.” Well, the BBC is a reliable source. But, they got it wrong in this case. There was no such take-over. See Global Gaming Factory X. There have been numerous claims about TPB ownership and location over the years that have proved false. 74.108.115.191 (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, and you've made an assertion that there was no such take-over *without* supplying a ref. Without a ref, it's an opinion. The Global Gaming Factory X article carries a Reuters link that says TPB was sold.  No problem if the transaction didn't happen, but you need to provide refs.  --HighKing (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And looking into this further, the section "Failed acquisition" doesn't show any refs to state it is was a failed acquisition, and the statement that PC World regarded the deal as doomed is not supported by the ref provided. The more I look at this article, the more problems I see.  It needs an overhaul to ensure NPOV.  --HighKing (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The article you pointed to said that GGF acquired TPB in mid-2009. Do a search and you will find many articles in 2010 stating they still wanted to acquire TPB long after the deal was reported closed. No article since then has announced any such closure. The TPB editors here seem to like TorrentFreak. Here is a TF article a year and a half later. Still no GGF acquisition of TPB and they were trying to acquire other torrent sites instead. Incidentally, TPB’s site in 2009 said there never was any such planned sale. Problem is, normally reliable sources have been fooled by TPB-related press releases numerous times. They have a long history of making things up. So, yes, the TPB article needs an overhaul, for many reasons. 1.) TPB and its echoers fill the Internet with misinformation about themselves. 2.) Normally reliable sources have fallen for made up stories about TPB numerous times. 3.) Reliable English speaking sources of information have provided very little info about TPB since the trial. Indeed, the US press almost entirely ignored the trial, much less times since. 4.) Nearly all information about TPB originates from anonymous sources. 5.) Some, not all, of the Wikipedia TPB editors strongly support piracy and this is reflected in the lack of NPOV. 74.108.115.191 (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The timeline you've outlined above is actually pretty good. It would be a lot better to construct a section along those lines, without necessarily drawing a conclusion that can be tagged as not being referenced, than the current section.  I think you'll find that overall this results in a clearer and more neutral article.  What do you think?  --HighKing (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there exist better refs. But, they'd be in Swedish. 74.108.115.191 (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I do not care that much to replace it with a other positive statement, even if there exist statement by more sources which also are of higher quality. What is important is to not have a sensational description in the lead. Any solution that would eliminate the sensational dramatic description in favor of a more impartial one is acceptable in my view. I am perfectly ready to meet people half-way here, or even 5% my suggestion, 95% someones else, but to do so you need at least one more person who are so too. Belorn (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Make a proposal. --HighKing (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No proposal needed. The present wording is perfectly fine, is written in a neutral tone, and supported by an impeachable reference. — ThePowerofX 20:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem with the current approach is that is represents only one "side". It might be written in a neutral tone, but it's not neutral.  To be neutral, other points of view should also be represented, whether you agree with them or not. Also, the lede should summarize the article and if the lede gets too long (as sometimes happens with articles where multiple points of view are represented in the lede) it is often best to leave details in an appropriate section.  --HighKing (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the argument I'm struggling to understand. What other side is there? — ThePowerofX 22:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I also don’t understand what you mean by “side”. There are numerous Wikipedia articles that discuss copyright and piracy issues, including: Anti-Copyright, Copyright abolition, Criticism of intellectual property, Criticism of patents, Copyfraud, Fair dealing, Free culture movement, Freedom of information, Good Copy Bad Copy, Information wants to be free, Missionary Church of Kopimism, New Zealand Internet Blackout, Operation Payback, Piratbyrån, Warez. We are discussing an article on TPB. The courts ruled that it is an illegal site, sentenced the founders and appeals have been exhausted. There is a separate, exhaustive WP article on the trial itself. Surely we don’t need to repeat all these issues in yet another WP article. 74.108.115.191 (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call it a side, but most of the world and many in the US do not share the US understanding of copyright infringement or consider it piracy / theft. I'm not an expert in European IP but from my reading Sweden has long had different rules about copyright, and only recently bowed to European pressure to conform. Consider some other things that are illegal in one place but widely condoned there and elsewhere, hypothetically a stern prohibition in country X against women revealing their Y in public or making statements disparaging of the prophet Z, something kids in America do all the time. Would Wikipedia repeat a quote from the X-istan Times that the American company Abercrombie and Fitch was one of the world's biggest sources of religious defilement and female immodesty? Of course not, that would be both sensationalistic and adopting the unique mores of country X. I agree that we shouldn't get into the whole international copyright policy debate in an article about a particular company, which is exactly why we should repeat the facts here in this article, and save the judgments of commentators for articles on the broader topic. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia should not elevate fringe views. We all agree. But there is nothing obscure or unique about copyright, or the ruling by Swedish courts, or the countless reliable sources that describe the illicit nature of commercial filesharing. — ThePowerofX 18:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikidemon, it sounds like you have fallen for some of the propaganda spread by TPB and pro-piracy sites. None of this has anything to do with the US. US law is actually weaker than European law. The piracy definition dealing with stealing intellectual property goes back to 1771 Britain, not the motion picture industry as some would have you believe. According to Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works 165 countries have agreed to abide by copyright law. So, the statement that “most of the world and many in the US do not share the US understanding of copyright infringement or consider it piracy / theft” is a gross exaggeration by piracy groups. In fact, TPB copyrighted its screens and actually sued another site for infringement. Only a handful of third-world countries believe piracy is acceptable. 74.108.115.191 (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And that sounds like you've fallen for some propaganda yourself. The problem with prosecuting TPB is that it doesn't host any copyrighted material itself, nor does it breach copyright law directly since it does not upload/download/store copyrighted material.  The founders were convicted for facilitating copyright in Sweden, not for actual stealing of copyrighted material.  Let's strive for accuracy based on references, etc, from reliable sources.  --HighKing (talk) 12:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * What I was talking about was the Oxford English Dictionary definition of piracy, which includes stealing IP as far back as 1771. I believe the OED is a reliable source of definitions. The only source I gave was the Wikipedia article on the Berne Convention, which I don't think is propaganda. My point is that copyright and TPB have nothing to do with United States understanding of copyright or piracy, as stated. Copyright is not an invention of the US. Copyright, and the definition of the word “piracy,” predate the existence of the US. I don’t know what propaganda you think I’ve fallen for or what unreliable source you think I’m referencing.  Laws have long been on the books against  helping other people violate laws. The driver of the getaway car can be convicted of bank robbery even though he never enters a bank. In fact, he can be convicted for murder if someone dies of a heart attack during the crime, even if he never sees the murder. Sweden had no trouble prosecuting TPB. 74.108.115.191 (talk) 21:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't fallen for any propaganda, I have a detailed and nuanced understanding of the subject formed from years of working with copyright law in various jurisdictions and I know what contributory and vicarious infringement are. The modern version, whereby the private unlicensed playing of music or reading of text for personal enjoyment is an act of infringement, and companies that build technologies to facilitate it are criminally liable, is certainly a recent US invention. These cases are often quite controversial when litigated and get inconsistent and sometimes split decisions. If the Betamax and Perfect 10 cases had gone the other way you could by this logic call Sony and google the biggest copyright pirates in the world. The US has gotten much of the world to go along with file sharing restrictions, but that does not necessarily reflect public sentiment or practice. In Brazil and China, for example, the vast majority of music is copied. It's not that the public in most of the world is a bunch of crooks, they simply do not see a moral imperative against copying. It is fair to say that this company and its officials were convicted of breaking copyright law, but applying names like piracy to the practice is attaching a US-centric moral judgment. My example is quite apt, an American company may well be complicit in republishing criminally immodest or blasphemous content under the laws of the many nations where this too is illegal. We wouldn't apply a like editorial statement published by a news source from those countries, at least not in the lede as a summary of what the company is all about. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but this sounds quite biased to me. TPB bannings are occurring in many countries in Europe. NONE of the 50 states in the US has  banned TPB. The US fought to liberalize the latest rendition of the Berne Convention as it thought it was too strict. Europe won. These restrictions have nothing to do with the US. And again, “piracy” is a British term, not US-centric. Look, the US is unpopular for many, perfectly legitimate, reasons. BUT, blaming on the US the fact that a bunch of criminals in Sweden were sentenced to prison is just silly. And frankly, suggesting that Brazil and China are examples of good law and respect for freedom is odd. I’ve been to both and they are beautiful countries with wonderful people. But, I would not copy their legal systems. This article has NOTHING to do with the US. 74.108.115.191 (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not about blame or whether it's right or wrong, just that the public US opinion on copyright law, and calling those who violates it "pirates", are not universal. The bias gets introduced when we take one particular position on an issue, not when we try to avoid taking positions. There's a plain fact that a company's officials were convicted of violating a particular law, no need to embellish it with a US-centric opinion. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, “pirate” used in the arena of violation of IP rights is a British term in the Oxford English Dictionary dating back to 1711, before the existence of the US. Copyright law was created by the British, again before the existence of the US. This article is about Swedish criminals convicted in Swedish courts of violating Swedish law. The trial was barely mentioned in the US mainstream press.  TPB isn’t even blocked in the US. The US is merely one of the 165 countries where piracy is illegal. You continue to bring into this a country that is not related to this article. Further, the site is named Pirate Bay, and has a picture of a pirate ship as their logo. The bias is yours. It appears, you have some negative POV issues with people in a particular country that are affecting your judgment and further discussion is useless. 74.108.115.191 (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I was quite a fan of my a copy of the OED back when I had one, and it was amazing how seemingly modern word usages actually originated hundreds of years ago, but I don't really see what word origins and definitions have to do with a Wikipedia article. The modern copyright system would be quite alien to anyone living in the 18th Century, and it's rather mystifying and counter to many people's underlying ethical beliefs today. I'm basing this on personal observation but there are no doubt studies about that somewhere. Whether OED says so or not, calling people "pirates" for doing forbidden things other than hostile boat take-overs is not only pejorative, but also implies reselling other people's property for personal gain. See Wikidemon (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What has ANY of this to do with the U.S.? It is you that are expressing an opinion that the laws are widely considered wrong in 165 countries, that a centuries old word shouldn’t be used despite the fact that the subject of the article constantly uses it themselves, and that a country, completely irrelevant to the article, is somehow involved. You have a POV that is clearly not neutral. How can you not see this? 74.108.115.191 (talk) 03:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Refusal to go along with loaded language is not the same as having a bias. From a global, neutral perspective, the colorful language used by one particular US paper to express a recent, US-centric position on copyright law, is not very encyclopedic. From a broad, objective point of view PB is a file sharing site that was convicted of criminal complicity in the copyright infringement of its users in a recent European case. Whether that makes them the world's biggest pirate is simply an opinion. I think we're talking in circles here. No amount of wikilawyering the OED and word definitions changes the fact that it's loaded language. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "[I]t's clearly non-netural and unencyclopedic." You will need to explain why you think this is. — ThePowerofX 22:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't been following the discussion but sure, after reading it and the article, it's clearly non-netural and unencyclopedic. That's not the only problem with the lede, it harumphs around a lot about site traffic and other stuff and doesn't really get to the gist of what Pirate Bay is and why it's notable. It's notable because it's one of the largest international file sharing sites in the world, and because there is a controversy (or charges, or however) over copyright piracy (itself not a neutral term). Not because the LA Times or any other particular person says something. The case itself is a bigger deal and more widely reported, and thus more notable, than the copying that goes on there. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (comment on proposal as asked by HighKing). Dropping the quote, and include "On 3 March 2009 the founders of the site were found guilty and sentenced to serve one year in prison and pay a fine of 30 million SEK (about €2.7 million or US$3.5 million) on charges of facilitated other people's breach of copyright law ". That text uses the same language used in The Pirate Bay trial lead, and is honestly, as impartial it gets. It is clinical impartial with just the bare facts as used by the court. The size of the site is already covered by the alexa score. No dramatic quote from the lead of some sentential news article. Belorn (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds very good. It's harsher news, but also more neutral. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Like I said above, I am 100% ready to try find a solution that works for everyone and meet people half-way, but there need to be collaboration to resolve issues and find working solutions. ThePowerofX and 74.108.115.191, are there any other descriptions usable in your opinion, other than the current one? Please explain if you dislike the above suggestion, and then why. Belorn (talk) 09:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to editing the lede section to include information on detainment and successful prosecution. Something like this: According to the Los Angeles Times, the Pirate Bay is "one of the world's largest facilitators of illegal downloading" and "the most visible member of a burgeoning international anti-copyright or pro-piracy movement. On 3 March 2009 the founders of the site were found guilty and sentenced to serve one year in prison and pay a fine of 30 million SEK (about €2.7 million or US$3.5 million) on charges of facilitated other people's breach of copyright law. — ThePowerofX 11:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In what way does including "world's largest facilitators of illegal downloading" quote add to the article, beyond brining a dramatic and sentential tone to it? The point is to eliminate that tone in favor of an impartial one. Ie, making neutral. Adding a neutral along side a dramatic and sentential news quote does not actually make it NPOV. Belorn (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It is necessary to make a distinction between filesharing and commercial filesharing. Non-commercial filesharing is perfectly legal in some countries (e.g. Spain). The Pirate Bay was found to be operating in a commercial manner. We have many high quality sources that make precisely this point. Therefore, to describe TPB simply as a filesharing website is not only unfair to websites that obey the law (e.g. mp3.com), but more importantly, it is contrary to NPOV, which says prominent views such as this must be represented. In this regard, the LA Times quote has the benefit of accuracy and concision. — ThePowerofX 18:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If you feel there a necessary need to explain to people distinctions, and thats its "unfair" to other sites if we dont do one thing or an other, we are going very close to advocacy here. But okey, do explain then in the lead what the court found, and do so in a neutral and impartial tone. There is a ton of information in the trial article. There is no need to bring a dramatic quote for cheap emotional driving shots into the lead. This is why NPOV states that information should be done in a impartial tone. So long we have "the world largest" in the lead, the article is written in style nomrally only found in adverticement, news lead (where this was taken), and politicians. Impartial tone, is how encyclopedia is written.Belorn (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
I agree with Belorn above and believe that adding the quote to the lede is not in line with guidelines since it is not summarizing and not NPOV. A simple summary statement can portray the same information, and details can be found in appropriate sections. According to guidelines, the key points that should be summarized in the lede are: With that in mind, my suggestion is as follows (refs, etc, to be added):
 * Brief description of TPB (when it was founded, what does it do)
 * Why is it notable (one of the largest and most popular websites in the world, access being blocked around the world)
 * The Pirate Bay (commonly abbreviated TPB) is a website founded in 2003 and based in Sweden that facilitates filesharing using the BitTorrent protocol. The Pirate Bay is currently ranked as the 76th most visited website in the world (ref). The website has been criticized for facilitating the illegal downloading of copyright material and on 3 March 2009 the founders of the site were found guilty and sentenced to serve one year in prison and pay a fine of 30 million SEK (about €2.7 million or US$3.5 million).  Many countries around the world have ordered ISPs to implement procedures to censor access to the website.

