Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 39

Article title: Bangladesh atrocities, genocide, or war crimes?
A controversial move/edit was made to 1971 Bangladesh genocide was made on 28 February 2013 and I can't find any discussion in WP to substantiate that there was a consensus. An earlier discussion on the talk page seemed to produce no consensus. I want to know what the procedure was behind this move? See difference

What is the most neutral title? Prior to this diff, the article was called "1971 Bangladesh atrocities" but now it's called "1971 Bangladesh genocide". Perhaps a more neutral term would be "1971 Bangladesh war crimes"? Until this issue is resolved, I've questioned the neutrality of the article and posted a template on the front page.Crtew (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. "War Crimes" makes more sense, I do believe. The Scythian 11:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * According to academia there is a consensus that this was a genocide.  And per common name the article title needs to reflect that. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I do believe the discussion shows that to be in dispute. The Scythian 11:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What discussion would that be? There are none in the sources which I presented. Please provide sources which say there is a question over this being a genocide. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Since this was the original title of the article, I suggest a requested move discussion is more appropriate for figuring out whether genocide, atrocities, or war crimes are better titles. (This is also discussed here.)--regentspark (comment) 13:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * To move this in a more general direction... Crime is a legal term... and I don't think we should entitle any article with the word "crime" unless a court has ruled that a crime has actually been committed. This goes for war crimes as well as other forms of crime.  Blueboar (talk) 19:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Checking Questia -- "genocide" and "crime" are quite infrequently applied to the civilian deaths during the Bangladesh independence war. The article can contain the terms ascribed to those using them, but the title should be as absolutely neutral in tenor as possible. I suggest Civilian deaths during the 1971 Bangladesh independence war. Similar results for Highbeam, with "genocide" being very far down the list, and "war crime" also fairly rare. See also. I suggest this Columbia University Press book is likely RS for asseeting, in fact, that "genocide" etc. are used by " ' the 'liberation literature' of Bangladesh ... in blissful disregard of the need to provide substantiation." This is a farirly strong statement in a reliable source, and suggests that Wikipedia ought not use such terms in any title. Collect (talk) 20:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The term "genocide" is misleading because it implies racial motivation for the killings. TFD (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not just racial. From our article, "Genocide is 'the deliberate and systematic destruction of, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group'". Apteva (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Book of Leviticus
There is a content dispute at Book of Leviticus summarized in this talk page discussion, that has arrived at an impasse, largely due to the small number of participants. The dispute is about adding a small amount of content to the article mentioning that the Book of Leviticus lays out proscriptions against homosexuality, and to a lesser extent, does so while permitting slavery. The content in question can be seen here here where it was removed by User:PiCo. The content needs some wordsmithing and better sources, but that's the gist of it.

The discussion began with objections to the content being added to the lede (first revert here), but now it seems there are objections to having in the article at all. Although I think the talk page discussion is self-explanatory, I think there are two schools of thought at opposition.

and, conversely
 * The content doesn't belong because the passages in Leviticus that refer to homosexuality (and slavery?) are very minor in comparison to the rest of the biblical text. As such, it is trivial and should be omitted. Also, it is suggested that the scope of the article is limited to an iron age theological perspective.
 * The content has been the subject of substantial scholarly study and media reporting, and thus should be added so that the article represents all major points of view per WP:DUE and WP:NPOV.

Of course, I will let the other involved editors speak for themselves. Any help with this would be appreciated. - MrX 02:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

COMMENTS


 * Without consulting any sources, these proscriptions are possibly the most oft cited from Leviticus. Surely those in favor of inclusion have found source commentary? The bible is full of contradictions, so articles should reflect most interpretations, both modern and historical.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 02:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I guess my main concern was that the information was being added to the lead. It would probably be better indirectly referenced and linked to a related article like Homosexuality in the Bible. meshach (talk) 03:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I was concerned about the material going in the lead or in the section on themes - homosexuality takes up 2 verses of Leviticus, it isn't a theme. Maybe in the "modern" section (the section that includes headings on Judaism and Christianity) PiCo (talk) 03:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There are any number of highly regarded reference books, like the Anchor Bible Dictionary, Eerdmen's Encyclopedia of the Bible, the most recent edition of the Zondervan encyclopedia of the Bible, and others, which have good, highly-regarded, substantial articles relating to the Book of Leviticus, and this isn't counting reference works relating to the various faiths that hold Leviticus in high regard. I certainly think checking those reference sources, and seeing how much if any weight they might give these matters, would be one of the best ways to determine how much weight and prominence to give such material in our own main article on the Book of Leviticus. John Carter (talk) 03:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Like others above, my prime concern was about this going straight in the lead. I have no problem with a section in the article saying that in the present-day this is a part of Leviticus that is particuarly often cited (if sources can be found that make that statement).  Any such section should probably also state that this is not a major theme in the totality of Leviticus.  Jheald (talk) 11:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This content I believe should be in the page. It is one of the most used parts of the bible in modern media and culture, good or bad. It is more than notable and relevant to the page. I have no problem with it not being in the lead but to remove it entirely would be a NPOV issue. 216.81.81.80 (talk) 13:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with those who say this belongs in the article, but not in the lede. What the lede should note is that Leviticus has been cited (throughout history) in connection to numerous political and social issues.  Save the specifics of what those issues are (or have been) and how Leviticus is (or has been) interpreted in relation to them for the main text. Blueboar (talk) 14:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It's pretty clear that the material needs to be mentioned, but in a balanced context that goes beyond political prooftexting. Emphasizing it in the lead is probably WP:UNDUE. The relationship of Leviticus to Christian moral thought is particularly complex and cannot be addressed without bias in a one sentence insertion about a couple of subjects. Mangoe (talk) 14:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. This is about Book of Leviticus, not Book of Leviticus as it pertains to homosexuality and slavery where inclusion in the lead would be paramount.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 18:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with many others here: it belongs in the article but not in the lede. I can see how someone hearing of Leviticus for the first time in the context of "zomg, Bible supports slavery and death to homosexuals!" might think that it's the most important thing about Leviticus. And those who have studied it as scripture might think "what, that's just a couple of verses in a big text, and nobody takes that part seriously in modern times." But the modern treatment and use of Leviticus in the first context has become notable, so it does need to be mentioned in the article — both the popular political anti-bible treatment and the explanation of scholars who explain or defend it should be covered. First Light (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There seems to near unanimity for including this content with due balance, but without including the slavery argument, and without including it in the lede. Does anyone disagree with that conclusion? If not, I move we close this and call it a win for Wikipedia. - MrX 02:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not so sure that we should omit the fact that Leviticus was once used to justify slavery... it may not be something that has impact in today's social/political discussions, but it definitely factored into debates prior to the US Civil War. It would make for a very good example of how interpretations of Leviticus have changed over time. Blueboar (talk) 02:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I also support that the material might well qualify for inclusion in the article, but not in the lead. The concern about slavery is a good one, and I certainly can see Leviticus, and possible Philemon, being discussed in an article about the Bible and slavery, for instance. I also suppose it might be potentially significantly discussed enough in the leading sources on this topic in general, like the ones I indicated above. I acknowledge I haven't checked them yet, because, honestly, for whatever reason my computer's internet has been futzy the past couple of days, but I hope to try to check maybe tomorrow, and, the internet willing, I can try to indicate what level of discussion the topic receives in them. John Carter (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify... I don't think the Leviticus article should go into heavy detail on either the homosexuality or the slavery issue. What I would suggest is a relatively short section about how Leviticus has been cited (and mis-cited) over the years to justify various socio-political opinions... and I think both would make good examples of that phenomenon. Probably no more than a few sentences on each. Blueboar (talk) 04:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The phrasing is synthesis because it implies a connection between support for slavery and opposition to homosexuality, which is not found in the sources provided. The subtext is that opposition to homosexuality is just as bad as support for slavery.  Someone with an opposite opinion could easily write, "The Democratic Party has taken a variety of positions from support of slavery to legalization of homosexuality."  TFD (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Cobo Center
User:MaryKlida who works for Cobo Convention Center as Marketing and Communications Manger is removing factual information. Factual information concerning the death of George Overman Jr at Cobo Center and later lawsuit is based on newspaper articles and books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codepro (talk • contribs) 16:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Text in question: On April 20, 1967 15 year-old George Overman Jr was stabbed in the chest in a robbery attempt near a doorway of Cobo Hall, crawled or stumbled to an elevator and died. George Overman Sr. filed a $1,025,000 suit in Circuit Court against the City of Detroit stating that the Detroit Police Department failed to provide adequate police protection at Cobo Hall. Codepro (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I've issued 3rr warnings to both editors involved in this conflict, and that's reflective of my take on the issue: you're both doing this wrong. Codepro, you're adding a large paragraph about a death to an article to which it's only tangentially related. It may be valid to add a short mention of the case, but not the large disproportionate coverage you're attempting to add. At the same time, Mary is wholesale-reverting your edits in furtherance of her conflict of interest, which is also not ok. Mary has responded to my warning by saying she will be more cognizant of our policies. Please remember to notify Mary (not the article itself) that you have brought this conflict here.. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * User:Fluffernutter states User:Codepro is adding a large paragraph about a death. User:Fluffernutter reduced the large paragraph and added the following comment