Comments? --HighKing (talk) 12:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Just one side comment, and apologies if it has been previously discussed.  I have always found the constant updating of Alexa rankings in WP articles as humorous given the obvious biases in Alexa rankings. Alexa is far more likely to get information from younger PC users, and obtains very little information from PCs located in major businesses. That’s just the start of a long list of biases due to the nature of web stats. Sorry, had to add this as you just responded to me that we should strive for accuracy :) 74.108.115.191 (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we should replace the word "illegal" with the more inclusive term "unauthorized", mention that the conviction was in Swedish courts, make a more generalized statement about the popularity (e.g. one of the top 100 sites, or top 10 file sharing sites, etc). Also, "censor" is a loaded word in some parts, better a more neutral word like "block". - Wikidemon (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there is a bit of a disconnect in the third sentence as you can’t be found guilty of a criticism. The sentence could mean they were convicted of something else. How about something like:
 * The Pirate Bay (commonly abbreviated TPB) is a website founded in 2003 and based in Sweden that facilitates filesharing using the BitTorrent protocol. As of December 2012, The Pirate Bay was one of the top 100 most visited websites in the world (ref).  The website’s founders were charged with facilitating the illegal downloading of copyright material and on 3 March 2009 were found guilty and sentenced to serve one year in prison and pay a fine of 30 million SEK (about €2.7 million or US$3.5 million).  Many countries around the world have ordered ISPs to implement procedures to block access to the website.
 * rgds, 74.108.115.191 (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good (if sourced and wikified), but there are some minor comments: "Many countries" -> "In many countries, court judgments has been made". Few countries has internet blocking directed by the state, so those orders are made by the courts from court cases. As for the ranking, please follow the WP:RELTIME MoS guidelines. So instead of "The Pirate Bay was {When?} one of the top 100", it's better to state when and what number. As for Alexa bias, alexa gets its data from people who has the alexa toolbar installed. I dont see why younger PC users would be more acceptable to have it running if it came pre-installed. Common belief seems to be that the younger PC crowed are more agressively removing toolbars and other privacy intrusive software, while older PC users don't put time and effort to do so. Anyway, the suggested lead sounds good. Belorn (talk) 00:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, it's a good rewrite. And if not Alexa, what other measures of website popularity exist?  Or perhaps there's a reference that makes a statement we can reuse in that regard?  --HighKing (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Webstats are notoriously inaccurate. Even stats for a site you control are inaccurate as HTTP is a stateless protocol. You could say “Pirate Bay was considered one of the top.…”, but that might violate WP:WORDS. You could state “According to Alexa”, as the Alexa article points out the inaccuracies. 74.108.115.191 (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * According to Alexa Works for me. The article describes both their work methods, and the problems with it. Belorn (talk) 09:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

No other comments for a while, and it seems we're in agreement with making the change along the lines above. To summarize then, we're proposing the following as the lede (and refs will be added back, etc)
 * The Pirate Bay (commonly abbreviated TPB) is a website founded in 2003 and based in Sweden that facilitates filesharing using the BitTorrent protocol. According to Alexa, in December 2012 The Pirate Bay was in the top 75 most visited websites in the world (ref). In 2009, the website’s founders were put on trial and charged with facilitating the illegal downloading of copyright material.  On 3 March 2009 they were found guilty and sentenced to serve one year in prison and pay a fine of 30 million SEK (about €2.7 million or US$3.5 million).  Many countries around the world have ordered ISPs to implement procedures to block access to the website.

I believe this version addresses the concerns raised. Thoughts? --HighKing (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As we're not discussing changes, I believe this discussion should move to the article Talk page. Doing that now.  --HighKing (talk) 12:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Can we call the Books of Kings historical?
The article read that the Books of Kings "concludes a series of historical books " which I changed to "concludes a series of books" and noted in the edit summary that calling these historical was pov.(There's also an Easter egg there, I didn't think we were supposed to add that sort of piping). The article linked does indeed talk about "Deuteronomistic history", but I still don't think that is sufficient to state in Wikipedia's voice that these are historical books (indeed a handful of versions ago there was no link to Deuteronomist at all, it just said "conclused a series of historical books". I'm bringing this here instead of to the article talk page as this is really a general question that would apply to other books of the Bible as well. I'll note that it is my understanding that there isn't anything this old we would call history. Dougweller (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This is naked anti-religious POV-pushing. You're not going to litigate a general, Bible-wide prohibition here.   Belch fire - TALK  22:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem is in hiding the phrase "Deuteronomistic history" inside the link. If that term were exposed we would be saying what the scholarly sources call this series of books, so I don't think there would be a problem with using it as a term. Mangoe (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * (e/c)Belchfire, I think you completely misunderstand the problem as well as the purpose of this noticeboard. The easter egg ahould be removed as per WP:EGG, and the term "historical books" is also inappropriate. "A series of books" is sufficiently NPOV and seems preferable. The link deuteronomistic history contains the historiography of the Deuteronomist, and as such it would be wrong to use it here as a term for the actual Books of Kings. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The link should really be to Historical books (Old Testament) as a distinct section of the Christian Old Testament, but unfortunately such an article does not yet exist. The adjective "historical" in this context refers to section/genre, not to reliability. StAnselm (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course, the whole sentence ("It concludes a series of historical books running from Joshua through Judges and Samuel, the overall purpose which is to provide a theological explanation for the destruction of the Jewish kingdom by Babylon in 586 BCE and a foundation for a return from exile") is based entirely on the concept of Deuteronomistic history, so it makes sense that it is linked. StAnselm (talk) 22:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have just performed a significant rewrite of the sentence in question. StAnselm (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Better though I think it needs to be made more clear that the supposed purpose is a matter of scholarly supposition. Mangoe (talk) 22:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed, I think. StAnselm (talk) 04:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent work. Mangoe (talk) 05:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks everyone (except of course Belchfire :-) ) Dougweller (talk) 07:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Noah Musingku
There's a discussion at WP:BLPN on this person that might interest regulars here. Numerous sources describe this person as a "con man" (as in this version, the first three sources in the lead, e.g. this one from the Sydney Morning Herald). Predictably enough, a certain BLPN regular thinks this is "contentious" and so has removed it "per BLP". What we're left with, then, is an article based almost entirely on the "Papala Chronicles", a vehicle for self-promotion if ever there was one -- and Noah Musingku is then merely a "king". Needless to say, I think this is hopelessly in conflict with WP:NPOV. It's not ideal to have two separate discussions, so if you have thoughts on the matter perhaps you could voice them at BLPN. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds a teeny bit like forum-shopping -- the material removed included both puff for the person and a clear BLP violation calling a person a "con man" in the lede which already referred to him starting a "pyramid scheme" in the first place.  WP:NPOV and WP:BLP do not contravene each other. Ever. Collect (talk) 13:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Irregular Freemasonry
There seems to be a row brewing in the Continental Freemasonry article and I wouldn't mind a third pair of eyes. The question is whether the Freemasonry that exists in places like France and Italy should be called Irregular because it is not recognised by the United Grand Lodge of England. This is a very contentious issue among Freemasons and seems to be an almost existential question. The term "Irregular" has been in this article for a few years as an alternate description to the more neutral Continental (along with Latin, Adogmatic and Liberal Freemasonry). An anonymous user who claims not to be a Freemason has taken that term out as being insulting (as it wass meant to be when it was coined, if not when it was used in this article). I've tried to take it out and then when it's been reinserted a couple of times seperate it out but there's been an insistent re-insertion by someone who seems to be quite caught up in this (three times so far today).

Can someone please look at this? I don't want to start breaking 3RR or anything like that. Personally I'm not a Freemason but I've crossed swords with them before, although rarely on this issue, so I think a disinterested observer would make them (or me) see sense.

JASpencer (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The term "Irregular Freemasonry" is a POV term... but it is not Wikipedia's POV. "Irregular" is a Masonic term of art... one that is used by Freemasons to refer to Masonic bodies (lodges and Grand Lodges) that do not adhere to certain standard landmarks.  It is never used as a self-description (no Masonic body considers itself "Irregular"), but it is applied by the majority to refer to the minority.
 * While the "Continental style" is prevalent in a few countries, the vast majority of Freemasons world wide belong to the branch of Freemasonry commonly know as "Regular" Freemasonry. This can also be called "Anglo" style Freemasonry because Freemasonry originated in England (however that designation is somewhat misleading, as there are "Anglo" style bodies in almost every country of the world, including non-"Anglo" ones.  Each is an independent entity, and they will strongly object to the idea that they are "under" UGLE).  The dominance of this branch of Freemasonry (especially in English speaking countries) affects terminology... Most Masonic authors are members of the "regular" or "anglo" branch... and they routinely refer to the Continental branch of Freemasonry as "Irregular Freemasonry".
 * Note that we do not use "Irregular" in the Article Title... for that we use the more neutral term "Continental" (even though it is also somewhat misleading). We are not talking about the Article Title here... we mention the POV "Irregular" as an alternative name.  This is appropriate... we can not ignore a term that is used by so many Masonic authors... we have to at least account for their usage.  Thus, it is listed as an alternative.  We can sympathize with the fact that the Continental branch does not like being called "Irregular"... but that does not change the fact that it is called that. Blueboar (talk) 20:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not just a POV term, it's a calculated insult. Could you imagine if we used your logic to describe a nationality or a racial group with a common, deliberately insulting term?  "The Japanese, also referred to as..."  (2) Also it's not used in any of these three sources to explicitely refer to all Continental Freemasons (in fact it's implicitely used to contrast with the larger French and Italian lodges in two of the sources, if you can find one of them).  (3) It's not made clear in the article, as it should be, that the term "irregular" is not used outside UGLE Freemasonry.
 * I get it that most people who are interested in editing these articles are going to be Freemasons and as this is an English language project the editors are overwhelmingly going to be UGLE aligned, but that cultural bias is more of a reason to beware of using insults from that milleu as if they were neutral descriptions not less of one. JASpencer (talk) 20:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Similarly, we can put the word Satanic into the lede of the article about Freemasonry in general, because there is a significant and notable belief that Freemasonry is Satanic. I do not agree with that belief, but I do believe it would be an inappropriate POV to put in the lede of an article, and I also feel that putting the word Irregular into the lede of the Continental Freemasonry article, without any reliable sources which directly define continental freemasonry as irregular, is a POV push that is inappropriate, and verging on WP:SYNTH.--Vidkun (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Re:"...it's a calculated insult"... no... it is not applied as an insult. "Regular" and "Irregular" technical terms of art in the Masonic world.  All Masonic bodies (even Continental bodies) maintain lists of other masonic bodies that they consider "regular" (ie that have the same core membership requirements) and "irregular" (ie don't).  If you need an analogy... the concept of Regularity is to the Masonic world what the concept of Orthodoxy is to the religious world.
 * Can someone take it as an insult when a technical term is applied to them... yes. I am sure that members of an unorthodox religious splinter group will not like their group to be labeled "unorthodox" by the mainstream. But Wikipedia must still account for the fact that the mainstream considers the group "unorthodox", and if the mainstream uses the word as standard way to refer to the splinter, it would actually be non-neutral for Wikipedia to ignore this fact.  Wikipedia has to mention the mainstream view of Freemasonry (more than 80% of all Freemasons world wide are of the "regular" branch); the mainstream not only deems the minority in the Continental branch to be "Irregular", but uses the term Irregular Freemasonry to describe it. Blueboar (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Irregular Freemasonry in this context is a calculated insult. As you are aware it is a technical term that applies to more than Liberal Freemasonry.  There are a lot of flavours of Irregular Freemasonry, many of them more prevalent than Liberal Freemasonry in the English speaking world (albeit the ratio is reversed outside that).  There is Female Freemasonry and co-Freemasonry, there are Prince Hall (African American) lodges, there are all the weird occult and Rosicrucian stuff, there are people who claim that they are descended from the Antients.  I'm sure that there are others.  I have no problem in saying that the UGLE regard Liberal Freemasonry as irregular, and in the lead section as well.  But to put this as if it is a common definition is nonsense.  It would help your case if the sources you quote actually back you, but they don't. JASpencer (talk) 08:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There's been further editing on the main page alleging that the issue is settled. The reasoning is a bit dubious relying on one blog entry.  The problem with this blog entry (which others have disputed as a Reliable Source, but that's not the issue here) is that it doens't actually say what Blueboar is hoping it will say.  It uses "Irregular" three times when talking about a squabble involving two small American bodies that see themselves as being in the Liberal Masonic tradition.
 * (Signature interposed to seperate out from Blueboar's interruption)
 * JASpencer (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to interject a comment mid-stream (my appologies, but it directly relates to what JASpencer has just said)... The blog in question is by a recognized published expert on Freemasonry, writing about his field of expertise. He explicitly uses the term "Irregular" in the title of his posting... and the subjects of the post are bodies that are explicitly mentioned in the Wikipedia article as belonging to the the Continental branch of Freemasonry.  In other words... we have a solid masonic source referring to the subject of our article using the term "Irregular"... it is exactly what is in dispute here. Blueboar (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, he explicitely used the term "Irregular" but in "Irregular world".
 * In fact Hodapp doesn't use the term "Irregular Freemasonry" at all in his blog, he uses the term "Irregular Masonry" once in a comment and referring to co-freemasonry.
 * The bodies he mentions are Liberal Masonic bodies but he uses irregular mostly in connection to smaller bodies like the Ancient York Masons, Empire State Grand Council and Sons of Haiti. The Grande Loge Nationale Française, a distinctly non-Latin and pro-UGLE body also gets the epiphet.  The GOUSA is repeatedly referred to as irregular but on account of its small size and vexatious nature, and not in relation to its Latin status.
 * The TLDR summary is: "Irregular" is used by UGLE Freemasons to describe Liberal Freemasons but its not the term they use it to describe almost any other group with whom they have a serious disagreement, such as allowing women or engaging in occult activity. It is not explicit, unique or common.
 * JASpencer (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Continued...
 * The first mention is the title "More Squabbles in the Irregular World" which is about the squabble amongst these two groups one of which, the Grand Orient of the USA, is regarded as particularly vexatious. The next mention says "Both grand lodges are not recognized and are considered irregular by mainstream grand lodges around the world." which is true but is clearly referring to the lodges.  The third mention is probably the most significant, "the Grand Orient of France in 2008 (which is also considered irregular and is unrecognized by the overwhelming number of Masons and grand lodges around the world)."  So it's clear that the French, who are the loadstone of these groups, are also irregular to "grand lodges around the world" - or Hodapp (and Blueboar's) UGLE aligned Freemasonry.  But the term that Blueboar claims is so common that it needs to be menitioned is simply not here.
 * None of these mention use the term "Irregular Freemasons" or "Irregular Freemasonry". The closest to using this as a descriptive term is the header referring to the "Irregular World", like "Irregular Freemasonry" a calculated insult, but this is not the "Irregular Freemasonry" that Blueboar would like to think of as being used as a regular term that is used as frequently as, say, "Liberal Freemasonry" (which is actually used as a description in the comments).  There is also a mention of "mainstream Freemasons", which shows the view that Hodapp and most the UGLE Freemasons have of Liberal Freemasons.
 * Irregular Freemasonry is not actually used solely for Liberal Freemasons. It is mostly used by UGLE types for either dissident UGLE Freemasons or for people who set up some sort of group as a money making scam.  Neither of which applies to the Liberal Masonic movements.  [ http://www.acacia42.com/page.aspx?pageid=Irregular+Freemasonry This blog is an example] of that attitude:
 * There are many reasons why these organizations are considered irregular to mainstream Freemasonry. Some of these organizations violate our ancient landmarks, constitutions, codes of conduct and other elements that make up the foundation of Freemasonry. Some do it strictly for profit and through deception to generate income from unsuspecting people and yet some seem to do it simply out of spite.
 * As i said I have no problem with saying somewhere that Liberal Freemsaonry is considered by the UGLE as irregular, atheistic and indeed very naughty boys, but it breaks NPOV to use this as if it were a neutral or commonly used description. JASpencer (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * For the benefit of those who are not familiar with some of the Masonic jargon being tossed around here... I have attempted to explain at User:Blueboar/drafts - Masonic recongnition and regularity. Blueboar (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In which note there's not currently a single reference. JASpencer (talk) 23:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * From http://www.acacia42.com/page.aspx?pageid=Irregular+Freemasonry Acacia Lodge's listing of irregular bodies] (Liberal bodies highlighted):
 * Grand Orient of the USA
 * Grand Lodge of All England
 * The Grand Lodge of Ancient, Accepted and Esoteric Freemasons
 * George Washington Union of Freemasons
 * United Grand Lodge of America
 * Alharam Lodge
 * The Most Worshipful United Grand Lodge of Ancient, Free & Accepted Masons of Democratic Republics
 * The Regular Grand Lodge of England
 * Grand Orient de France in North America
 * M.W. St. John Grand Lodge of Arizona
 * Ezra Grand Lodge of Arizona AF & AM
 * Golden Eagle Grand Lodge
 * So three out of twelve examples in North America - a quarter. There are more but they tend to be smaller and less on the radar, and far, far less likely to be Liberal Freemasons.
 * JASpencer (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Just a quibble... the "Grand Lodge of All England" and the "Regular Grand Lodge of England" is the same group... they simply changed their name. So your count actually needs to be 11 not 12. Yes, the mainstream lodges do consider more than just Continental Freemasonry to be irregular... but that does not change the fact that the term Irregular Freemasonry is routinely used to refer to Continental Freemasonry. I have provided sources and even quotes to demonstrate this. You simply don't want to accept that the name is used. Blueboar (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If Irregular Freemasonry is used "routinely" for Liberal Freemasonry why have you not been able to dig up one occurence when it has been used in connection to one of the large lodges. Your sources all talk about fly by night operations.  I have no problem with you saying in the article that UGLE Freemasons regard them as irregular, but it is not a term that is used commonly.  It is also a calculated insult and so POV.JASpencer (talk) 10:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd also note that UGL America and GOUSA are the same group under different names, and they are also both defunct. That "fly-by-night" nature (which may or may not be related to moneymaking schemes) is another reason why the term irregular is used. Mainstream Freemasonry is established; if one was to try to get an address for the "Grand Lodges" of some of those groups, they would be PO Boxes or residential apartments registered to individuals, not offices of government-recognized charitable groups.  That's a legal irregularity, and also another reason said bodes are considered such. MSJapan (talk) 05:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I think GoDF in America is just Le Droit Humain, but I'm not sure, and we don't deal with that group at all in the article.MSJapan (talk) 05:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Droit Humain is actually a different body and unlike GoDF allowed women for a long time. But thanks for providing the point that "Irregular" is not a term used solely, or indeed mainly for Continental Freemasonry. JASpencer (talk) 10:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Um... hold on, the various Le Droit Humain are part of "Continental Freemasonry". Blueboar (talk) 22:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Not doubting that, what MSJapan was saying wa that the GoDF and Droit Humaine are the same body. I said that they weren't.  Are you claiming that they are?  JASpencer (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, no one ever said it was; it just so happens that in the context of the Continental Freemasonry article, other usages confuse the topic and shouldn't come into the picture. That's like writing an article on apples and saying "Apples are a fruit.  Oranges are also a fruit."  The latte s true, but it is not pertinent to the subject being written about in the piece.  Also, "majority usage" would largely be dependent on organization count, and we can't figure that out.  That's along the lines of "never say always unless you can review everything" - there's a research term for this which I can't call to mind at present.  So unless there is a source giving percentages, we can't make claims about who it's mostly used for (and we don't); we can only say it is used for X (which we do, or did, before the editwarring - I have no idea what it says now) in a context that makes it clear who is being talked about therein. MSJapan (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please stop using childish wars such as "editwarring" when they apply to a content dispute. I would suggest that you read WP:AGF.  That aside the fact is that if this term is used commonly then you should at least have a reliable source that plainly equates that term with the phenomena described in the article.  The other alternate terms all have this, the term "Irregular Freemasonry" does not.  That's the main point.
 * On your supplemental point, even if a reliable souce was provided that plainly equated the term "Irregular Freemasonry" with Liberal Freemasonry the case the fact that "Irregular Freemasonry" is far more commonly used in both reliable sources and other accesible sources to describe other forms of Freemasonry would still tell against it, with your ingenious use of the Perfect Solution Falacy notwithstanding. However you have not produced a reliable source that plainly equates the term "Irregular Freemasonry" with Liberal Freemasonry.  All the rest is WP:SYNTH.  JASpencer (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Politically Incorrect (blog)
I seem to have inadvertently wandered into an edit war here over the template. Since Islamophobia is mentioned significantly in the article, it seems appropriate to me, but I'd like other opinions. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the template should stay in the article. The blog is not only about Islamophobia, true, but the issue is very significant to the topic. Binksternet (talk) 13:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a POV template, or have you found such templates anyhow in literature? Besides, even a renaming of this template is considered, as you can read on the dicussion page. So, no, we donna need template pushings. --Yikrazuul (talk) 10:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, you removed it (today, again) because you don't like the template. That's not reason to remove it. If you don't like the template, propose its deletion, but don't just remove it from relevant articles. We don't expect to find templates like this in literature. Binksternet is correct, the template is clearly relevant to the article. Dougweller (talk) 10:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * IPs suddenly showing up to remove it, 3 so far this morning. Dougweller (talk) 07:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Christian Science
Has this in the lede:
 * Christian science is pseudoscience that claims that sickness can be healed through the exclusive use of prayer rather than medicine. It rejects science as illusory, while attempting to disguise itself as science.[4][5]:317 Its precepts cause preventable death among its followers, and among the children of its followers upon whom those precepts are imposed; [6] it adversely affects public health: outbreaks of preventable disease and a number of deaths have occurred due to a lack of vaccination; [7]:50 and the Christian science church actively attempts to control its public image and position in law through media manipulation and political lobbying.[8] 