"reduce undue weight. That a lawsuit involved the center may be relevant, but the history of the people involved not so much..." So why does User:Fluffernutter still consider it an issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codepro (talk • contribs) 17:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

User:MaryKlida stated on her talk page "There is a person or group in cyberspace who is posting links to images and articles that redirect people to 'crime in detroit' websites or the links themselves are malicious" 4 references were used. 2 of the references are linked to google newspaper archives, 1 reference is linked to google books, and 1 reference is linked to www.detroityes.com because it contained a comment from a user regarding the death of George Overman Jr. www.detroityes.com reference can be removed because it no longer relevant based on changes User:Fluffernutter made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codepro (talk • contribs) 18:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * www.detroityes.com reference has been removed from Cobo Center — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codepro (talk • contribs) 18:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

User:MaryKlida stated in comment "...Post also disrupts timeline of history section..." Post has been moved up in the timeline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codepro (talk • contribs) 18:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest that citation of a lawsuit against the city of Detroit belongs on their Wiki page, not Cobo Center's. Also, anyone can file a lawsuit, and the citation of a 45 year old lawsuit is only historically relevant with information about the verdict and outcome, which is not included. I would submit, therefore, that the post is not relevant to the history of the city or the center. The City of Detroit has had countless lawsuits. They are all not relevant to its history in an encyclopedia. I ask for a Wiki administrator to clarify Wiki policy on this.


 * The lawsuit involved Cobo Hall, not Detroit city hall. I believe the event is relevant even today because it raises questions concerning the security situation at Cobo Center.  For instance what changes to the security situation if any have occurred at Cobo Center since this event?  Events like this are shown to have Historic recurrence.Codepro (talk) 03:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * [User:Codepro|Codepro]] (talk): The last two paragraphs of the history section in the article should clear this notion up for you.  the City of Detroit no longer owns and operates Cobo Center, leaving any chance of historical occurrence of the same situation unlikely.

(cite: Today, Cobo Center is owned (under a 30-year capital lease) and operated by the Detroit Regional Convention Facility Authority (DRCFA))


 * The security situation at Cobo Center is relevant today as it was back then regardless if DRCFA or City of Detroit is involved.Codepro (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Proof of improvement of operations can be found in the last line of the History section: (The success of this new contract is seen in the statement made by the NAIAS (North American International Auto Show, the center's largest show) after the 2011 auto show: “The ongoing changes and renovations we will see at Cobo Center under the DRCFA and SMG will keep our collective teams making noted championship runs for years to come.” On January 5, 2012, the NAIAS and Cobo Center signed an unprecedented 5-year contract to host the auto show in Detroit through 2017.")


 * Personally, that sounds like an advertisement (i.e. "...championship runs..." The sentence does not mention anything regarding the security situation at Cobo Center.Codepro (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * If you do not agree, I will request mediation. Thanks. User:MaryKlida

In addition, as MacPro was identifying your original links as potentially malicious, I would make sure that they are not, for your own security. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.217.122 (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I suspect the reference link User:MaryKlida is referring to is www.detroityes.com. That reference has been removed.  All other references for this post link to google newpaper/book archivesCodepro (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You new links of these articles seem fine, but I will again submit that they are irrelevant to Cobo Center as only the mention of the death applies. The lawsuit was with the city, the articles are do not cite verdict or outcome, and there for they hold no weight.  In my opinion, the articles are not notable or historically relevant.


 * The lawsuit involved Cobo Hall and the people responsible for managing it at the time.Codepro (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

User:MaryKlida stated on her talk page "...There is a person or group in cyberspace who is posting links to images and articles that redirect people to 'crime in detroit' websites or the links themselves are malicious. I clean up the best I can.." Instead of removing the reference that she mentions, she decided to remove the entire post.Codepro (talk) 03:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Because of the way you entered your additional information, I could not edit without deleting.  There was a great deal of code in the links that was extraneous.  For reasons cited above, I contest the entire edition.


 * There was no great deal of code. The original post contained 3 sentences and 6 references.Codepro (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I see that Codepro has again added copy relating to the death (15 year-old George Overman Jr was stabbed in the chest in a robbery attempt near a doorway of Cobo Hall, crawled or stumbled to an elevator and died). As he was instructed prior to remove this reference about the death, I would ask that it is again removed by an administrator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.217.122 (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I was never instructed by anyone to remove the reference about the death.Codepro (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * In response, I will remind: "Codepro, you're adding a large paragraph about a death to an article to which it's only tangentially related. It may be valid to add a short mention of the case, but not the large disproportionate coverage you're attempting to add."


 * Yes and User:Fluffernutter reduced the large paragraph and added the following comment "reduce undue weight. That a lawsuit involved the center may be relevant, but the history of the people involved not so much..." I agreed with User:Fluffernutter changes.Codepro (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Also see that Codepro has entered the previous links as articles on the Cobo Center page. Request that they be removed, and placed on the City of Detroit page if determined that they are historically relevant. All refer to an ongoing scandal with the city, not the center. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.217.122 (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * None of the references refer to any ongoing scandal with City of Detroit.Codepro (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Posts from User:MaryKlida on Cobo Center do not include references and are potentially biased since she works as Marketing and Communications Manger for Cobo Convention CenterCodepro (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I find it more ethical to post as who I am, than to hide behind a random username. I always keep the integrity of the article and the Detroit community, both, in mind.


 * You have proven to hide you identity as you have not properly signed any of your post on this noticeboard. Integrity?  Suppressing historical fact?Codepro (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe the statement "...I find it more ethical to post as who I am, than to hide behind a random username..." is a personal attack on me.  It's Defamation and it's meant to hurt my credibility as a Wikipedia editor.Codepro (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I see that you have added numerous links and tags to the article. I ask that you cease and desist until we can have this issue mediated. Thank you.


 * I didn't add any links, I moved a orphaned reference regarding Cobo $299M revamp and associated it with relevant text and removed a missing image. User:Fluffernutter stated on your talk page "...Please also be aware that your position with the Cobo Center means your editing on this topic should be more limited than it otherwise would. You do not have authority over the article, nor do you have an exemption from our usual policies, and you must be cautious about whether your edits are seeking to improve the encyclopedia, or just your employer's image. Conflict-of-interest editing can become disruptive, and if that becomes the case you can be blocked for it alone..."Codepro (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Codepro, this is almost entirley unreadable. You appear to have added your signature repeatedly, and cut-and-pasted text from somewhere. The result is useless and impossible to follow. Paul B (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * For my part, I cannot see how or why an incident that occurred outside building on the April 20, 1967 is really relevant to the article at all. As for COI, there are some grounds for thinking that this might apply to Codepro too, given his tendency to list the achievements of members of the Overman family. Paul B (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I added my signature to the statements that I made. The incident occurred on Cobo Hall property.  The current text does not list any achievements of the Overman family.Codepro (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * On April 20, 1967 15 year-old George Overman Jr was stabbed in the chest in a robbery attempt near a doorway of Cobo Hall, crawled or stumbled to an elevator and died.  George Overman Sr. filed a $1,025,000 suit in Circuit Court against the City of Detroit stating that the Detroit Police Department failed to provide adequate police protection at Cobo Hall. Codepro (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The current text was redacted by other editors. in any case my point was about your potential COI, not the current text. The text has already been provided, so repeating it serves no purpose. Paul B (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The information was taken directly from the newspaper archives. User:Fluffernutter stated in a comment "reduce undue weight. That a lawsuit involved the center may be relevant, but the history of the people involved not so much..." which I agreed with.Codepro (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

An editor recently attempted to open up as case at WP:DRN naming this noticeboard as the locus of the dispute. I closed the case; as it clearly states at the top of the DRN page, DRN is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow. That's a new one! MaryKlida opened up a new WP:DRN case and named me as one of the disputing parties, despite my only involvement being a procedural close at DRN. If this sort of behavior persists, someone may want to bring it up at WP:ANI. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Forgive my breach of protocol. I understood Mediation and Arbitration as other forms of dispute resolution, not noticeboard discussions. As you have cleared up, if noticeboards are considered to be a dispute resolution forum, are we restricted to discussing neutral point of view in this forum? Are there time limits to the discussion if not resolved? Can we request that other, more experienced Wikipedia editors give input? If so, how? We don't seem to be getting much of anywhere in this forum. I would appreciate any and all assistance. --MaryKlida (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Formal discussion is only possible if editors choose to participate. This is a relatively informal board for discussion of neutrality issues designed to generate useful reflection on the problem and achieve (or at least estimate) consensus. If this 1967 incident was a significant event in the history of the area then, IMO, it should be included, especially if it had consequences, say, for local policing, surveillance of the building or whatever. Likewise if it is representative of problems at the time, or ongoing issues, it might merit mention. I have seen no evidence yet that this is the case. Discussion here should be restricted to NPOV, yes. There is no definite time limit. You can ask at relevant Wikiprojects for input. Paul B (talk) 18:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * My response. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Codepro, give the responses of Paul Barlow and Guy Macon, I would ask that you consider voluntarily removing the warnings on the Cobo Center page and your info about the Overman incident.
 * What you refer to as warnings are actually templates and are meant to attract the attention of editors so the issues mentioned hopefully can be resolvedCodepro (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I have been working to provide reference material for the statements that you noted needed citation, and removed others that you might find offensive. Other than that, all I can do is assure you that I do strive to maintain a neutral point of view. On the other hand, your insistence on including the one sided and partial information on this incident leaves your neutrality in question, and you have not yet responded to this. Given your response, I will determine if a request for mediation is appropriate. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaryKlida (talk • contribs) 20:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As a neutral outsider... on reading the article, my first reaction to this paragraph was: "Huh? Why the article mentioning this?" My second reaction was: "and why is the article mentioning it in this section?"... It struck me as a complete non-sequitor that had nothing to do with what the rest of the section was talking about. I think part of the problem is that the incident is mentioned without any surrounding context.  I gather the intent is to highlight ongoing safety concerns... if so, then there should be a section discussing those ongoing safety concerns.  If not, then I am not sure one stabbing (and the resulting law suit) is really relevant enough to mention. Blueboar (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It's mentioned because it's based on historic facts and pertains to the security situation at Cobo Center. I agree it could be located in another section.  There are number of things that don't belong in the History section, like for example the seating capacity of Joe Louis Arena.Codepro (talk) 03:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved editor - I saw this issue at the DRN noticeboard. The material is not appropriate for the Cobo Center article, unless there is some specific emphasis placed on the incident by the sources. For instance: Barring sources which demonstrate some strong nexus to the center, this looks like a run-of-the mill crime that happened near the Cobo Center. There must be hundreds of crimes that happen near major facilities, but it is not encyclopedic to list them. And it is certainly not neutral to select a single murder case and insert it in the article. --Noleander (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Did the lawsuit result in a major financial judgment against the Center?
 * Does the incident get mentioned in any sources which describe the Center's history?
 * Did the incident cause the Center, at the time, to undertake a major change in its policies?
 * Did the incident recently get revived in the news for some reason?
 * Is there a source that says there is a pattern of unsafe incicents at the Center, and this murder is one of them?
 * I've boldly removed the stabbing material from the article because it is inconsistent with the WP:UNDUE policy.  If someone can find some sources that connect the stabbing to the center in some significant way (see suggestions above), it can be re-added.  But a mere lawsuit by the victims father, 40 years ago, that never had a published outcome ... that is not sufficient. --Noleander (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