Does this paragraph in Wikipedia's voice violate WP:NPOV? Would similar language in an article on any other religion be accepted as "neutral point of view"? Collect (talk) 18:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That paragraph is obviously not neutral. I don't see how it can be salvaged.  Scrap it and start over.   Belch fire - TALK  18:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Belchfire. At the very least, material like that should be attributed rather than stated in Wikipedia's own voice. (I say that even though I am rather sympathetic to the opinion expressed there.) Andreas JN 466 18:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That paragraph neatly summarizes the main points of text cited in the article. As such, it complies with WP:LEAD. The bigger problem that you appear to have is that the pseudoscience conclusion seems to conflict with or contradict the religion conclusion. I suggest you start an RfC on the article talk page to discuss how the pseudoscience material and the religion material can best be presented to the reader. Binksternet (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree that labelling CS as ps is justified by the well-sourced content in the article body. The current version of this para (changed from above) is generally better too. Alexbrn (talk) 13:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The text in the lead is now: "Christian science is pseudoscience that claims that sickness can be healed through the exclusive use of prayer rather than medicine. It rejects science as illusory, while attempting to disguise itself as science.[4][5]:317 A number of preventable deaths have occurred amongst its followers, and their children since outbreaks of preventable disease and a number of deaths have occurred due to a lack of vaccination and treatment.[6][7]:50" I think this addresses any neutrality concerns. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's hardly different from what the OP posted above. Andreas JN 466 18:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

ResearchGate
It's my belief that parts of the ResearchGate Criticisms section are not written in a NPOV and do not meet other Wiki guidelines. Specifically, I am referring to the following statements:

Invitation policy ResearchGate has been criticised for sending spam.[10] If a user signs up to ResearchGate, it automatically sends emails to the coauthors of his publications inviting them to join. These emails have a fake sender name and give the misleading impression that they are a personal invitation triggered by the user.

User numbers The claimed user numbers (1.9 Million as of August 12, 2012) contrast to the number of followers for the top topics such as "Science, Engineering and Technology" that have less than 50,000 followers.[11] The official ResearchGate Twitter profile has less than 4000 followers.[12] The number of active users (20% active at least once a month) reported by company founder Ijad Madisch approximately equal the growth rate.

RG Score An experiment conducted by journalist Beatrice Lugger showed that with just a few interactions on ResearchGate, her "RG score" would grow to the top 5% percentile, indicating that the score as of now is barely indicative of scientific impact, and that the majority of users does interact even less.[13] Her ResearchGate profile lists 7 questions and answers posted on the platform and 43 followers as of December 03, 2012; two months after the article was published - a surprising low number to ever have been in the top 5%.[14].

In my opinion, the above statements either separately or together do not meet Wikipedia guidelines WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, WP:SPS, WP:OR, and WP:PSTS. There has been a dialogue about this on the ResearchGate talk page, but no clear consensus or resolution has emerged.

Any recommendations for resolving this within relevant Wiki guidelines would be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much. JNorman704 (talk) 23:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Please note that this is only one of at least four noticeboards on which JNorman704 has posted his grievance. My take on the situation is here.  For simplicity and centralization, I recommend that further conversation simply take place at Talk:ResearchGate.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Public Relations Society of America - Controversy
PRSA It appears that there is an unbalanced POV coverage in this article concerning the subject's dispute with someone named O'Dwyer. The organization and said person has been in a dispute for sometime from what I gather. I tried to include that O'Dwyer refuted an allegation made by PRSA.

I was told its against consensus to do so [ here] It was something that was found in a source used to support existing contents. I'm not really seeing a consensus to not include a brief statement that is supported in the source. I simply included the opposing view that was stated within the cited reference in this diff.

The section reads "O'Dwyer "has castigated the Public Relations Society on subjects ranging from its effectiveness to its professionalism.", but the source where this came from also says that PRSA's letter attacked O'Dwyer. The section appears to be written in PRSAs view framing O'Dwyer as the wrongdoer and I think the selective inclusion of contents from within cited sources is non-neutral POV.

There's an extensive discussion over this on the article's talk page. Can you comment if it looks like consensus to only include one side of view and if you all see neutrality issue as I do? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 22:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Moshe Friedman
Two users are blatantly ignoring facts, and at least in Europe, the law. Please review Moshe Friedman document == as well as my scrubbed edits.Joeyrichardchicago (talk) 10:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This user is a sockpuppet of Tellyuer1. See for details. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of 1251-2011 history section on Mayor of Leicester etc.
I'm not sure if this is the right board? Rather than starting a discussion immediately, can someone please just look at this deletion and say whether this is the right place. This is partly related to a WP:FORK issue, except a fork Historical mayor of Leicester hasn't yet been created. Similar problem on a dozen "Mayor of X" UK articles. Thanks.


 * The article is exclusively about the Directly elected Executive Mayor and nothing to do with any office in the city of Leicester which exists or existed prior to the creation of the Directly elected Executive Mayor of Leicester Office. Adding the information is conflation and confusing. These articles "Mayor of X" all refer exclusively to Directly elected Executive Mayors and information on historical posts or ceremonial/civil/lord Mayor offices which still exist or have ceased to exist are nothing to do with the Directly elected Executive Mayors and adding the information in the way it has been done is conflation of the offices and is adding confusion where none previously existed. Sport and politics (talk) 04:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sport and Politics, I notified you on article Talk I had asked this question here, but as above, at the moment we're first looking for the correct venue to discuss. Then when we've found a venue you can present your case that all Mayors of Leicester from 1251 to 2011 should be entirely excluded from Mayor of Leicester and so on. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Christmas is the wrong period :) ... if anyone responds to this please give me a heads up on Talk page. Thanks In ictu oculi (talk) 03:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Assuming I understand this:
 * Mayors of UK towns have pages, and someone wants to add information about historical mayors to those pages, rather than create a boatload of additional pages for historical mayors and someone else says that in terms of governance these are completely different topics. Is that a correct re-statement of the issue? I did not know that there was such a well-defined differentiation, but I am not in Britain. What I am not hearing though is any allegation of bias or undue weight. I think you might get an answer faster at the dispute resolution noticeboard and might be a better fit over there. But I am a relative newbie so if someone else says otherwise they are probably right. It's a place you could go ask the question in the meantime though. Elinruby (talk) 23:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Elinruby, thanks, yes that a correct re-statement of the issue. But have taken the option of an RfC on Talk:Mayor of Leicester, that has got some fresh faces, and this section here can be closed as dealt with, cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * works for me....Elinruby (talk) 03:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Mart Laar
I need some help here.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mart_Laar&action=history
 * quick link to the problematic content: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mart_Laar&diff=prev&oldid=530635213
 * User_talk:Tonusamuel

The added content is basically true but the way it's presented seems deliberately malicious, the purpose seems to make Laar look foolish. There's a lot more to say about Laar and the ACTA discussions, but the edit puts undue weight on that one quote from him, without any neutralizing explanation. The issue was spoken of in several sources so I guess it's significant enough to mention, but not quite like this.

I'm not sure right now what happened but it seems like the user replied to me on their talk page with a vague personal attack, and I don't have that kind of energy right now to continue to argue with him. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I take this as distributing false information. First: "way it's presented seems deliberately malicious" - no, it is direct translation from sources which are biggest papers in country. "purpose seems to make Laar look foolish" again misleading. Mart Laar said what he said. This is fact and sourced in article with newspaper articles and even video inside article. If this is foolish or not, it does not matter. His words are written down 1:1. What matters is notability of event. Google for "Mart Laar ruum sai otsa" and memes you see should be proof for anyone who is maybe not familiar in background. About personal attack: This is wrong. Not everyone is attacking him and Mart Laar. Current article is written like advertisement, all scandals removed. Time to check who of editors are actually neutral. Tõnu Samuel (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Need some context here - I took a shot at understanding this dispute. I am an uninvolved editor and I know nothing about Estonia. I do understand why ACTA is important, so perhaps I should try to figure this out. Was Estonia one of the countries that initially ratified it? And then once there was an outcry they backed off and Facebook posts got deleted? Is that somewhere close? Offhand my reaction is that Facebook posts are a bit trivial, and this is a BLP. On the other hand if he was serious it does reflect the fundamental problem of politicians with no clue about the internet trying to regulate it, so.... I'll try to check on this thread in a couple of days. Could one of you please confirm that I even understand what you are arguing about? Thanks. Elinruby (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * To update: This is the content of the edit now (regarding the Facebook thing, meanwhile there have also been edits and reverts about a "shooting" scandal which is a separate thing). As you can see it was just removed, but I think the removal was out of order and not justified since the discussion on the talk page was still ongoing and there was no evident consensus to leave that stuff out.
 * The discussion was started here: Talk:Mart_Laar. There's a lot of arguing but I would really appreciate if someone neutral took the time to have a look, it seems currently there are a lot of Estonians involved or otherwise people who seems politically motivated.
 * To be clear: earlier I removed the content about the FB posts, but in its current form I would vote for keeping it because it's properly sourced and written about in a more neutral manner, etc, I discussed my views on the talk page.
 * I looked it up right now, Estonia was still deciding on who should decide when 22 other countries had already ratified ACTA, but this is probably not particularly relevant. In the deleted FB comments, Laar had said that he and his party did not support ACTA (apparently most people don't know that or even have it backwards, like two editors had demonstrated on the talk page).
 * So, again: initially I brought this issue here because I felt the edit did not adhere to WP:NPOV, I think that it does now but other editors (mostly Estonians?) still want to remove it, mostly crying "BLP!!" or claiming that the issue was trivial and doesn't deserve a mention. But the fact remains that it was written about in several good sources, specifically his quote about "running out of space" got a lot of attention -- so why not include it? As I said on the talk page, it's only a single paragraph in the appropriate section, neutrally presented, relevant to him as a politician/public figure, and well-sourced. That's the most basic standard on Wikipedia, if several good sources write about something then we can too, that's our standard of inclusion. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 00:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. The talk page discussion starts with discussing the "shooting scandal" (a separate event) which at that point had its own section in the article. Rest of the discussion is about the ACTA/fb/meme thing too. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 01:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Couple of thoughts.
 * Whoever said that sources do not have to be in English was correct. Sources must be verifiable is all. The standard for notability is *not* news coverage in the English-language press. Let's face it, this could lead to Wikipedia having very few articles on Estonia.
 * Including widely-quoted publicly-made remarks of the prime minister of a freaking country about an international treaty that had people in the streets all over Europe is NOT a violation of BLP. He is a public figure and nobody disputes that he said it.
 * This incident is not trivial. It sounds like an official Facebook account, for one thing. ACTA was important and it was important that people who did not understand the internet were making treaties about it.
 * As to undue weight, the article is pretty long and the remarks are quoted way at the bottom. The mocking memes aren't even quoted directly. If someone feels it makes too much of a single stupid remark, they can build out the other sections some more.
 * To summarize, when the international press makes fun of your prime minister, it's notable and would be notable even if it wasn't about ACTA. ACTA is significant in and of itself and the fact that Laar made clear that he did no understand the internet in a discussion of internet policy is definitely significant. As currently written I have no problem with what is there. Elinruby (talk) 04:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * He was actually minister of defense at the time. :) Thanks for your input! — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My bad. He would still be a public figure though, whose public remarks were widely reported. Still not a violation of BLP, and only slightly less not so. I think the remarks should be included. If someone else thinks they are given undue weight they have the option of adding other favorable material. Elinruby (talk) 03:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Latter Day Saints portals
Portal:Latter-day Saints was created in August 2006 with the lead "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the true and only Church of God here on earth. The new religion was started in the United States by Joseph Smith Jr. when Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ appeared to him in the spring of 1820." It still has that lead today. And here I thought we were managing to keep LDS pages NPOV. I discovered this just now when an editor changed the lead at Portal:Latter-day Saints/Intro from " The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, sometimes referred to as the LDS Church or the Mormon Church, describes itself as the restoration of the original church established by Jesus Christ. It is classified as a Christian church; separate from the Catholic or Protestant traditions, though many of those denominations disavow the LDS Church." to the same wording. I haven't read the whole text but it needs examining on both pages. Dougweller (talk) 10:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, the edit that introduced the POV happened on Dec 25, and was to the /Intro page. Since the /Intro page is transcluded onto the portal page, it made it look as if the portal was created with the POV, and that the Intro edit was a copyvio. It looks like both pages get very few edits, and I doubt many editors have them on their watchlists. (I know I didn't...I don't really even know what a portal is or what it's good for.) Anyway, I've added both the portal and the /Intro subpage to my watchlist, and I'll try and keep an eye on the new editor as well. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Ecclesiastes (Date and Author)
Overview:Over at the Ecclesiastes page, there is some disagreement over whether to include certain material. One editor is in disagreement with the other parties, over inclusion of a certain point of view; in fact, he has deleted any information that disagrees with a very narrow interpretation.

Background: The issue of the date of Ecclesiastes has been in dispute for at least 150 years. Scholarly opinion has bounced around quite a bit, but essentially there are three views held among Bible scholars. The first is a late view, dating the book to around the 3rd century B.C.E. This view is based on a supposed presence of Hellenistic culture found in the book. It is held by quite a few scholars, with Rudman, of Exeter university being the primary source given in the article. Rudman claims, in his book, that "250 B.C.E. is the consensus date" among scholars, even though the editor who added this, has failed to provide other sources that give this particular date as the "consensus" view. (This is Dispute #1)

The second view, advocated by Seow of Princeton University (and author of the prestigious Anchor/Yale commentary on Ecclesiastes), denies the presence of such Hellenistic culture found in the book, and instead advocates for Persian influence of the 4th to fifth century (330-450, to be exact). The editor in question has removed any mention of this other, equally held view, because it apparently disagrees with his own. Though Seow, Batholomew, Longman, and other authorities deny any consensus, the editor has insisted on quoting this "consensus" view as fact...which, from what I have read, goes against Wikipedia's standards (it should be cited as Rudman's opinion for NPOV).

The third view, which is a minority view, has also been completely censored, that of an early date. D.C. Fredricks published his study in 1988, and it has since been noted, critiqued, criticied, and yes, also applauded. Seow himself notes the importance of the work, as does Bartholomew, agreeing with the study in part. That Fredricks view is still held by many, is apparent from the current literature. IVP academic has just published an updated version of his material in the new Apollos Bible Commentary series. His work is frequently cited in peer reviewed publications (Bibliotecha Sacra, April 2012), and others in the field have adopted his views. This would seem to merit inclusion. The editor has even admitted that it is not a "fringe view," yet he refuses to allow any mention of the study, the theory, etc. Instead, his article as it stands, portrays the 250 B.C.E date as if it is held by everyone, when in fact not even a majority of scholars would agree to it.

I would appreciate your review of the article, and of the talk page. The editor in question has been doing a lot of editing lately on this page, and there definitely seems to be bias. Here are the two versions.

Original version: The book takes its name from the Greek ekklesiastes, a translation of the title by which the central figure refers to himself: Koheleth, meaning something like "one who convenes or addresses an assembly". According to Rabbinic tradition he was Solomon in his old age, but for various reasons critical scholars have long rejected this idea. On linguistic grounds (the presence of Persian loan-words) the book cannot have been written before about 450 BCE, and the last possible date for its composition is 180 BCE, when another Jewish writer, Ben Sira, quotes from it. The current consensus dates it to the early Hellenistic era, around 250 BCE.

Updated with a NPOV:  (Retains the material from the original version about the book's name and the traditional view of Solomon as author, which implies a date; remainder, from "On lingistic grounds...", replaced with the following: Dating of the book of Ecclesiastes is difficult as well. On linguistic grounds (the presence of Persian loan-words) the book points to a date no earlier than about 450 BCE, while the latest possible date for its composition is 180 BCE, when another Jewish writer, Ben Sira, quotes from it. Although some suggest that there is a consensus date of 250 B.C.E., this is still disputed. Essentially the dispute revolves around the degree of Hellenization (influence of Greek culture and thought) that is present in the book. Scholars arguing for an earlier date of 330 B.C.E. to 450 B.C.E., hold that there is a complete lack of Greek influence in the book. Those who argue for a third century date on the other hand, hold that the book was written in a Greek influenced social setting, and believe it shows internal evidence of this fact. A third group of scholars continue to advocate for a date much earlier than 450 B.C.E., up to and including the time of Solomon. D.C. Fredericks in a 1988 study advocated not only an early date, but Solomonic authorship. His work has not gained a high degree of acceptance and has been criticized by many.

Havensdad (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I thank Havensdad for informing me of this, and I've made a few minor edits aimed at making it more readable - I don't think they're controversial. I'm too busy right now to reply, but I'll do so within 24 hours. PiCo (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, here's my response.

Response

First, I don't quite agree with Havensdad's description of the dispute - I don't think it's a POV dispute but rather one about due weight. He wants to include the views of Fredericks, at some length, and I regard that as undue. But let that pass.
 * I do believe it is a POV issue. Soem scholars, and I believe this includes you, want a stranglehold on a particular position that they hold, and use force/power to exclude all dissenting opinions. I believe this is what you are doing. Further, you refused compromise, when all of the other editors agreed (an administrator, Cerebellum, Athnekos) that because of Fredrick's wide sourcing and use, he should be mentioned. You deleted even a two sentence mention of the view, which noted that it was rejected by most scholars. That's definitely a NPOV issue Havensdad (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Havensdad says there are three views on the date of the book of Ecclesiastes. This is not so: there's only one, really, which is that was composed some time between about 450 and 180 BCE. Havensdad divides this range into two parts, which is sort of ok, as it's true that some scholars say the earlier end of the range (the Persian period) and others the later (the Hellenistic period. Anyway, we have sourced sentences in the article saying this: "On linguistic grounds (the presence of Persian loan-words) the book cannot have been written before about 450 BCE,( sourced from Seow|2007|p=944) and the last possible date for its composition is 180 BCE, when another Jewish writer, Ben Sira, quotes from it.(sourced from Fox|2004|p=xiv). Seow actually says that most modern scholars say the post-450 date is right. Seow and Fox are important modern scholars, and I gather that Havensdad doesn't dispute what they say.


 * This is not reflected in academic literature. Longman notes, actually, MORE than three views, including his own which is unique. Further, Seow DOES NOT say that "most scholars" hold an earlier view. After saying the book COULD NOT have been written later than 330 B.C.E., he notes that "many" scholars hold to a later view.Havensdad (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

So it comes down to whether the idea that the book could have been written before about 450 (the exilic/pre-exilic period) has enough supporters to warrant inclusion in our article. Havensdad refers to a scholar named Fredericks, who examined the language of the book (it's written in Hebrew) and decided on that basis that it could be, and probably was, exilic or pre-exilic. That was in 1988, almost a quarter of a century ago. Not surprisingly, scholarship has examined his ideas in the interim. The overwhelming conclusion is that he's wrong. I can cite:
 * In a recent (2009) scholarly commentary on Ecclesiastes, Craig Batholomew notes Fredericks' argument but then goes on to list all the other important works that have addressed the question since Fredericks' book. He notes (and I don't want to bore you with names, but these are all important scholars) Lohfink, Seow, and Schoors, the three reaching different conclusions about the date, but all putting it after 450 BC.
 * Seow (1997) published an important study of Ecclesiastes which is regarded as the standard work on the book's language. Seow reviewed Fredericks and the entire debate, and concluded that it should be dated to the post-exilic era and no earlier than the 5th century (i.e., he accepts the 450 BC date as the earliest possible, roughly speaking).
 * Longman (1998) concluded that "the language of the book is not a certain barometer of date". Batholomew comments that Longman's judgement "remains valid." Note thatt directly contradicts Fredericks, who based his entire argument on the idea that the language of Ecclesiastes could be used to date it - all his argument is based on the language.

In my research for this section of the article I did not come across a single modern scholar (writing in the last 10 years) who would put the book before about 450 BC. On that basis, to mention that date as one supported by modern scholars, even a significant minority, is without evidence; and to mention Fredericks by name, when it seems no modern scholar supports him, is undue weight.

We should also look at what contemporary scholars do actually say about the date:
 * Batholomew (1998): "The state of the current debate favors a postexilic date for Ecclesiastes..." (p.53)
 * Brown (2011):"Persian loan words, Aramaisms, and late developments in Hebrew forms and syntax all indicate a 3rd or 4th century dating..." (p.8 - note that Brown uses language to date the book - he obviously is not convinced by Fredericks).
 * Coogan (2008): "...probably written no earlier than the 4th century BCE..." (p.7)
 * Fox (2004): "...clearly postexilic." (p.xiv)
 * Gilbert (2009): "...thought to have been written in the postexilic period sometime between the fourth and second centuries BCE..." (p.125)
 * Longman (1998): "With few exceptions, most critical scholars date the book late in the history of Israel". (p.9 - I regret it's not available as a google book. Longman makes clear that by "late" he means post-exilic.)
 * Rudman (2011): "The current scholarly consensus would make Ecclesiastes a product of the early Hellenistic period, probably around 250 BCE." (p.13)

And they go on and on. Many, many scholars saying postexilic, none saying pre-exilic or exilic. Clearly, Fredericks does not represent a significant body of scholarly opinion, and the inclusion of his name would be undue weight. PiCo (talk) 11:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You assessment is simply wrong. You are cherry picking quotes. Seow doesn't just say that it can't be earlier than the fifth century...he also says it can't be LATER than the 4th century. He puts an OUTSIDE late date, as do all who hold to the Persian view, at around 330 B.C.E., while Rudman and others, hold to a date NO EARLIER than the 3rd century (200's). In other words, according to those holding to a Hellenistic view, the date range is 180-299, while those holding to a Persian view, date the book 330-450. These are two different views.
 * Additionally, I have noted Fredricks recent publication in IVP Academics Apollos Bible Commetnary (2010), where he addresses the objections to his original study). IVP academic is a prestigious publishing company, used by Seminaries and Universities around the world. When I was working on my Master's Degree in Biblical Studies (with concentrations in Hebrew and Greek, by the way), five of our textbooks were produced by IVP academic. Finally, I have noted that this gentleman's assessment that no other scholar's consider this view possible, is incorrect. Longman notes that Frederick's could be right, though it is unlikely. Other scholars have actually taken Fredrick's view, and I have noted those in our discussion (one from the April 2012 issue of Bibliotecha Sacra, one of THE most prestigious peer reviewed journals in the world of Biblical Studies). Havensdad (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Seow says exactly what I say he says. And from the point of view of Fredericks, it's a single view - post-exilic. I can't find a single recent author who accepts Fredericks' pre-exilic date. It's not cherry-picking, these are books taken from the first few that come up in a search of google books. Frederick's recent article is irrelevant - the point isn't him, it's his views, and how much acceptance they get (or don't get).
 * I'm not sure what we do now - wait for someone to come along and comment? PiCo (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, sir, Seow does not say what you says he said... quoting from your earlier link,


 * “These features, together with the fact that there are no Greek loan words (or indisputable Greek ideas), suggests that the book should be probably dated sometime before the Hellenistic period, between 450 and 330 B.C.E., although many scholars date it a century or two later.”


 * Notice he says "many" scholars disagree with him, not "most." Havensdad (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I said Seow "concluded that it should be dated to the post-exilic era" (that's a cut-and-paste from up above). You say Seow says it "should be probably dated...between 450 and 330 BCE". As the post-exilic era begins in 520 BCE, where exactly do you see a contradiction? PiCo (talk) 04:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * OK so. I suspect nobody else is commenting about this for the same reason I wasn't -- way way way more than I want to know about this document. But hey, I'm killing time, and I have read the first part of this exchange and perhaps the following thoughts will help. I have not looked at the page itself and hope not to have to ;) However, it seems to me that the model that applies here is writing the controversy. The point here is not to determine the ultimate truth of some scholarly point. Wikipedia can't. Remember that ignorant as I am on this topic, which is totally, I can if I wish contribute to this article, so ideally it should be accessible in its language and more to the point here, cover any major theories on the topic that I may have encountered.


 * Let me start by restating the issue as I understand it. The date of the document is thought by some to be in one range because they see certain traits as resulting from Greek influence, and by others to be in a different range because they see Persian influences in some of the language. Then there is one author who thinks a third thing but he is the only one who thinks it. Is that, in its broad strokes, essentially correct? Please excuse any errors of vocabulary or fact -- trying to suggest a structure that would resolve this.
 * So why not have like so:
 * 1.lede -- what is Ecclesiastes -- mention here that its date is uncertain
 * insert if necessary pertinent important non-origin info here in second paragraph
 * 2.Theories of Ecclesiastes origin -- which involves mentioning the date ranges, right?
 * for this paragraph describe each theory briefly and mention a couple of leading proponents.
 * the guy with his own theory gets one sentence plus a mention that he does not have much support.
 * 3.Proponents of Hellenic origin -- This is to provide google terms, real discussion later
 * 4.Proponents of Persian origin -- as above
 * 5.Evidence for Hellenic origin -- this is where you make the case for that point of view
 * 6.Evidence for Persian origin -- this is where you make the case for that point of view
 * 7.Controversy -- this is where you quote them talking about the other camp
 * 8.Unless he is really off the wall, make a few remarks about the guy with his own theory here
 * 9. References, Works, etc


 * Since the heart of the matter appears to be a dispute about undue weight, the beauty of this structure is that you can give each scholar, authority or author 1-3 sentences in sections 3 and 4, which can be as many paragraphs as needed. Items 5 and 6 similarly are likely to require multiple paragraphs and can cover what is known, what is believed, and how this person, that person and the other person have interpreted this.