On a procedural note: user CodePro requested that the [second] DRN case on this topic be closed, because there was an on-going discussion here at NPOVN (which makes sense: we can't have two parallel discussions going at once). The DRN case has been closed. Another DRN or RFC could be created in the future, if necessary. --Noleander (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Cleo Rocos (and elsewhere) : Use of "best known for"
There has been substantial edit warring at Cleo Rocos and heated discussion at the associated talk page, with some claiming it violates NPOV to say a subject is "best known for" something, and some think it's okay. Reading the recent obituary of Richard Briers on BBC News here, I notice they use the phrase "Actor Richard Briers, best known for his role in TV's The Good Life...." To hopefully close the lid on this feud once and for all, I'm going to bring it here for a wider audience to see what everyone else's opinion is. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   16:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In this context the BBC has a specific implied audience of the UK and their statement best known for needs no further qualification. In the Wikipedia encyclopaedic context of a global audience, however, best known for needs qualification such as best known in the UK for or whatever -- Senra (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I would say that would only be appropriate if he was better known for something else in another part of the world. As an example, an early version of Hugh Laurie said he was "best known for his television work, especially his partnership with Stephen Fry", which was (probably) correct in 2002, but now, post House, is not. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   16:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "best known for" is in all circumstances an unverifiable statement, a pure matter of opinion and should not be included in articles. That it appears in news sources is of no relevance.  NPOV requires that you simply state the facts, and not apply a judgement to them.  How does the BBC or anyone else know what Richard Briers is best known for?  Have they polled a representative sample of the population?  Of course they haven't.  They are making an assumption.  And why should we regurgitate that assumption?  What are we adding to any article by saying "X is best known for Y", instead of simply saying "X is Y"?  Nothing, except a point of view which is not neutral.  150.244.54.122 (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that "best known for" is, in every case, just an opinion. However, if this opinion is widely shared throughout the world (not just the U.S., or not just in Europe) I think it is a reasonable statement to be used. Yes, nobody for sure knows what a person is "best known for", but if you could ask different people from different backgrounds and different countries about someone and they all agree on one fact about them, I see no problem in including that fact. This is easier said than done because it would be hard to get the verification needed for that kind of statement, but the concept is there.Kslinker5493 (talk) 00:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The number of cases in which the statement "X is best known for Y" has been tested by means of a poll of a representative sample of the global population is zero, for all values of X and Y. 212.145.150.133 (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

This has spilled out into attempts to push a POV in places like Lamest edit wars.

BTW, I would like to see someone dispute the fact that Guy Fawkes is best known for the Gunpowder Plot. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I could make the argument that Guy Fawkes is best known for having a celebration named after him, a celebration with bonfires and fireworks displays... It is amazing how many people have absolutely no idea why there are fireworks on the 5th of November, or why that day is named called "Guy Fawkes"... Yet they know that's the name of the celebration. Blueboar (talk) 21:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Public relations preparations for 2003 invasion of Iraq
Public relations preparations for 2003 invasion of Iraq I feel this article has multiple violations of the NPOV policy. Several headings like "manufactured evidence" and "A letter concocted by the CIA" are obviously one-sided. Most claims are missing sources. The "Government statements that set the stage for war" section seems to have just been copied and pasted from outside Wikipedia. The article also has many grammatical errors. There seems to be little sourced and neutral information in the article, I would propose deletion in its entirety but could not find a criteria that it met. Judging from the Talk page, it's had NPOV problems brought up before and has had no responses to the latest discussion of NPOV on the Talk page, which was made in 2010. The proposer of discussing the NPOV issues of the article received no responses and is an IP address that hasn't had Wikipedia activity in nearly 3 years. --Padenton (talk) 07:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Edited: --Padenton (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you seeking our permission? If so, you don't need it.  An AFD nomination is often a good way to draw attention to a problematic article... all sorts of people will come out of the woodwork to "rescue" it... and some of them may actually help you to fix the problem.  Blueboar (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I removed the worst excesses - the POV was blatant, along with actual misuse of sources (MSNBC referred to Suskin's opinions which became incontrovertable fact in this article, as one example. Basically based on a single book, which makes it a tad iffy from the start.  Collect (talk) 14:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Heads-up
We are approaching the early screening and release dates for the second of Eric Merola's homages to the - as ever, in lieu of published peer-reviewed and replicated scientific evidence, we have advertorial and attacks on critics. There's a whole section devoted to teh evil skeptics, who it seems came into being solely to suppress Burzynski's miracle cancer cure and who allegedly harass the patients Burzynski uses as a human shield against criticism. All bollocks, of course, but expect the usual flood of clueless newbies zealous to "correct" our bias towards the consensus view. Guy (Help!) 14:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Anti-union organizations in the United States
Anti-union organizations in the United States appears at first glance to be quite POV in nature, to make unsourced statements about groups which might not be NPOV, and to use colourful language to make its points. (The brief nod to union rights didn't last. In the late 1970s the NAM "was so confident in the appeal of its anti-union position that it no longer bothered to hide behind the euphemisms.") I think a few eyes on this "article" would help in making it into a real article instead of a set of what appear to be polemics. Collect (talk) 14:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West
Requesting independent editors review the recent removal of content from the lede of Obsession. A new editor has stripped the material out three times; I reverted twice, hence I'm involved and would prefer others take a look. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Goldman Band's demise
Hello. As many of you know, the Goldman Band ceased operations in 2005. The article on the subject has some issues, especially with regards to reliable sourcing, verifiability, and what I believe to be its neutrality. Specifically, I am concerned about the statement, "There is ongoing debate as to the real cause of the organization's demise, with the Board of Directors on one side and a group of long-time band members and their union reps on the other," and some time ago, I tagged it as it did not include a citation. The demise has been disputed on the talk page and on the article, but no proper discussion on the talk page was going on there. Today, I added the NY Times source, which details the Band's demise. Another reliable source can be found here, which details how the band got shut down. It would be good if this article could have some attention from neutral editors. Your input on this would be greatly appreciated. Regards, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

"Cleaned up" as substance dependence recovery reference
There are dozens of articles referring to both real and fictitious individuals in substance abuse recovery as having "cleaned themselves up". A few examples are included below. Though it is in common usage, this phrase has a pejorative connotation, implying that the opposite of a sober individual is a dirty one. This does not reflect the nature of substance dependence as a lifelong disease which can include an ongoing cycle of recovery and relapse as described in the Substance Dependence entry. These references should be re-written more literally to describe these individuals as having "stopped using drugs/alcohol".