 * The rule of thumb is that competing views should be presented and weight given to them in proportion to the amount of support that these views receive from those in the field. This gets interesting in application, but it looks as though at least everyone you guys are quoting is some sort of scholar so at least you don't have to fight about whose opinions to take into account since you are citing scholars to begin with. Elinruby (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for contributing, Elinruby. It is indeed a very dry and obscure subject, and I can't help feeling that my time would be better spent on some healthy outdoor activity, but it's 37 Centigrade outside today.
 * Yes, it's really a due weight dispute, not a pov dispute. Havensdad and I actually agree on all the facts - most scholars date Ecclesiastes to the post-Exilic age. That's divided into the Persian and the Hellenistic periods, and some scholars favour one, some the other. Fredericks, who is a respected scholar, wrote a book arguing for a pre-Exilic date. That was in 1988, and since then his argument has been examined by many and accepted by none - I can't find a single recent (post-2000) book by a major scholar that agrees with him. So in my view, putting Fredericks in at all would be undue weight. Havensdad wants him in, in the interest, I think of completeness. We've been talking on the article Talk page and I think we're coming to a solution. PiCo (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Technically that isn't true. J. Stafford Wright, of Cambridge university (Expositors Bible Commentary), has actually advocated for a pre-exilic date, along with Roy B. Zuck of Dallas Theological Seminary, as well as a number of other scholars. Havensdad (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So include him with his own section as above. I have not looked at the article to see if that structure requires a major rewrite, but what I am trying to get at is that you guys can probably agree on who thinks what, right? So if you get all the names down you should be able to get a feel for the numeric weight, e.i. 60-40, 70-30, 50-50 or whatever. Possibly you need another weighting factor to take into account who's an authority or who is whose student, but the idea is to say:
 * Mr Smith says x
 * Mr Brown says y
 * Mr Green says they are both full of it
 * Mr Purple says they are both half-right
 * Then, depending on how much of a deep dive this is, you can get into a discussion in the following sections of the pros and cons of the various sides.
 * A couple of cautions -- it appears to me that you are probably both scholars in this or some related field, so you may need to hear this again. You aren't here to decide which one of these authors is right. This isn't a thesis. However, if you can agree on which are the more mainstream views those should receive greater weight than the others.
 * I should be able to say "who was that guy who wrote that thing about that book" and be able to find him in your article, possibly along with a mention that this that or the other expert disagrees with his theories.
 * The other caution, PiCo, is that it doesn't matter how recent the work is, not in history, unless it's really completely discredited. It's not like this is internet technology or computer hardware, where yes, references from pre-2000 are completely obsolete. If people are still citing him with even partial approval he should be in there, possibly along with a notation that he's considered controversial (or whatever).Elinruby (talk) 03:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, but the essential point remains: in Wikipedia we represent majority views, plus significant minority views. There's no definition of how big a "significant" minority is, nor any guidelines on how to establish the popularity of points of view. I try to find scholars who say things like "A majority of scholars..." or similar - that helps avoid cherry-picking. None of the books I've read say that any significant number of scholars accept a pre-exilic date. PiCo (talk) 03:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Then you have not read the right books. Also, if you look for phrases like "a majority of scholars," then you necessarily exclude the "significant minority opinions" that according to Wiki guidelines we should include. I think, at this point, it is also important to note that we are not really talking about a majority vs. minority. If we are talking about the majority opinion among credentialed people in the field of Biblical Studies and ancient Hebrew linguistics, I would posit to you that by far the majority favor a pre-exilic date. Most of these scholars are dismissed out of hand by "critical" scholars, because they have religious convictions, and it is assumed these convictions carry bias (a conclusion that is unfair, in my opinion..both sides are biased). I can list for you a stack of recent commentaries a mile high, by credentialed Ph.D scholars, who advocate for a pre-exilic date. Havensdad (talk) 03:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe this is a stupid question, but I am a network geek with no clue about this topic, so bear with me. How many authorities can there be on this? Is it a lot? If not why not summarize them? Significant is going to depend. My vote on this would not count for example. And the text should be about this particular topic. But even then scholars are as liable as nyone else to have mental quirks and prejudices, which was why I suggested starting with trying to agree on who is an authority. I wrote that before I saw Havensdad's comment, which makes me think that you need to settle this before proceeding. For what it is worth I do not think religious beliefs necessarily invalidate an opinion, but they would make me give it greater scrunity... Elinruby (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem is, [[User:Elinruby|Elinruby] (coming from someone who has a Master's degree in this field), the number of people who want to get into Biblical Studies with an emphasis on ancient Hebrew linguistics, are few and far between. Almost ALL (and I say this having met, studied under, and talked to hundreds of professors)of them fall into one of two camps...they got into the field because they have religious convictions, and want to "prove" the Bible, or they have anti religious convictions and want to "disprove" the Bible (prove and disprove meaning different things to different people). And so you have on one hand, scholars saying things like "it COULD NOT have been written earier than..." which is an absurd statement, since anyone in the field knows that a few Persian loan words does not PROVE anything (since it can be accounted for by later redaction, which Longman notes..). On the other hand, though, you have professors like Michael Eaton writing the Tyndale Bible Commentary (2009), stating honestly that "Our Conclusion must be that the language of Ecclesiastes does not at present provide an adequate resource for dating", while Dr. Robert Hughes, Dr. Carl Laney of the SAME publishing house (2001), states "The book of Ecclesiastes was written somewhere during the last period of Solomon’s reign of forty years (970–931 b.c.). Some have argued for a date as late as 400 b.c. on the basis of the unusual language in the work. But the linguistic arguments for a late date have been undermined by discoveries of fourteenth-century b.c. Ugaritic tablets that show linguistic similarities with Ecclesiastes." Which is not absurd (the Ugaritic Tablets may be an important piece of the puzzle), but is certainly overstated...


 * So you see, the issue is very convoluted.... Havensdad (talk) 03:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree, the issue is difficult, the opinions of experts differ. That's why I look to general works from respectable sources (like the Oxford Press, but there are many others), and by scholars who get quoted by other scholars (like Michael Coogan). Fredericks, who wrote the book we've talked about above, falls into that category - he's a respectable scholar (a "reliable source" if you will) and his book is discussed respectfully by other scholars. And although he based his argument entirely on linguistic grounds, that wouldn't matter if other respectable scholars supported a pre-exilic (before 520 BC) date on other grounds. But they don't: Coogan, Enns, Seow and others examine Frederick's ideas and decide against his dating. I think the most we can ad to the article is something like: "Attempts to support a pre-exilic date have not achieved a consensus" (which is a quote from someone I've read), and we could put Fredericks' book in the bibliography. PiCo (talk) 04:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * But "respectable sources" is subjective. Is not J. Stafford Wright, of Cambridge University, who also supports a Pre-exilic date on linguistic grounds not "respectable"? Or Dr. Roy B.Zuck? Or, for that matter, Laney and Hughes, who also claim to be dating from a linguistic standpoint, and are published by a reputable publisher? The fact is, when you read Enns and Coogan and some of these others, they are dismissing work by a huge section of the scholarly community when they speak of "consensus." Truthfully an enormous number of scholars (I would say a majority) in the field state plainly that the date cannot be known with certainty. But what you want to do, is paint something that is uncertain, as if it is certain. The fact is, all it would take is a single redaction in the fourth century, that is unknown, to completely invalidate every bit of data we have. Or for something as simple as a Persian amanuensis...any of these things would make all of this wrangling over a few Persian words moot. The last thing we want to do, is to present some type of certainty to the reader, as if the issue is settled. Its not, and probably never will be, as several honest scholars have pointed out. Havensdad (talk) 05:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If the facts are disputed your goal should be to present the various sides of the dispute, not to determine the ultimate truth of the matter. HTH. Elinruby (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Very true. I just made an edit on the Ecclesiastes article that I hope Havensdad can accept. Thank you also for your interest - most sane people on Wiki don't want to touch religious articles with a bargepole, you are very brave :) . PiCo (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Any Unix people?
I ran across this issue while doing cleanup in computing -- somebody flagged the article on Unix HAL as biased. I am unix-literate enough to understand the issue but not to solve it.Elinruby (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * got interrupted while posting this earlier. If anyone wants to look, it's Talk:HAL_(software).Elinruby (talk) 04:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Much ado about nothing. As I said there, yes, HAL is still alive, but as alive as Larry King. Not for long... The tag will come off by itself soon. History2007 (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Moshe Friedman - Ongoing
Moshe_Friedman need assistance. There is support for Holocaust denial which lacks sources and facts and would appreciate balanced editors who actually read the sources. Tellyuer1 (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Interested users should check out Talk:Moshe Friedman, where some of Tellyuer1's proposals have been soundly (if, in some cases, uncivilly) opposed by multiple editors. Users may also want to check out WP:ANEW, where Tellyuer1 faces an active report for edit warring on the article. —C.Fred (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Frankly, simply stating that an article needs help is unlikely to elicit a lot of assistance. It would be more useful if someone could summarize for us specifically where the disagreement is.  The Blue Canoe  03:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)]]

Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact negotiations articles
These two articles talk essentially about the same event: the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and subsequent events. In my opinion, this situation creates a huge potential for POV content forking (I even recall the latter article was created during a hot neutrality dispute). In addition, the idea to separate the story of negotiations from the story of the pact signing is quite artificial, and I see no reason behind that other than POV CFORK. In connection to that I believe it would be more correct to merge these two articles (especially, taking into account that their content essentially coincides).--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The only reason to have separate articles is if the negotiations section in the main article had grown so unwieldy as to need its own page. Both articles are pretty substantial, but it does seem to me that a merge should be possible if the editors involved deem it desirable (though it might involve a lot of work).  The Blue Canoe  17:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think these are better separately, as there are multiple viewpoints on the circumstances leading up to the pact. What the pact contained and its consequences are less controversial. (Re-)combining would detract from both. There's ample precedent for splitting as a tool to de-POV content (e.g., Baltic-Soviet relations). There's no need for accusations. That editor Paul Siebert sees no other possibility than POV forking is not a universal opinion. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This is essentially one article, the "Negotiations" piece is a sub-page of the "Pact" piece, which is quite long. No problems here in terms of structure and the forking question, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 03:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Race (human classification)
Race (human classification) has been considerably revised recently. I reverted a major edit which removed cited text and made this statement about the work of Franz Boas: " Boas' study was later found to be fraudulent by Sparks and Jantz. " It was restored with the edit summary "Fine, fixed that. Added relevant sources. Removed political bias from "Complications and various definitions of the concept"."

The first time I reverted the false Boas claim I pointed to Boas's article and a quote from it. This was simply ignored, but if you read Boas's article you can see that the work by Sparks and Jantz has been challenged, that it's been said that they misrepresented Boas, that their date has been reanalyzed and found to support Boas, and that Boas's work has been reanalyzed and found to be basically correct. Anyone who simply ignores all of this has a pov problem.

The alleged 'political bias' that was removed was material about race as a social construction sourced to the "American Anthropological Association" - why that is called 'political bias' I leave up to others or hopefully the editor who removed to explain.

All of the recent edits need review. Dougweller (talk) 05:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * how recent/how far back? (guess) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * At least the ones made by . Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There's an entry that keeps on getting deleted here alleging that one study was not done properly. I can't see any reason why this needs to be deleted from here as there's no obvious BLP or other violations.  There are some accuations within the summaries.  I have no expertise in this area, so I could be missing something, but it seems like a valid opinion is being removed.  What's going on? JASpencer (talk) 12:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a certain segment of the population that has an extreme dislike for any scientist that supports the fact that biological human races simply do not exist. The vast majority of scientists know—because the science conclusively shows—that race is a social construct based solely on observed appearance. Most of the articles related to "race" have been skewed in favor of the wildly incorrect biological view that is only supported by an outrageously tiny minority of social scientists. If you edit in this topic area, be prepared for red herrings by the metic shitload with just a dash of fresh cherry picked sources form mainstream science (typically twisted and skewed), and topped with thick layer of fanatical support for fringe social scientists that primarily publish in journals of their own creation and cite each other in a circular manner. For a primary example see Race and intelligence (actually it's IQ not intelligence but good luck expressing that little factual tidbit in any meaningful way or any other mainstream science for that matter). When you see a duck with shovel, you gotta call a spade a spade. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Or a sock, I see this editor is suspected of being a sock. Dougweller (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The American Anthropological Association isn't a credible source. If I recall one of their spokesperson questioned on the existence of significant racial differences stated that - even if racial differences were proven beyond a doubt to exist - it was "more beneficial to society" to sweep them under the rug and pretend they didn't exist. The American Anthropological Association also has stated that anthropology isn't science. Article very related: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/science/10anthropology.html AlmightySalvatore (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "The American Anthropological Association isn't a credible source". Yes it is, as far as Wikipedia is concerned - please push your ignorant bollocks somewhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I actually found the discussion above to be pretty illuminating. Why don't you find a concise way to summarize what you've written here? For example, on the Sparks and Jantz debate, instead of the previous "Boas' study was later found to be fraudulent by Sparks and Jantz," you could write something like "Boas' findings were criticized by Sparks and Jantz [why?], though subsequent reassessments of Boas' data reinforced the validity of his conclusions."

As to the American Anthropological Association and the issue of race as a social construct, maybe a solution is to just attribute different opinions and perspectives more clearly? So, for instance, when something is cited to an anthropologist, you can say as much.  The Blue Canoe  04:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The authors of the study that, in effect, implied that Boas practised scientific fraud(Jantz etc.) did actually criticise the new study that supposedly re-proved Boas' claims. Here's an article in which they point out the flaws in that new pro-Boas study:-

http://www.rps.psu.edu/0305/boas.html

excerpt:- Coincidentally, as of this writing, another paper, by anthropologists at the University of Michigan, the University of Florida, and Northwestern University, is scheduled for publication in American Anthropologist; it concludes that Boas correctly interpreted his head-form data. According to Jantz, these present-day anthropologists fail to acknowledge Boas’s error in comparing children with adults. Nor, points out Sparks, do they consider cranial differences between ethnic groups." Of course, whether or not Boas was correct or a fraud is irrelevant, really, and cannot be stated with certainty without tons more evidence. However, according to wikipedia rules, Boas ought at least to have a criticism section  wherein this study criticising Boas is mentioned. Otherwise, the article just reads like a hagiography. Vorlon19 (talk) 09:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh)
International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh) This article is suffering severely from a lack of NPOV. I rewrote it in userspace here but any attempt I make to make the article neutral is reverted without discussion. I would appreciate some neutral editors looking the article over. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Smithfield Foods
Page:

Which image of sows is preferred for inclusion at Smithfield Foods? , prepared by the animal welfare advocacy group, the Humane Society of the United States, or prepared by the Smithfield Foods. Details of the actions of the Humane Society are described in Smithfield Foods. The relevant guideline is Choosing images. There appear to be no copyright issues.

My opinion is that the company's image is preferable, because the the Humane Society image may not be representative. The State Veterninarian inspected the facility and determined that the conditions described by the Humane Society were unfounded. The Humane Society is an advocacy group with no assigned powers of enforcement or prosecution.

It would be helpful as well for other editors to comment on the relative weight and accuracy given to animal welfare issues in the article.

TFD (talk) 09:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You should use the company image per the reasons you have outlined here. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually - likely neither. The HSUS may or may not be representative of all facilities, the company photo is surely not representative assuming the company PR department operates rationally.  In such a case, neither image is really going to help the reader, which is the only reason for having images.  The NYT, moreover, covers this issue specifically and links directly itself to the HSUS material.  The fact that Smithfield fired employees as a result of the HSUS investigation would seem, if anything, to lend credence to the use of the HSUS photos.   Collect (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised as this is back here as it had previously appeared to be mostly resolved in this old thread. I agree with Collect in that neither pictures provided by HSUS or Smithfield are necessarily representative.  However, I was under the impression that the Gestcrate1.png file was a generic one, not prepared by Smithfield.  The one provided by Smithfield was this now deleted file (which shows up as the first hit on this google search thanks to some random caching) which made all the pigs look particularly clean and happy.  This was the reason I supported the generic picture as a way of "splitting the difference".  a13ean (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

TFD was asked by the Smithfield Foods marketing manager, User:Kkirkham, to remove the current image. TFD, the image you want to replace it with is not a company image.

There's no reason to remove the image in question. It is free, it is reasonably good quality, it is representative of these stalls, it was taken inside Smithfield Foods (KKirkham has confirmed this), it is recent (end of 2010), and it very precisely illustrates the subject matter of the section in which we use it. If Smithfield Foods wants to post a free one of their own alongside it, for comparison's sake – as another editor and I suggested months ago – that's fine.

It's worth noting that Smithfield has been heavily criticized for its use of gestation crates, even by McDonald's and by its own animal-welfare consultant, Temple Grandin, which may be why they're keen that Wikipedia downplay it. Here's a timeline of its recent efforts:


 * The article used a generic image of a gestation crate for several years.
 * In September 2012, the Smithfield Foods rep asked that it be removed. She argued that it was inappropriate because not taken inside Smithfield Foods.
 * She suggested that we use a fair-use image from the Smithfield birthing room (not one of a gestation crate) that she obtained from a Smithfield video on YouTube. She wrote in the fair-use rationale (now deleted, bold added):
 * "Other images could/should not be used since the article is talking about facilities owned by a particular company, so the article should show equipment/facilities from that company, if possible."
 * I asked her to obtain a free image for us, but received no response.
 * Because she insisted that we use a Smithfield Foods image, but would not supply a free one, I wrote to the Humane Society of the United States – an animal welfare group that is not opposed to meat eating – to ask if they could supply a free one from inside Smithfield Foods. They sent me several, and I added one that shows two clean pigs, with no bleeding, no dirt, no sores, and where it's clear how much space they have to lie down (which is the subject matter of the section).
 * In December Kkirkham then argued that we did not need to use an image taken inside Smithfield, but should use a generic one instead. I reminded her that she had insisted we use a Smithfield one.  I suggested again that she obtain a free one from Smithfield to use alongside the one she objects to. She replied, on 20 December: "Changing the photo again is a fairly minor issue to me ..."
 * I assumed we would leave it there, but on 2 January she asked TFD to remove the image. (This is one of several occasions on which she has asked editors to remove material for her.)

Again, there is no reason within policy to remove the image, and if Smithfield wants to post one of its own next to it, they're welcome to do so. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * TFD, I'm concerned that when you edit this article, you invariably do what Smithfield Foods has asked, and you remove reliable sources too. For example in this edit, you removed a description of the way the pigs are kept, and left only the Smithfield website as a source, but removed two stories from The Washington Post, and one from The Atlantic. You also changed "animal welfare" groups to "animal activist" groups, which is the term Smithfield prefers. Can you say why you're removing independent sources? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My understanding of the discussion was that you were opposed to replacing the image, which is why I posted this discussion thread. I made the requested change to the text five days after the request was made and no one had raised any objections.  I see now that the request related to only part of the section.  I explained my concern about the reporting of the HSUS investigation at Talk:Smithfield Foods/Archive 1, "The emphasis on these sources gives greater weight to the Humane Society's view, when neutrality requires that greatest weight be provided to the State Veternarian. The proviso of course is that any subsequent expert opinion may supercede the State Veternarian's finding."  TFD (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi TFD, my question was why you removed all the independent sources in this edit, and left only the Smithfield website. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I replaced the section with the requested version and as I said, "I see now that the request related to only part of the section." TFD (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, but that means "I made the edit because I made the edit." :) My question is why you removed all the independent sources (W/Post, Atlantic) and left a version based entirely on a Smithfield Foods press release. I don't know what "the request related to only part of the section" means. The reason I ask is that it's not the first time this has happened. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "it's not the first time this has happened". The only other time I edited this article was 24-25 October, 2011, when I re-wrote the section now called  Smithfield Foods.  Before doing that I set up a discussion thread now at Smithfield Foods on 21 September, 2011.  When after more than a month you did not respond I made the edit and since that time you have not commented on or changed the section.
 * I have explained my recent edit twice already and maybe will be third time lucky. Kkirkham re-wrote a paragraph of the section on gestation crates.  Although you opposed changing the image used, I did not see opposition to the change in text.  Kkirkham then asked if it could be posted.  I waited five days and there was no response at the talk page.  I then posted the revised paragraph and set up this discussion thread about the disputed image.  In error, I replaced the entire section with the revised paragraph, instead of merely replacing one paragraph.
 * Or perhaps your question is what I find wrong with the article. I believe that the article should point out problems with animal welfare, treatment of workers, health and safety and environmental impact.  However, that should not be the main focus of the article.  Also, the wording of much of the article is overly detailed on specific problems and has very little third party assessment of them.  It reminds me of anti-abortion writing that shocks readers through gory desriptions.  Generally this type of writing is ineffective.  It preaches to the converted and alienates undecided readers.  It also leaves the impression that the problems described are specific to the company rather than inherent in the industry.  Any reader who was persuaded by this article would probably stop eating pork and start eating chicken instead.
 * TFD (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * All, I am happy to source a photo from Smithfield and get the proper approvals if that is what the group desires. I had issues with the one that I uploaded (I did the fair-use rationale incorrectly), so I gave on on that, but am happy to try again if we'd like. My original insistence that the photo show a Smithfield facility if possible stemmed from the egregiousness of the photo that was previously used in the article and the awful conditions it portrayed that had no connection to a Smithfield facility (it was this (image). It was sourced from Farm Sanctuary (another animal activist/welfare group). While the current image is certainly more appropriate than that previous image, I do still believe that it is more appropriate to show a generic image than an image sourced from an animal activist/welfare group that campaigns against meat companies. I think using a generic image is preferable to showing Smithfield's photo and the HSUS's photo side-by-side as SlimVirgin suggests. Thanks for the additions and feedback of the group here--I appreciate your time. I'm happy to help however folks would like. Kkirkham (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * We can't use a non-Smithfield image in the Smithfield article, when we have a free, good-quality image taken inside Smithfield. Wikipedia doesn't care who takes images so long as they're free. This is an image showing how much space the pigs have to live on, and the section is about that issue, and how even McDonald's has complained about it. The image is entirely representative and if Smithfield took one itself of one of its gestation crates it would look the same – but if you think not, you're welcome to add one, and juxtapose them in the interests of being extra-neutral. But removing the image to replace it with a non-Smithfield image at the request of Smithfield Foods would be a violation of neutrality. We have already removed two images at your request (the first gestation crate and the CAFO), but it can't continue. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Why does it matter who requests the change if a consensus of editors agrees that the change effects a positive outcome on the article and improves its NPOV? I understand Wiki's stance about COI Editing, but not even allowing a request for a change by someone with a COI is not what Wiki is intending with that policy, and seems extreme. Kkirkham (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I didn't say that. I said we can't remove a free, good-quality image of a Smithfield facility just because Smithfield Foods doesn't like who took it, and replace it with one that isn't of a Smithfield facility and isn't good quality. That makes no editorial sense.


 * From our perspective, we don't care who took that image, and it's only there because you asked us to remove the first generic image, and insisted we use one that showed a Smithfield facility, but would not supply one. So I had to find one from elsewhere. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

'''Humane Soc. Photo''' - They are both free photos; and both show gestation crates; but the HSUS photo has a couple of advantages: (1) it is taken inside a Smithfield facility; and (2) it provides more visual information (size, etc) to the reader. --Noleander (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The original image in the article was NOT a generic photo as you suggest SlimVirgin, but was also supplied by an animal activist/welfare group. Additionally, you yourself suggested the use of the generic photo that TFD, a13ean, and I are suggesting we use. You posted it to the page after this conversation in the old thread on the Smithfield Foods talk page that a13ean referenced, but then changed it again to the current HSUS image without getting any input from the group on the talk page. Here's the text of that conversation.


 * "If you don't like the current image, we can use another of our generic ones until we obtain a Smithfield one. We have File:Gestation crate pig showing stereotype.JPG, File:Gestation-crates.jpg, File:Gestcrate1.png. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This image is much better, and much more typical of what the stalls look like. Thanks, Kkirkham (talk) 14:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. a13ean (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Why was this photo changed again, after we agreed the previous one was good? SV, if you are going to make changes like this while the page's status is disputed, please justify them here on the talk page. Kkirkham (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)" Kkirkham (talk) 13:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * All other things being equal, a photo actually taken at a Smithfield facility should be used over any other photo taken at some unknown facility. Smithfield may have unique crates; or specific conditions.  Using a photo of another facility could be very misleading.   Unless there is a fatal flaw with the photo taken at the Smithfield facility, it should be used.  I presume that (because we are in the NPOV noticeboard) that there is concern that the Smithfield-facility photo is biased somehow?  It looks like a normal photo taken under normal conditions.   I don't see any NPOV issues.   --Noleander (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Sadhu Vaswani
The article opens with
 * Sadhu Vaswani (25 November 1879 – 16 January 1966) born Thanwar Lilaram Vaswani was a saint who aspired to serve suffering humanity rather than attain to mukti, salvation or liberation from the cycle of birth and death. He often said, “I do not ask for mukti. I fain would be born, again and again, if only that I might be of some help to those that suffer and are in pain!” Dadaji, as he was popularly known by thousands of his followers and admirers, could have lived a life of luxury, but he spurned all the riches of the world in order to serve the entire creation. He gave hope to hearts numb with fear and anxiety; he opened up the vision of man to the beauty of God. His was a life of singular simplicity blended with selfless activity.

and continues in the same vein. It has section titles like "A Brilliant Student" and "An Admired Professor" (both describing the subject of the article).

Further, in apparent violation of WP:COI, much of the content was added by User:SadhuVaswani, which, judging by the page, seems to be an account maintained by the Sadhu Vasvani Mission (established by the subject of the article). --59.95.18.216 (talk) 10:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Progressive utilization theory
Hi all, Could somebody take a look at Progressive utilization theory? I have concerns that it's become a hugely lengthy article which treats fringe views at face value, eulogising the writer/philosopher behind the theory; there are many other related articles, which generally big up the "vast literary heritage of the author" &c. Of course, other editors might disagree with this summary; Abhidevananda asserts that I'm prejudiced and ignorant, and reverts all my edits because they're "vandalism". Maybe one of us is right; maybe neither. This shouldn't become adversarial; could somebody uninvolved have a look at the Progressive utilization theory article, please? bobrayner (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, the prout article has just been protected for a few days; but there are a lot of other articles linked from Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar which seem to be part of the same walled garden of promotional content... bobrayner (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Promotional? On Wikipedia?  The entire article is an advert AFAICT. And should be returned to its more-or-less stable version of  31 October 2012. Collect (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have notified the other editor. That 31 October version has multiple issues, "See also everything", reference issues, misleading information, EL section flood etc. question--Tito Dutta (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Since the see-also cruft was added on 31 October 2012, I would happily go back to the version immediately before that. It would also be a good idea to trim the epic bibliography and ELs. bobrayner (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt that Bob would "happily go back" to any previous version of the article that he had eviscerated. But the article today has already been rated by two portals as much better than any previous version of the article on the Quality scale.
 * As the article creator, I won't dignify the "promotional" remark with a response. As for the question of neutrality, which is what this page is about, I would point out the following opening statement at WP:NPOV: Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. I believe that is what I have done, but I am open to advice, corrections, and additions. For example, obviously, I may not be aware of everything published on the subject by "reliable sources". So if I missed a reliable source, then I am open to the inclusion of such material. Unfortunately, my impression of Bob Rayner - and now Collect - is that, at least in this respect, we have a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
 * Yes, the PROUT article was just protected. The reason for that was yet another attempt by Bob Rayner to make wholesale deletions - deletions of entire sections, which is also what Collect seems to be calling for - in the article and the consequent requests to admins for article protection. --Abhidevananda (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow. I suggest that the article surrently is entirely an exposition and promotion of a relatively fringe economic Weltanschauung.  At best.  HighBeam finds 5 articles on the subject.   Prout is the world's worst acronym, standing for PROgressive UTilization Theory, which, according to its Web site, worldproutassembly.org, is some sort of theory about progressive utilization. It's also about "nuclear revolution," which is not defined, and there are more references to the "collective" than a Star Trek episode about the BURG (sorry, I meant 'Borg.' Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.) for example.  However Sarkar, unlike conventional gums, sought not just to transform the individual but to create the structure of a new society. He offered an alternative theory of social justice, the Progressive Utilization Theory (PROUT), an alternative reading of macrohistory (his spiral theory of varna), an alternative global ethics (neo-humanism), and created a range of spiritual associations (Ananda Marga), social movements (his samaj movements) and political parties (the Proutist forum) to help realize his vision of the future. from  .  In short - no scharly source appears to give any weight at all to this "theory." All of three Questia matches.  Including comments like By neo-humanism, the Proutists mean to extend “the humanistic love for all human beings to include love and respect for all creation - plants, animals and even inanimate objects. Neohumanism provides a philosophical basis for building a new era of ecological balance, planetary citizenship and cosmic kinship”,  In 1971, Sarkar was accused by a former follower of having conspired to murder some ex-members. Sarkar was arrested and jailed.  In 1978, after a retrial, he was found not guilty - but the group he founded was by then crippled.   Sorry - the entire topic of "PROUT" is a "new religion" type of topic, from which members of that group well ought to be wary of editing. Collect (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It appears as though this has been brought up in a number of noticeboards. I would suggest centralizing the discussion on the article's talk page. I previously commented in Talk:Progressive utilization theory. Location (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I took a quick look. At first blush it looks like a new philosophy/religion/social theory where the content and sourcing of the article is just the proponents talking about what they are promoting.  I see zero wp:rs coverage of this.  And such a flood of self-"sources" obscures whether it has any real secondary wp:rs's by making such a review a Herculean task. May I suggest that the next step be that article proponents point out a few sources that satisfy wp:notability (if they exist)  I.E. substantial coverage of this movement by reliable secondary sources.   If those can't be produced, I'd suggest AFD'ing the article.  If they CAN be produced, then suggest building and sourcing the content mostly from them not from statements/writings by the proponents.
 * There are a couple of related AfDs at the moment: Articles for deletion/Ananda Marga Caryacarya (Parts 1, 2, and 3) and Articles for deletion/Neohumanism in a Nutshell. bobrayner (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Outrageous statements of Bobrayner : "about what they are promoting" this is one of the outrageous statements of Bobrayner. I was the editor of the two articles above, as usual I'm trying to do my best in WP I give respect and I pretend respect by other users. Bobryner seems to rage against everything I write on WP. It's very difficult to work in WP with such kind of very less constructive and offensive users.--Cornelius383 (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have nothing against you personally; I have a grudge against unsourced, spammy, promotional, and non-notable content. If that is all you produce, then I have a grudge against all of your work; if that is 1% of what you produce, then I have a grudge against 1% of your work. We must resist the temptation to make disputes personal. if you don't like this content being criticised, then the best course of action is to move on and write other content which meets wikipedia standards in future. bobrayner (talk) 02:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please try to understand you must add secondary reliable sources in these article.
 * Prevs: 1 2 3, 4, 5 etc... --Tito Dutta (talk) 04:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's unlikely that reliable independent sources will ever be found for some of the more problematic text, like this or this. It may be possible to get enough good independent sources to show that some of the books/organisations exist, which gets them over the GNG hurdle; but sadly that's not the main problem with this walled garden. bobrayner (talk) 09:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Recently released Bengali movies NPOV
Since I have come here to discuss on another discuss (just above), I better try to get help on another issue too. This issue is being taken issue everywhere for last few months. The best and complete report can be found here. Even after that RPP, Editntice, ANI (again), personally contacting admins (Moonriddengirl, Drmies etc) have been tried. All these newly released Bengali masala (commercial) film articles (specially the box office and reception) section are being written from NPOV, FANPOV etc. Any help/suggestion/contribution/idea/opinion will be highly appreciated (and barntared). --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You'll have a better shot at getting replies and even pertinent replies if you provide examples and state your issue with them. Elinruby (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * made minor fmt changes in the main post to highlight the link! --Tito Dutta (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Apart from what's already been done, I do not have a suggestion. Elinruby (talk) 06:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View Review of article Geoffrey Edelsten
Today I made major changes to article Geoffrey Edelsten. It led to reverts by different editors which led to a sockpuppet investigation and an edit war investigation. The neutrality of the article is disputed as the weight of the content is slanted too much toward the subject's criminal activity as opposed to other aspects of his medical career. He was arrested and convicted for hiring someone to beat up a former patient. This is undisputed and in numerous sources. The current article has it mentioned in numerous sections of the article and also hammers the fact that he was deregistered from practicing medicine. Now, from a weight perspective, I believe that I made edits to make the article more neutral. I currently have a copy of the article with the edits that I made in my sandbox. I would request that the sandbox be reviewed and the edits that I made be placed back into the article. If there are changes that others feel need to be made, please do so in my sandbox. My only concern is that the article is written from a neutral point of view. I have covered his convictions, his being kicked out of medicine and his multiple times of trying to get his license back. Not sure what else I can do but would request a review from some unbiased editors who are not involved with the topic, the edit war, or the sockpuppet/meatpuppet investigation. I simply ask that editors take a look at what is written and either suggest changes or implement parts or all of the sandbox into the article so that it is weighted properly. Thank you.--NikoVee (talk) 08:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I see no issue regarding neutrality in the current version of the articles, if anything your proposed version of the article has a positive slant. While not entirely violating WP:NPOV the removal of substancial content(including significant notability basis) and sources from the current article makes it look like PR cleanup job that would be why so many editors responded and reverted your changes. I suggest that you try actually talking with the editors of the article in WP:AGF to make some the changes you want rather than edit warring, calling them sockpuppets and running to notice boards. Gnangarra 10:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Also have no issue with the neutrality of the current article and would agree with Gnangarra's statement. Hughesdarren (talk) 14:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a little snark in that article, but nothing which is not fixable IMO. Collect (talk) 14:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I can't put my finger on it entirely but I do not endorse the rewrite. Edelsten's notability in part derives from his flamboyance.  References to that have been edited out.  They could be better written but the solution is not to edit them out.  I agree with Gnangarra that the removal of substantial content and sources has removed some of the basis for notability. The present article is by no means excellent but it is more neutal than the rewrite.