"Lil' Fly (1994–1995) - Was booted off the label by Paul & Juicy because of a drug habit, He cleaned himself up and changed his alias to Playa Fly." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnotize_Minds

"Having lost everything (save for the PPAD club), as well as all his money, Noah descended into a drunken depression that led to reckless driving charges and other acts which almost cost him Donna's love, before he cleaned himself up and focused on running the PPAD." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Beverly_Hills,_90210_characters

"His life was characterized by alcohol and drug abuse, but in 1981 an American Indian, Lewis Sawaquat, introduced him to his Indian heritage and he cleaned himself up." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Plamondon

"But, after cleaning himself up in 2008, Macklemore and Ryan Lewis became a collaborative and creative unit." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macklemore — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trustfluence (talk • contribs) 12:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you think they should be rewritten, go ahead and rewrite them. But keep in mind that addicts refer to being "clean" themselves, so your particular brand of PC might not be shared by everyone. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Flag and Coat of arms of Western Sahara / SADR
Hello,

I would like to have opinions coming from uninvolved editors about the merging of the articles Flag of Western Sahara and Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, as well as Coat of arms of Western Sahara and Coat of arms of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.

For information, that same issue was previously discussed through: Following this first process, a decision was made to have an "elaborated disambiguation page" for each article related to Western Sahara, each one giving links to the topic related to both SADR and Morocco, as it can be seen on the 22 jan. 2012 version of Flag of Western Sahara (note : history of Coat of Arms of Western Sahara broken after a controversial merging, but it was looking like that).
 * a "40+ comments by 7 editors" discussion on WP:DRN
 * a "30+ comments by 6 editors (incl. 4 uninvolved)" discussion on WP:NPOVN
 * followed by a "90+ comments by 14 editors (incl. 10 uninvolved)" RfC discussion, result was : "There is consensus for proposal 3 (i.e., a page explaining and linking to the various flags used to represent the territory, similar to Flag of Korea)"

However, after a merger proposal to which 3 people participated:
 * Flag of Western Sahara merged with Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, that gave an extremely POV article giving too much weight to the SADR flag while it was supposed to be related to the disputed territory of Western Sahara, not to one of the claimants ;
 * Coat of arms of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic moved to Coat of arms of Western Sahara, after which, when the move was undone, Coat of arms of Western Sahara became a redirect for Coat of arms of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, a situation which is clearly POV.

Since we didn't get a consensus on the respective talk pages I ask uninvolved users about their opinion regarding this issue:
 * Which situation fulfills the WP:NPOV policy?
 * How these articles should be modified to be NPOV?
 * Should we go back to the RfC result and made them as it was decided 1 year ago since14 editors that gave their opinion then and that only 3 decided to break that previous consensus?

Reminder: Western Sahara is a disputed territory, claimed by:
 * Morocco, which controls and administers about 80% of the territory ;
 * The Polisario Front and the government-in-exile of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, which claims the independence of the entire territory and controls 20% of the territory.

Regards, --Omar-toons (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman should not have closed the merger proposal on February 14, 2013 since he participated in the discussion and the discussion was too brief to overturn the consensus determined earlier in the lengthier discussion that was closed by an uninvolved administrator (i.e. User:Sandstein on January 12, 2012). It appears as though no action was taken to implement that consensus, so I imagine that a new Rfc could be open if there is good reason to believe this consensus has changed. Location (talk) 18:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Looks like we posted at about the same time. Action was taken, the articles were merged and have been merged for over a mounth, see Flag of Western Sahara and the CoA article before Omor's unilateral split. In that time the only pension who's opposed to the merge has been from Omor himself, despite him inviting everyone involved in the original RFC to his Talk:Flag_of_Western_Sahara 26 days ago The discussion was left open for (at least) the standered seven days, and I probably wouldn't have closed it if the result wasn't unanimous. For more deateles see my post bellow, but in short everyone who participated in the RFC was informed by Omor 26 days ago, and no one other then Omor himself wants to re-split the articles. Whatever procedural problems there may have been with the original merge dusiction are now moot, we now have consensus. By the way, does anyone have a link to that ANI, I can't find it in the archives. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I've re-read all of this. The Rfc closed on January 12, 2012 appears to indicate that Flag of Western Sahara "should be an article detailing all the flags used to represent Western Sahara with the relevant information (i.e. Flag of Morocco, Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, Regional flags of Western Sahara, Historical flags used in Western Sahara)" and it does. As I read it, there was no consensus as to whether Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic should be merged with Flag of Western Sahara or not in that Rfc. That would open the door to further discussion on whether to merge or not and, as you suggest, that appears to have been adequately advertised, discussed, and implemented. Both of your names are involved in various ANI discussions, so it is not possible for me to know which one you are referring to. Location (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That looks about right to me. Sense half-undid Omor's split a second time at the mis-titled Coat of arms of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, that article in it's current state follows the RFC better then Omor's Coat of arms of Western Sahara. Omor's article is just a presto-disambig listing the SADR CoA and the National CoA of Morocco, whereas the other article is much more developed, and in addition to those CoA's shows the CoA's of the Moroccan regions of Western Sahara, and the historical CoA of Spanish Sahara.


 * As for what ANI, like I said I couldn't find the link, but it's the only one where both of me and Omor have participated. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I dont want to engage in a feud, but Emmette Hernandez Coleman is lying when she says that only Omar-toons oppose her unilateral renaming of the "Flag of the SADR" article. Several other users had opposed it, but she ignore us, acting unilaterally, as Location had pointed. Regards,--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? You only just objected today (over month after the merge), and other then that pearly procedural now moot objection at the ANI, what other users have opposed it? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, this is largely a user conduct issue, and I see no way of adequately explaining the situation without dragging user conduct into this. This is WP:FORUMSHOPING. Omar has already started an ANI, Talk:Flag of Western Sahara, a note on an admins talk page, and now this. there are 4 people who support the merge (myself, User:Charles Essie, User:koavf, User:Dzlinker who reverted Omar's unilateral split, User:NickCT?) In the 25 days sense Omar invited everyone who participated in the original RFC to his after-merge discussion at Talk:Flag_of_Western_Sahara, not only is he the only one who wants to re-split the articles (aside for one pearly procedural, no moot objection at the ANI), but the participants in his after-merge discussion didn't even think the the merge went against the original RFC. Both NickCT and I have asked Omar to explain how he feels that the flag/CoA articles are POV, so that we might be able to address his concerns and the flag/CoA articles more neutral. After his after-merge dusiction and ANI didn't result in the flag article being re-split, rather then accepting that he is the only one who wants to re-split the articles, and explaining what his NPOV concerns were, he tried to forum a separate WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at the CoA article, even tough that article has always followed the precedent of the flag article.