 * Note Wikipedia editors and journalists have been attacked and threatened by Edelsten, the subject of the article. My username is included amongst those at http://www.geoffreyedelsten.com/perpetrators-of-defamatory-lies.


 * The challenge that is implicit in this page of Edelsten's is that he does not regard articles in the newspapers as "reliable sources". Hence I think that for example contemporary news footage retrieved through YouTube is important to the article.--Matilda talk 20:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp
At Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp, there's a problem with only PR-type promotional material being allowed into the article. See this deletion of a section on litigation and criticism: "06:05, 10 January 2013 (removed poorly sourced section)". Six references were deleted. (The company has been involved in some questionable activities, and there's a lawsuit.) is the creator of the article and all edits from that user since January 2011 have been related to that article. Possible WP:OWN issue. More discussion at Talk:Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp Please take a look. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I responded on the talk page with a suggestion. The removed section did have relatively weak sourcing for contentious material, but I found a different reliable source with negative information that seems useful to include in the article. Dreamyshade (talk) 08:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That helped.  Any other comments?  --John Nagle (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Article on Native American Sports Mascots
Native American mascot controversy (mascots) has a number of content and formatting issues which I plan to address, but most of all it is not neural based upon giving appropriate weight to documented academic sources vs. magazines, newspapers, and blogs. These mascots are not controversial in the academic or legal literature that is readily available, for example the APA Recommendation   (which is backed up by dozens of research studies) and the US Civil Rights Commission. Last year there was a hearing before the US Senate Committee on Indian Affairs which presented the same points; all in favor of eliminating stereotypical mascots. Against this are two public opinion polls of doubtful scientific validity which say essentially that "only" 40% of Native Americans polled are offended. All of the other evidence on the other side is even less worthy, being quotes from team owners and fans (hardly unbiased).

I am sure that as soon as I begin to make my planned changes (which I am working on in a user page) there will be backlash from which I may need to seek protection. I have not contacted any other editors since many are anonymous, and most are making minor changes. I did place a notice on the talk page several days ago, to which there have been no responses. I do not know who set the initial tone of the article or if they are now actively editing.

There is some urgency, since there will be a symposium on the topic at the National Museum of the American Indian on Feb. 7, and I would like to have the article in good condition by that time. FigureArtist (talk) 02:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * watchlisted. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I added it to mine also. Elinruby (talk) 05:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Update (no changes to the article): Two of the three editors that responded to my editing proposal think the current article is NPOV, and the APA and USCRC positions are "extreme" by calling for an immediate ban on Indian names/mascots for non-native schools.FigureArtist (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Execution of Rizana Nafeek

 * and
 * and

Can some seasoned NPOV editors please cast an eye over Execution of Rizana Nafeek, I came across this following a link form WP:ITN/C and at the time was probably the most POV article I had seen in a long time. There are two editors now teaming up to enforce there view on the article.  ✍   Mtking  ✉ 08:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not teaming up with . I haven't come across or heard about him previously. When Two editors are voicing something together is not we are teaming up. Then there is something we find collectively with another editor he is wrong.HudsonBreeze (talk) 09:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I don't have enough background of this particular subject, but the version that I am looking at does not appear to be terribly problematic. I tagged the article as needing clarification on a couple different assertions that have no specific attribution. (diff) Location (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Race (human classification) 2
Here editor Maunus states "Chinese anthropology is not a part of the mainstream science on race or on human biological variation." Is that correct? BanjoBruce (talk) 16:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC) striking; sock evasion Professor marginalia (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Article Garadaghly Massacre
The article Garadaghly Massacre is based on 18 references but 16 out of this 18 references are Azerbaijani, which means partisan, sources and some are even dead links. As far as I know this is against Wikipedia Neutral point of view. The creator of the article user Angel670 has already been informed about this issue on the talk page but finds the article notable as it is. The article also was nominated for deletion on 25 February 2012 but the result of the discussion was oddly no consensus.--Markus2685 (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

article needing viewing Mail Online
Mail Online is about an online publication. It has a section called "Inaccuracies" (now renamed "Criticism"). I had thought that "criticism" sections were not favoured as a matter of NPOV, and would like eyes on any such section there. The "criticism" edit removed actual information about one of the sources used, and again this is only a matter of seeking eyes about possibly contentious claims having a POV. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm working on this article too, and I agree that it could use some more editors to help determine appropriate weight for various kinds of negative material (and figure out how to phrase them fairly). One of the items (the main subject of the long discussion at Talk:Mail Online) is also being discussed at Dispute resolution noticeboard, so that's probably taken care of, but the talk page from Talk:Mail Online on down has some active discussions that aren't as unwieldy but could use more opinions. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Carmen Ortiz
There is a potential for an edit conflict between people who wish to include material about Ortiz's involvement wrt Swartz on an article about her (a biography of a living person), and User:Viriditas who chooses to remove that content wielding BLP and recentism as reasons (there has been at least one previous such action before by another editor, also based on a recentism claim) and Viriditas calling the section "attack content", which I believe is unjustified.

I strongly disagree with Viriditas' removal action and assessment (recentism being the most dubious), but Viriditas has also sent me a template warning for alleged edit-warring after one small (if, perhaps, unfounded) edit, after which I restored the part that I removed, and later it was removed anyway by a much more seasoned editor.

I do not want to revert because of the edit war warning template that I have, but if I did revert, Viriditas would perhaps revert that revert, or use my action as reason to complain about me (given the edit war warning template on my talk page he put there). I consider Viriditas' sending me an edit war warning template aggressive action, because s/he could have chosen not to use a template and engage with me using his/her own letter-writing abilities in my user talk.

Now, I belive there is still very little consensus over whether the removal is proper and the NPOV status regarding the removed content. I think Viriditas is pushing his POV by having removed information about Ortiz' involvement in the case, despite the fact that people are entitled to know what Carmen Ortiz is about, and removing the section removes the necessary elements of notability regarding the article. The Ortiz article already has a section at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, and there's so far at least one person who agrees with user Viriditas.

I do not know what to do further, because the issue has become rather contentious, since Carmen Ortiz is/was involved in the prosecution of Aaron Swartz, but user Viriditas and a few others think this should not be in her article (as seen on BLPN linked above). (Admittedly, Swartz's lawyer has named an assistant attorney who did much of the legwork working and negotiating the case against Swartz.) So there. -Mardus (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to add that I placed a Request for Comment tag on the Talk:Carmen Ortiz, which I why I wrote all this here. -Mardus (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Describing the public actions of a public figure does not violate BLP policy
The description does need to be neutral but quoting her public statements about her decision to prosecute Swartz is completely fair game. Elinruby (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Kelly Rowland
Need help in making the lead section for this article neutral like before (see the difference). User:Music&Co has been treating this article like a personal blog/fansite (rewriting the lead to make the singer look extremely successful and inflating her sales with unreliable sources). — Oz  07:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Oz doesn't converse in constructive way, despite has twice looked for in pacific way to talk to him in the personal talk. Contrarily he doesn't answer, and it acts before a comparison inserting with some tags for disputes. Oz does you take the right to attribute words as "of success" or "of not success" (of thing? of charts? of sales? of criticism? in US? in Uk? In other countries of Europe?) sending forth therefore a judgment I don't objectify; He discredits reliable datas (all verifiable ones with sources inserted in the center of the page and in discography page) concerned sales of albums and peak of chart, that I have replaced his personals and arbitrary adjectives concerning success or failures. He defines style from "blog / fansite" all edit that differs from his style of writes and that doesn't meet his personal point of view. It also results "closed in dialogs" in the edit of other user (as you can be seen in Rowland's "view history" for example)

--Music&#38;Co (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I didn't reply back at your talk page because I've started a discussion at Talk:Kelly Rowland. And please don't make me look like the bad guy. I'm not the one changing her sales with unreliable sources and treating her articles like fansites. We're not here to promote artists and make their articles look successful. — Oz  20:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

We result for what we are for and for ours behaviors. You have had the opportunity to talk for 2 times, but you have preferred to open 3 discussions in 3 different places and to insert 2 tags. The unreliable sources of which you refer already concern peak on charts and sales of 2 albums approved in wikipedia from years, and with more reliable sources in lead page and discography. Do you insert opinions about to the success without defining its concept (sale? classification? criticism? countries?) what they result a great deal subjective. Then not to speak of fansite (also this is one opinion of yours) style, and triy to be constructive, without only attaching when something doesn't mirror your personal taste. Music&#38;Co (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but for a minor matter, I think the addition of Mr. Music is just as neutral as the version of Mr. Oz. But it is more informative. The Banner talk 21:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

In fact I haven't expressed judgments, I have insert more information: the sales of the two first albums, her singles worthy of to be mentioned (3singles from the first album, 2 in the second+ "when love takes over" and 3singles from the third album) and her four principal collaborations (* "Here We Go" top 20 in US, UK, NZ and Gold in US; * "Breathe Gentle" in Italy #1 on Airplay and #2 on Sales, #7 in Netherland, #28 in Europe and #53 in Belgium; * "Invincible" top-5 in UKr&b and NZ, #11 UK mainstream, #13 Ireland, #14 Australia urban, top40 in other 3 international charts, eligible3 for silver in Uk and certied gold in NZ; * "What to Feeling" top ten in 6 international charts and and top-30 in others 5 countrieses). It seems me that can be mentioned as her 4 principal collaborations. Don't seem me to have expressed judgments like "Phenomenal success", "Hit of worldwide fame", or other of similar (this would have been an impartial style like a blog or fansite). I have confined to insert 4 collaborations that I have appraised remarkable to the purpose of her general presentation. Music&#38;Co (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Non-invasive ultrasonic removal
This article since its beginning has always been written like an advertisement. I don't know enough in the area to fix it myself but if anyone has an interest in a possibly quack form of fat removal, they can improve the article. GizzaTalk  &#169; 08:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Company of St. Ursula
I am engaged in a dispute over the wording of the newly-created Company of St. Ursula. You'll find the fruitless discussion here. I have unintentionally broken the three-revert rule. Block at your discretion. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Bloody Christmas

 * This is about: Bloody Christmas (1963). This article is a POV FORK of the Cypriot intercommunal violence article. It solely implies that one side is to be blamed for the 1963 events  and repeats information currently in the  Cypriot intercommunal violence just to impose a POV. The event described in Bloody Christmas (1963) is part of the Cypriot intercommunal violence where it is also described. Furthermore, the article takes a single event of the  Cypriot intercommunal violence and with phrases such as  "is the beginning of a military campaign initiated by Greek Cypriots against minority Turkish Cypriots" and "This is the headpoint of the tension between the Greek Cypriot majority and Turkish Cypriot minority." it arbitrarily implies that one side is to be blamed. A merge into the Cypriot intercommunal violence article would be most suitable move in IMO as it is just an event of the Cypriot intercommunal violence.

Thank you 200.93.208.84 (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Criminal activity attributed to Juggalos
The neutrality of the article is being called into question on the article's talk page. One user mentioned that it may not have been written in good faith. Can someone look over the article and try to address the negativity this article presents? --BigBabyChips (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There might be an issue with original synthesis here. I haven't checked the references, but just skimmed the article.  If a person murders someone, and some blog claims they're a Juggalo, then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. You need reliable sources directly connecting the crime with the Juggaloism. If reliable sources have written about Juggalo crime as a "thing," then it's maybe okay in principle. But...
 * It would probably be better if this content is summarized in the main article on Juggalos. It's a long article, but is there a way to condense it to get rid of the questionable material?  The Blue Canoe  01:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * most of these sources don't approch reliability, and captioning a image "see y'all in hell" is not a neutral point of view, no. Elinruby (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

A more neutral version was condensed into Juggalo, but another user who seems to be aimed at slandering Juggalos has been rewriting multiple articles to claim that Juggalo is a gang, which goes against NPOV rules. BigBabyChips (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Pov edits on Aafia Siddiqui
I would appreciate another set of eyes on the Aafia Siddiqui page. Codetruth is constantly inserting material that she is innocent, and messes around with refs (removing text without removing accompanying refs, making them point to other things ), as well as changing uses of her last name to "Dr. Aafia’s" (first edit). I rolled back their edits twice, and added warnings about POV to their talk page, but I can't be sure any more.--  Auric    talk  19:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Update: Codetruth recently overwrote my earlier comment, using another account(?), CodeTruth.--  Auric    talk  15:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear Auric,
 * I did not mean to offend you but since i am new to wikipedia i did not know how to respond to your allegation against me that i was the one being biased. So i saw the edit button located near that and so i responded. But, when i just saw the video on how to respond to a user's message, i am hence sending you this message in good faith.
 * The fact of the matter is that i work in the same region as Dr. Aafia Siddiqui was from and hence, i know for a fact that the United States Government and the Pakistani Intelligence know full well that she is innocent of any terrorism related links and that she was not a source of any threat yet they lock her up so as to cover their own faults.
 * The one thing i liked about wikipedia was its presumed unbiased-ness however after reading the article on Dr. Aafia i have realized that is not always the case.
 * And, so i made an account and have become a wikipedia user just like you.
 * But, what seperates you and me is the fact that you believe anything that the media claims without actually having talked to the ones whose opinions are the most honest with regards to her.
 * You see, Dr. Aafia is a mother of three and she was KIDNAPPED along with her children, one of whom was only 6 months old, in 2003 and that is well known in Pakistan and to the Pakistani Intelligence and the US Army. She was assaulted, physically abused (which is a terrible thing to do to a lady and that too an MIT graduate who did NOT terrorize anyone or cause harm to even a butterfly) and atleast one her children, who is only 6 months old was brutally killed! And, now she is serving in jail?? For 86 years?? Even though the members of the jury knew she was innocent but had to call her a threat since most of the world's media was closely following the case and so had the ruled in favor of her their 7 years of illegal and wrongful detention of her would be clear to everyone and so the white house pressurized for the decision against her!
 * Tell me, you are from canada, if this was the allegation made to a canadian mother of three and a PhD holder in neuroscience who was kidnapped along with her children and then SHE is the one sent to jail over CLEARLY false allegations (and that too false allegations of self defense) wouldnt the entire population of Canada rise up in favour of the lady??? And, that is precisely what happened in pakistan, parts of USA and many other countries who then protested against this obvious injustice done to her and her family.
 * So please, dont confuse everyone and dont take the side of falsehood, by saying she is a terrorist when infact she cannot even hurt a fly! She did not kill anyone or even attempt to kill anyone, but SHE was the one who was raped and kidnapped.
 * Let the article be unbiased and LET IT STICK TO THE TRUTH.
 * Best Regards,
 * Code Truth Codetruth (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Codetruth, I glanced over the edits yesterday when I saw Auric's post and has some concerns with your edits. Your post here confirmed some of those concerns.  First, please ease back on the tone.  You should generally assume that everyone is here to improve Wikipedia, the same as Auric should assume of you.  Second, please take a few moments to read through the reliable source article.  You made a comment about Auric seeming to trust the media over the people involved and I think that's causing some of the problem here.  Ultimately, Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources, with a strong preference for secondary sources.  For articles involving living people (often abbreviated WP:BLP), that's even more true.  Primary sources are generally not acceptable in those cases.  Our NPOV policy says that articles should reflect what secondary sources say.  If most secondary sources say the moon is made of green cheese, that's what the moon article must say.  Many of the changes you made reflect your personal view on things which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but they didn't have any sources to back them up.  That's not acceptable.  You must have solid, reliable sources to back your edits.  Blogs and advocacy websites are generally not reliable sources.  If most media sources are saying one thing, that's what our article must reflect absent other reliable secondary sources.  It doesn't matter what we believe or know, it matters what those sources say.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 18:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Codetruth has continued to edit the article since this discussion was initiated. I would recommend that this user to refrain from further edits to the article until the matter can be resolved here.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I will be taking a look at the primary sources link that you sent. It wont be just to say that secondary sources are more reliable in the sense that primary sources are more reliable than secondary sources, since they can be and have proven to be edited/changed/modified when put in comparison to primary sources.
 * Also, blogs of those who are the direct relatives of the victim and the ones who have had direct connection to the case are more authentic than lets say what the journalists report since most of the time the journalists write what the department of defense wants them to write especially of such a case where the victim is confused to be the assailant. If wikipedia was to work like a secondary arm of the pentagon then all we would see on wikipedia are loads of biased articles (as if there were not enough already)
 * I do not intend to doubt the intention of either of you but the fact remains that the articles biased towards hatred need to be modified and i would be glad to help in that. Codetruth (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Others involved in the discussion have edited the article and that too towards a much more unbiased approach. I have tried my best to remain unbiased because this is not just another ordinary article, its an article about a mother of three who was kidnapped along with her children to begin with. Hence, its important not to undermine that part since the truth, as most human rights organizations like amnesty international continue to claim is that she was indeed innocent but framed. So it seems only justified that i be allowed to refine the article since i am the one who is not just in that particular part of the globe where this incident happened but also have credible sources to back all the claims that i make and i shall be providing adequate references for that (God Willing)
 * I am in full support of resolving this matter quickly yet efficiently. Codetruth (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Codetruth, I understand where your coming from, but Wikipedia articles must follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. NPOV is absolutely a core policy but so is making sure that information is sourced to reliable secondary sources. Blogs are rarely considered good sources, especially when dealing with BLP articles (articles about living people). There is some information in the article about concerns and questions that have been raised - see the reaction section. You need to be looking for good secondary sources with additional information that can be added to the article. Parts of the article are a mess (see the background section - it's both background and a second lead!) and some cleanup is needed but that's more to cut down the article some. If the prevaling view in secondary sources is reflected accurately, that's the view that will stay. If the prevailing view isn't accurately reflected, then we need to get that information, correctly sourced, in the article. You're best bet is to work on finding those good, strong secondary sources. Articles and/or books from top publishing houses and magazines that cover the entire situation would be helpful. Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 19:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes that seems to be the right strategy to make the article truly unbiased. Very well. I will try my best to quote authentic sources from now onwards. Please do forgive if i make some mistakes, because, i am new to Wikipedia but i do have a strong passion to support justice. Thankyou for the kind advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codetruth (talk • contribs) 19:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Violence against men
Hey.