 * The merged CoA article (which looked like this before Omar's latest split) of of course had a Western Sahara title, but it was the WS article that was merged into the SADR article simply because the SADR article contained almost all the significant edit history. This was done through a Technical move request which Omor had the amidan undo on on the procedural grounds that he objected to it. This turned out to be just the prelude to Omor preforming a unilateral split of the CoA article which was reverted three times, once by User:Dzlinker, twice by me. I agree that the WS to SADR redirect is problematic, but it is Omor himself who created that situation by having a WS article moved to a SADR title. To create that situation and then to use it as an excuse to unilaterally split the article against consensus is gaming the system. At Talk:Coat of arms of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic he started to explain what his NPOV concern was at the request of myself and NickCT, but he still insists on unilaterally spiting the article instead of helping to make it neutral.


 * He could have used the talk page, and given ideas on how to make the articles more neutral. He could have used WP:BRD to try to make the articles more neutral, as he did when he added an empty "Flag of Morocco" section to Flag of Western Sahara, which I filed it out with content adapted from Flag of Abkhazia.


 * Omor, I request you withdrew this, self-revert your merge, and then put forward you ideas to make the articles more neutral, either on the article talk page, or via BRD. If there are objections to one of your ideas, simply discuss with the objector on the talk page. Just don't form a local consensus on the CoA article, but the leave the flag article POV, make them BOTH neutral.


 * Now that that conduct issue is out of the way, this is very similar to the case of Flag of Abkhazia, another disputed territory calmed by the Republic of Abkhazia as an independent state, and by Georgia as part of Georgia. It covers both the Republic of Abkhazia flag and the Georgian national flag (as it relates to Abkhazia) on the same article. Also to Flag of Syria and Flag of Libya during the Libyan civil war, which covered both flags on the same article during their civil wars. Other articles about the flags of disputed territory which claim independence don't even mention the national flags of the larger country that claims them: Flag of Somaliland (claimed by Republic of Somaliland and Somalia), Flag of Nagorno-Karabakh (Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and Azerbaijan), Flag of Taiwan (Republic of China and China, redirect to Flag of the Republic of China), Flag of Northern Cyprus (Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and Cyprus), Flag of Tibet (Central Tibetan Administration and China). This is certainly not to say that I think that the Moroccan flag should not be mencined, I that that Flag of Kosovo, aside from perhaps not giving the Serbian flag enough weight, does a good job of describing the use of the Serbian national flag in Kosovo. Flag of Western Sahara and the incorrectly titled Coat of arms of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic are certainly far more neutral then those other articles, which don't even mention the "other" flag. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Reminder: This discussion is about the NPOV policy, not the merging itself, and how can these articles fulfill it: Regards. --Omar-toons (talk) 05:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it NPOV, or not, to have the "Flag of Western Sahara" or "CoA of Western Sahara" redirecting to "Flag of the SADR" of "CoA of the SADR"?
 * Is it NPOV, or not, to have a unique article for both "Flag of Western Sahara" and "Flag of the SADR"? Same question for "CoA of Western Sahara" and "CoA of the SADR"? Doesn't that imply that Wikipedia supports one side of the conflict ?
 * If the last is NPOV, is it NPOV, or not, that the article gives 4/5th weight to the Flag/CoA of the SADR and 1/5th to the ones of Morocco ?


 * Well, OK. As long as you agree to respect the consensus for a single article, and to try to make that article more neutral instead of unilaterally pushing for a split, I see no problem with having this deduction here. To respond to your points:
 * 1: That's moot. We have consensus for a single article, which should of coerce have a "Western Sahara" title.
 * 2: I don't understand the question. Are you asking if it's NPOV to have a single "flag of WS" article, or are you asking if it's NPOV to have separate "flag of WS" and "flag of SADR" articles. Eather way that seems like more of an organizational issue rather then a NPOV one, and I don't think anyone has ever questioned the neutrality of Flag of Abkhazia and Flag of Kosovo covering the Republic of Abkhazia/Republic of Kosovo flags on the same article as the Georgian/Serbian flags (as they relate to those territories), even tough the Kosovo article gives far less weight to the Serbian flag then our WS article give to the Morocco flag/CoA. As I pointed out most of the other articles about the flags of this type of disputed territory, such as Flag of Somaliland, give no weight to the "other" flag, so Morocco is being treated pretty well as it is.
 * 3:Flag of Western Sahara has a Flag of Morocco section which describes the national flag of Morocco as it relates to WS. It's a stub-section, but that's not because less weight is being given to it, thats simply because it hasn't been devolved beyond stub-level yet. Flag of Kosovo shows that the section (along with Flag of Abkhazia) can be developed. I suspect tough that even if that section were fully developed, it wouldn't have as much content as the SADR flag section, not because less weight would be given to it, but simply because there isn't as much to say about the national flag of Morocco as it relates to WS, as there is to say about the SADR flag. If there were some pro-Moroccan flag of Western Sahara, even an unofficial but widely used one like the flag of the southern United States, I would say that we should cover that in it's own section, in deatial, just like we do the SADR flag, but there isn't one. The best we can do is describe how the national flag of Morocco is used by Western Saharans.