Reading through some Wikipedia articles, as you do, I came across a set of articles in which I believe there may be POV and weight issues; i.e. I think articles related to violence against men may have a slight MRA bias. Specifically:


 * Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them! controversy is nearly wholly on the side of Sacks and co. This may reflect the debate at the time; I wouldn't know.
 * Gendercide has some synthesis issues; for example, "The Bible", not even chapter or verse, is cited several times, and I think the article conflates the indiscriminate killing of men with other massacres in which men were killed.
 * I'm concerned that Srebrenica massacre is included in Violence against men, especially as it was more of an ethnic-based massacre than a gender-based massacre.
 * Violence against men may have irrelevant links.

These are issues I've found from a five-minute look; there may be deeper issues at play (I do remember the article Female privilege at AfD a year or so ago, where an equivalence was argued that didn't exist in sources). Sceptre (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * From a quick look at Template:Violence against men, "may have irrelevant links" is an understatement - more than half of the links are irrelevant. The only articles I see linked on there that can be argued to be relevant are Androcide, Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them! controversy, Gendercide (in the case where it's males being eliminated), and Masculism which has a section on violence against men. Arguably Stop Abuse For Everyone deserves inclusion since they support abused men in particular, although they also support several other groups. The other links are to articles which either more commonly affect women than men (e.g. domestic violence, rape, sexual violence, sexual slavery, outline of domestic violence) or affect both indiscriminately without targeting at any particular gender (human trafficking, prison rape). As the Srebrenica massacre demonstrates, the mere fact that men are more frequently victims in a particular conflict or type of violence does not imply that violence is targeted at men on the basis of gender. You could argue that some types of violence like prison rape or the Srebrenica massacre predominantly affect men, but this would need to be backed up with third-party reliable sources that specifically discuss the gender imbalance of the violence (as opposed to mere statistics). Surely we're not going to link every single article that involves some kind of violence on the principle that "men could be a target of it." I agree that the Srebrenica massacre is an ethnic genocide, and quite contrary to the men's rights POV, the fact that more men than women were killed in it can be attributed to that culture's patriarchal notions that woman can't fight and must be protected by men. I also find it quite absurd that the link to "Outline of domestic violence" is labelled "Outline of related topics" as though domestic violence were all about violence against men. Dcoetzee 20:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Could anyone expand "MRA bias" for those of us not quite so up-to-date on this area of controversy? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * MRAs are men's rights advocates. Sceptre (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Biased safety claims in Cannabis (drug)
Recent edits to Cannabis (drug) have added a section on Safety which is strongly biased toward cannabis being a risk-free drug. Emphasis is on a claim that no marijuana related deaths have ever occurred. Yes, there are some sources where the author states no cannabis deaths to report, but using these claims selectively is misleading. Several reliable sources have reported infrequent deaths and also list cannabis smoke as a carcinogen (links to these articles or to abstracts are provided in the deleted history or on the Talk page). Summary:

“Acute Cardiovascular Fatalities Following Cannabis Use”
 * Forensic Science International

“Cerebellar Infarction in Adolescent Males Associated with Acute Marijuana Use”
 * Journal of Pediatrics

“Does smoking cannabis cause cancer?”
 * Cancer Research,  UK

“Cannabis-induced cerebral and myocardial infarction in a young woman”
 * Revue Neurologique (French)

“Cannabis-Related Myocardial Infarction and Cardioembolic Stroke” “Effects of marijuana on the lung and its immune defenses”
 * Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases
 * UCLA School of Medicine

“Area Profiles of Drug-Related Mortality” (this is a government tertiary source)
 * U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, SAMHSA, DAWN

“Chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity” (This is a government tertiary source)
 * State of California

“Marijuana-only drug abuse deaths” (This is a tertiary source)
 * Center for Effective Drug Abuse Research & Statistics, Drugwatch

Efforts have been made to resolve this on the article Talk page. A marijuana supporter will not accept published medical journals and government reports that raise any safety concerns about cannabis usage. Wikipedia requires a neutral point of view and an unbiased handling of divergent sources. Certainly, cannabis is not as dangerous as several other hard drugs, but that does not result in absolute safety. Wikipedia should include both sources that discuss safety and sources that indicate problems. A balanced and neutral view is required.

Additional input and comments are welcome on the Talk page. Rlsheehan (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you provide links and clarify which ones are peer-reviewed studies/reports, peer-reviewed literature reviewes, or else? -- Cycl o pia talk  16:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I reworded the phrase on the risk of death. There's a difference between "research failed to prove" and that there's insufficient studies to have conclusive data. The latter is what the source shows. I removed claims about no attributable death. None of the cited references appear to meet WP:MEDRS standard. One source does, but that source does not talk about cannabis. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * We could improve the NPOV by talking about levels of "risk", rather than whether it is "safe" or "dangerous". That would allow the audience to draw their own conclusions, with reference to their thresholds. Credibility gap (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It's important to note that because marijuana is generally illegal in most of the places from which we would accept sources as being of suitable quality, it's unlikely that we will find much in the way of such sources. It's hard to run a double blind test on an illegal drug. While what I've just written is obviously OR, I hope that others see that it makes sense and that maybe we can come up with some qualifying statement about the lack of decent research. HiLo48 (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Some sources some might find useful:, , and . These should be WP:MEDRS compliant.  Yobol (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * HiLo, good point. I found a few sources referencing this fact


 * Stanford: insight into difficulties of marijuana research
 * Oxford: Challenges of marijuana research
 * David Nutt on the difficulty of researching illegal drugs
 * Federal Marijuana Monopoly Challenged
 * Scientists cite challenge of studying an illegal drug  petrarchan47  t  c   02:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It looks like anything that don't go his/her way, Petrarchan47 reverts it.. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Try to quote the actual sources being used. To enter your version of "summary of PubMed" sources without adding supportive references is not acceptable.  petrarchan47  t  c   03:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The argument that primary sources are not suitable, but reviews of primary sources are acceptable, makes sense to me. Are there any reviews of the literature that summarise and evaluate the risk factor articles?Markewilliams (talk) 13:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Court transcripts as sources
In Australian head of state dispute, LJ Holden wishes to use court transcripts which are not referenced by any secondary commentary. Comments by judges during proceedings are being presented as findings of fact, for example an off-hand remark during discussion as to the litigant's ability to pay costs is being used as if it were a considered opinion on the identity of Australia's head of state. Clearly WP:WEIGHT applies here; if no other agency has seen fit to publish commentary, then the remarks are not viewed as important. My approach has been to retain the very one-sided references to the transcripts without comment. The reader may check them for herself - they do not need "interpretation" by Wikipedia. There is some discussion here. --Pete (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Court transcriptions can not be used as sources in articles about living persons per BLPPRIMARY. Especially not if they have not been commented on in secondary sources. I guess that this issue is not BLP related but rather a technical legal issue - in which case it is certainly not any wikipedia editors role to interpret statements by lawyers or judges in ways that have not already been presented in secondary sources.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There are multiple issues here:
 * 1. The above statement is incorrect as to the nature of the references. There is only one court transcript referred to in the article - Thorpe v The Commonwealth. The other citations are for court decisions.
 * 2. There is a secondary source for the decisions and the transcript: a book published by a legal scholar, Steven Spadijer. It was removed by the editor above, however, as it was from a self-published source (Lulu), but the text itself is an academic paper. (The author of this paper has been published elsewhere in law journals.) While this point is moot (I accept Wikipedia can't have self-published sources) it is not correct to claim there are no secondary sources. There are, they just cannot be cited. As pointed out in the page's discussion, had Spadijer published his academic paper on JSTOR or similar then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
 * 3. None of the references referred to are "interpreted" in anyway. In terms of the court decisions, the main reference that is interpreted (that is presented along with one side of the debate's views) is R v Governor. This decision is cited as there is a secondary source that is able to be used (a book published by Sir David Smith). Naturally, more weight is given to this decision as per WP:WEIGHT. It is extensively used multiple times in the article and referred to both in its primary source (i.e. the normal court decision citation) and the secondary source. In contrast, the references that have been taken issue with are only mentioned once, with only the pertinent statements and individuals making them referred to. The editor above has simply removed these statements and left the case citations. Surely if their is a breach of NPOV rules, then the whole reference should go.
 * 4. As for the court transcript in Thorpe v The Commonwealth, despite what is said by the editor above the cited conversation does directly relate to the article - i.e. who Australia's head of State is. Moreover, it is a statement made by one of Australia's most prominent jurists, Justice Michael Kirby. It is made clear to the reader that this is a transcript and not a court decision, which is further balanced by referencing an essay Justice Kirby wrote before being appointed to the High Court. --LJ Holden 22:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Court decisions are also primary sources. The question of whether a selfpublished source is sufficiently reliable to support inclusion is an editorial content decision to be made at the talkpage. Quoting from a text always includes an amount of interpretation as one statement is interpreted as being of a particular importance, relative to other statements in a text. It seems to me that it should be entirely possible to write an article about this imoportant topic without relying on primary or low quality sources.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The entire article is essentially a collection of "X said this, Y said that" comments lifted out of the corresponding sources. So, LJ's use of the court documents is not at all out of place on that page. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  00:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree, if someone said something important it will have been reported in secondary sources. If its not reported in secodnary sources that is a hint its probably not important. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, with respect, you're disagreeing with what I didn't say. I said much of the article is simple reports on who a source says Australia's head of state is; a CIA website said it's the Queen, a journalist said it's the governor-general, a government website said it's the governor-general, a prime minister once said it's the Queen, etc., etc. So, if we want to stick to the "there must be a secondary source" criteria, that article is going to be pretty well gutted. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  00:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why would you source any of that to court transcripts? If those claims are being reported in e.g. news media or other secondary sources then there is an a basis for the article. If the article is based on observations that different institutions disagree, and this observaiton has not been previously published then the article is original research.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * None of what I mentioned is sourced to court transcripts. None of it is reported on elsewhere. Perhaps much, maybe all, of the article is OR. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  15:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you like to add into this discussion these primary sources, Mies? Kevin Rudd issued a press release saying that the Governor-General was the head of state, and yes, that is a primary source, but we also have a media report (one of many) commenting on that. We shouldn't go suspending a fundamental wikipolicy for just one article. --Pete (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In the transcript a lawyer mentions that his client had written letters to various officials and then says he did not know whether the Queen or the Governor General was head of state and the judge replied it was the Queen. Who was head of state was completely irrelevant to the case, is not mentioned in the judgment or in any source that reported the case.  It has no weight.  TFD (talk) 08:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Then nor does the CIA website, or the Australian government website, or the prime minister's statement, etc. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  15:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Suppose you wanted to know who was PM for Australia. Would you look at the Australia government or CIA website or would you search Australian court cases to find an example where a judge replied to a lawyer who did not know who was the PM?  This is the type of thing that conspiracy theorists do, except that typically they search for statements that are well outside mainstream views.  TFD (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd consider them all valid sources from which to draw the answer to the question. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  00:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * As has already been stated - Court transcripts as sources easily and clearly fail BLPPRIMARY. - My advice for a wiki policy compliant position - Look to report secondary high quality reliable reports - easy really - attempting to use less than that is promotion, bias and opinion - It's not complicated, we are here to report what other reliable secondary sources WP:RS have reported, thats it, we are not here to report and promote primary statements and publications - . You  really  can  15:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I note the appearance in the article of an IP editor, who is not only expanding the interpretation of primary sources, but adding in the self-published book he mentioned above and a private blog for good measure. As Mies has demonstrated an aptitude for edit-warring, I may have to seek admin attention to get things straightened out. --Pete (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It wasn't me Pete. You should check where the IP address is registered and where I live before making unfounded accusations. I accept a blog cannot be used in a reference and have never linked to my blog posts on the issue on Wikipedia.
 * As for the issue at hand, the above statement by Youreallycan misses the issue: we're only dealing with one court transcript, which directly deals with the issue the article is about. The others are actual statements from decisions. While I understand the reasons behind the wikipolicy - specifically for preventing conspiracy theories and the like from gaining too much weight - the citations are not at all taken out of context, nor misinterpreted. --LJ Holden 22:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL! Let me just say that I was not surprised to find that the IP address resolved to Sydney, and that the content had a strong legal bent and a certain spectrum attitude. Remind you of anybody, YouReallyCan? As for whether a court record is a transcript or a ruling, it's still a primary source. I'm not seeing a lot of contrary arguments referencing wikipolicy, just some hand-waving. --Pete (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * - I have been looking at the article content and it is so poor as to be less than worthless to the reader - opinionated shite - absolute worthless to a neutral reader - You  really  can  17:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It needs to be pruned. Toss out anything that is not covered by wikipolicy. Nevertheless, the dispute is a real and notable one, occupying much public attention during the 1998 Constitutional Convention and subsequent Constitutional referendum in 1999. Presumably the issue will rise to prominence again when the next push for a republican change occurs. The Queen, bless her heart, is not immortal, and the republican movement has indicated that they will act as soon as she demonstrates this. Could be tomorrow, could be another thirty years. --Pete (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually YRC, the article should be considered for deletion, as it's making a mountain out of a molehill. GoodDay (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)