 * As for the CoA article, that's a little tricker. CoA's are mostly used by the government rather then the people, nether would be used much by Western Saharans, so there's probably nothing to say about the Morocco CoA's use by Western Saharans, and even if there were it would probably need RS. While there is no pro-Moroccan CoA of Western Sahara as a whole, there are CoA's for at least two of the three Moroccan regions of Western Sahara, and I think that those should be the focus of the article, rather then the Moroccan national CoA. Those CoA's are covered in the Moroccan regional coats of arms section, tough I'm not sure how that section should be developed. The more I think about it, the more I think that there is nothing or very little to say about the Moroccan national CoA, as it relates to WS. I'll used WP:BRD to demonstrate my idea for the CoA article. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * These comparisons are unfounded. We don't care about "who uses the CoA" or if any "pro-X Flag" exists, but "who claims what" matters: we have to keep articles NPOV and not support any of the claimants.
 * Even if the SADR is the only entity to claim a flag for the whole territory, the territory is claimed by 2 entities and the NPOV policy imposes to give equal weight as no UNDUE can be applied in this case.
 * --Omar-toons (talk) 04:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Mosaic authorship
Religious articles often have problems with pov editing for obvious reasons, but the latest version of this article is worse than most. For instance:"the idea that the view of Mosaic authorship began only in the era of the 2nd Temple is difficult to conceive of ... It is completely implausible that Ezra, who was the spiritual leader of the Jewish people, would not have known... It is almost inconceivable that a complete nation should without a basis come to believe this about any book, let alone a book that was published only several centuries earlier and whose authorship at the time was known to all. It has never been contemplated about any other book whose author/s' were known at the time of publication that it has been falsely held by the nation in which that book was published that the author was somebody completely different, let alone that that author wrote it 1500 years earlier." That's the worst of it, other examples aren't as blatant. Dougweller (talk) 10:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That paragraph was from a source but has been removed in light of this issue. L69 (talk) 06:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The source was Behold a People a Didactic History of Biblical Times, a book by Avigdor Miller, who is not an expert on ancient history. What's more, its assertions were presented as undisputed fact, not as Miller's opinion. This would only be valid if Miller's opinion were shared by all experts, a group that does not include Miller. Paul B (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Legendary creature and the inclusion of deities such as God and Allah
See Talk:Legendary creature for the discussion/argument over this. I found this at ANI but I think the issue needs to be discussed here first. Some editors object because they find this offensive. Dougweller (talk) 06:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I should have added that WP:OFFENSE is being quoted as a reason for not including gods, as well as accusations of editors pushing an atheist agenda. Dougweller (talk) 06:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * We need to differentiate between legitimate efforts to improve this article (which should start with discussion on the article talk page, given recent edits) and mass vandalism and edit warring from new IP editors who came here because the page was mentioned on the Reddit atheism subreddit. The page will no doubt be semi-protected as soon as an admin gets to the request, and in the meantime I have restored the page to the last version before the vandalism and edit warring. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Scratch that last part. Usually restoring the last stable version before the attack of the IP editors is a good idea, but looking more carefully, that version was awful. (Note to self: next time, smoke crack after editing Wikipedia...) --Guy Macon (talk) 09:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Pending changes has been applied, but there is still an NPOV issue and edit protection can't change that. Dougweller (talk) 10:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Not that it is crucial, but Allah is merely the Arabic word for God. TFD (talk) 03:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't "Legendary creature" be a category instead of an article? Nobody talks about "legendary creature" in general, nobody I know, anyway. This article is nothing but POV edit warring bait. I vote to delete it and save those dwindling hours of our lives for something more constructive than trying to hash out an unhashable pseudo-topic. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Are there neutrality issues at this article?
At Secular Islam Summit, we have an editor restoring a stale neutrality tag without starting or continuing any discussion. Given that we know neutrality tags are to be used to identify actionable issues, and not as permanent badges of shame when a user has failed to convince the community that they are right, perhaps we could get some uninvolved input as to whether there are issues here. As far as I can see, the last "neutrality" issue identified (and unresolved, since if you'll look here, you'll see that we resolved the last issue under discussion, as well as all or most of the previous ones further up) was that we supposedly can't identify a public figure as a former Muslim when they're open about it and when it's in the source, because in completely different regions of this wide world, people are killed for not being Muslims. I honestly have no goddamn clue what Kwami is trying to do here other than reverting me out of spite (cf. Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive190), but maybe this board can throw some light. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * A neutrality tag from July 2012? That's not what the tags are for. This edit by Kwamikagami was un-called-for as it returned the article to an unsettled point from which it was shortly developed into something everybody could settle for; a compromise position of sorts. Kwamikagami should not have tossed aside the subsequent changes. Binksternet (talk) 02:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Has anyone in this dispute read the relevant policies, guidelines and essays? There might be some suggestions there.
 * "Especially in the case of a tag such as npov, complaints left at a talkpage need to be actionable, so that editors can attempt to address them. It is not helpful to say simply 'The article is biased.'"
 * "Anyone who sees a tag, but does not see the purported problem with the article and does not see any detailed complaint on the talk page, may remove the tag." Tom Reedy (talk) 04:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Except that Roscelese knows exactly what the problem is, because we've been here over and over again. Every few months she comes back and attempts to reimpose her anti-Muslim POV, and gets indignant that people *still* object to it. — kwami (talk) 07:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have never met Roscelese but from her editing and communication style I would expect that she is anti-small-mindedness, not against Muslims. I would further guess that she is against any fundamentalist religious practices. I don't see a problem with the changes she made to the article. Binksternet (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Turkish-related articles under attack
Hello.

Turkey and Turkish-related article on the english language wikipedia have been almost completely taken over by Greek and armenian ultra-nationalists who have turned them into anti-Turkish propaganda pieces while promoting their own nationalist agenda. There are no editors to counter these people and make the content neutral. Thats why I ask you to please come and help neutralize these articles, namely Turkey (currently under attack), Turkification, Turkish nationalism, Template:Turkish nationalism, Geographical name changes in Turkey, Confiscated Armenian properties in Turkey, Racism and discrimination in Turkey, Animal name changes in Turkey.

Some of these were hijacked, others created specifically for slander by Turkophobes which should be deleted. thank you217.150.82.12 (talk) 09:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Looking at the Turkey article and its talkpage, I can find no evidence of this. Could you please provide specific examples.  TFD (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Likewise, I checked Confiscated Armenian properties in Turkey, but did not see any complaints on its Talk Page, which is where the discussion should take place. I will keep it on my watch list, so kindly use the Talk Page there to suggest changes. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

POV academic
, who has a habit of pushing POV because he hates this group(based on talk page archives) has inserted a POV academic to put the group in bad light

Article name: Al-Ahbash

link to the talk page discussion

diff to content

The academic quoted (Tariq Ramadan) is not neutral mainly because he has family ties with the Muslim Brotherhood whom are opponents to this group Al-Ahbash also in the quote ramadan makes a vicious attack by saying ahbash labels the ulama as unbelievers which can't even be verified by any other RS. whats more deceiving is that the article currently paints Ramadan as an orthodox sunni when in his quote he is attacking the whole sufi establishment by mentioning "praying to the dead".. so i don't see how its neutral & based on the user mckhan's previous sockpuppeting behaviour i believe its editing in bad faith. It should be replaced by something NPOV Baboon43 (talk) 19:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

More eyes at Misandry
I could use a second opinion at Talk:Misandry in discussing the definition of the topic. I added text and sources but another editor is removing them. What is the neutral path? Binksternet (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Biased Editing of Kevyn Orr biography?
I have called attention to this article but have not yet received a response. I inserted a quote from the World Socialist Web Site in which they referred to Mr. Orr as a "ruthless defender of corporate interest and a bitter enemy of working people." As there are many positive opinions quoted in reference to Mr. Orr I believe this quote helps balance the article. User Terrance7 has repeatedly edited out this content for different reasons each time. First it was "ranting language, unencyclopedic" the next time it was "libelous" and more recently "an unreliable source." I feel that his editing is biased. Your opinions? This article is getting a lot of hits due to the situation in Detroit being of international interest and I would like to see the dispute resolved quickly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kevyn_Orr Truman Starr (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It appears the quote and citation in question are as follows:
 * The World Socialist Web Site has called Orr a "ruthless defender of corporate interests and a bitter enemy of working people."
 * In my opinion, World Socialist Web Site is completely biased but is notable enough for a statement of opinion to be listed with in-text attribution as is noted above. Per WP:WEIGHT, this balances the opinion of Chambers and Partners that appears in the article and is derived from trivial mention in another source. Please note that WP:RSN may be helpful here. Location (talk) 17:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I would first point out that the mere fact that there are "many positive opinions quoted in reference to Mr. Orr" does not mean that the article needs to be "balanced" by finding negative things to say about him. This should be clear but I can elaborate if you do not understand.
 * Also, Chambers and Partners is an authoritative, well-regarded, frequently-relied-upon, independent source for finding the best lawyers in particular specialties. To be listed in Chambers is a very big deal; it's not something that you can pay to be listed in. Thus, Chambers and Partners's statement that Orr is an outstanding lawyer is not remotely comparable to the World Socialist Web Site's unsubstantiated, ranting opinion that he is an "enemy of working people." What does that even mean? And why should anyone care what they think about Orr? As someone said in a previous discussion here about the appropriateness of citing WSWS, "If the opinions of the World Trostkyite movement are required for an article, we can quote the WSWS. Otherwise, best not." Terence7 (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

You seem to insinuate that I am merely looking to find negative opinion of Mr. Orr. This is not the case. A google search on Mr. Orr will quickly bring up the quoted article as the International Committee of the Fourth International is a well respected and internationally recognized organization. As Mr. Orr has become the Emergency Manager to one of the homes of industrialization in America, with deep roots in the labor movement, their opinion is pertinent to the article and the censorship of their opinion detracts from the weight of the article. Perhaps the labor movement does not appeal to you personally and you find the opinion of leftists to be inconsequential despite the fact that non-leftists have often quoted this website. I find your tone to be condescending. I certainly don't need you to explain why you think that any negative quotes are a detriment to this article. You have shown obvious bias in your editing of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.26.255 (talk) 03:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * As I said on your talk page (maybe you haven't seen it since you're not logged in), I do not "think that any negative quotes are a detriment to this article." To the contrary, I left in much of the negative material that you added to the article, because it is factual and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. My objection is specifically to the inclusion of this quotation from the World Socialist Web Site.
 * I would additionally point out that the quotation you are attempting to insert does not actually provide useful information; it is purely pejorative, ranting language, as I have been saying. Orr is a "ruthless defender of corporate interests"? Well, sure, he defends corporate interests &mdash; he was a corporate lawyer. What does it mean that he was "ruthless"? The author does not specify, so this is no more helpful to the reader than the information that was already in the article.
 * And he is a "bitter enemy of working people"? Again, what does this actually mean? Seriously. Does it mean that he personally harbors hatred in his heart for anyone paid an hourly wage? Does it mean that he has a track record of doing things that hurt working people (whoever exactly working people are)? Does it mean that he has never personally taken any action or voted for any candidates supporting working people?
 * This is such vague language that it can have no purpose except as a ranting attack on Orr. If you can find more coherent, thoughtful criticisms from reliable sources that would enhance the informative value of the article, go for it. I am all for that. But this isn't it. Terence7 (talk) 04:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I understand you have an issue with the WSWS as a credible source. It is in Kevyn Orr's job description that one of the tools at his disposal is the ability to throw out union contracts without negotiation, sell public property, and displace the democratically elected officials of Detroit. This is why he is considered by some to be a "bitter enemy of working people." He has been appointed by a governor who has also been accused of being a "union buster" for making Michigan a Right To Work state despite strong union sentiment and large protests in the state of Michigan. Both the EM law and Right To Work laws were pushed into legislation in lame duck sessions. The opinion of a large international union-sympathetic voice is pertinent here.  Truman Starr (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * People given extraordinary financial powers in such a case have a long list of what they can do - it is POV to single out particular ones and to make assertions thereon. We better serve readers with simple statements of fact, and not editorial commentary from the source ppromoted. Collect (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose quote inclusion per WP:RS and WP:NPOV in relation to WP:BLP. User:The Gnome makes good arguments on these points, and these are well-exemplified by Truman Starr's parallel examples.  However, I reject that there is overall consensus that The World Socialist Website is overall biased.  I merely posit that a statement is not made true by the fact that you can reference it; it must still be factual for inclusion or otherwise significant (and specifically indicated as not a fact).  I posted this comment on the article talk page, as well.  --Jackson Peebles (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Carnival Cruise Line edits by SPA
Recent edits to Carnival Cruise Lines by  have been removing or toning down well-sourced negative info about recent problems with Carnival ships. (Carnival has been having many serious problems lately, and there's substantial news coverage.) This looks like a WP:SPA situation - few edits on any other topic. No comments on Talk, edit summaries are all default values. Please take a look. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 06:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Watchlisted.-- Auric    talk  11:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This is username Noremac617, regarding Carnival Cruise Lines I am fixing a series of inaccurate sections of information. It seems as if John Nagle wants to stop this very accurate information from being published.


 * Almost all edits by the above user have been deletions without edit comments. See , etc. There's been much bad news about Carnival lately, and I and others have been adding it to the article. --John Nagle (talk) 05:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the alert John. I've placed a note on Noremeac617's talk page asking them to discuss before making further deletions of sourced content and I've inserted myself into the talk page conversation. Let's see how it goes from here. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 20:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Noremeac617's last edit was on 20 March 2013, but User:129.33.193.109 put back one of the edits on 25 March 2013, so please keep a close eye on IP edits. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Denying the obvious?
There is a dispute as to which line is better

—My proposal sounds (to me at least) a lot more neutral and objectively accurate than the current lead section.

I genuinely don't feel such a basic change merits an edit war. Now, to omit the Indian POV altogether and to say that it's a ″territory of Pakistan″ when there is a long-standing international dispute over that very territory, is undue. That's all. Mr T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 13:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * For those reading this, please find more on the discussion at Talk:Gilgit–Baltistan. Mrt's arguments are inherently flawed.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 14:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Why does it have to be boiled down into one sentence? Why not follow the opening sentence with the last sentence of the first lead paragraph? Tom Reedy (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Tom, yes but in that case we would need to do something about the current wording. Because "territory of Pakistan" is implicitly invoking a sense of belonging i.e. as though GB inherently belongs to Pakistan no matter what. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 17:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't imply "always and forever" to me, but then again I have no skin in this particular game. I think you're reading too much in it, which is a common problem with editors who take sides on nationalist disputes and consider Wikipedia to be just another battle front. The rest of the article makes the situation clear. Either sentence would be fine if it were followed by or combined with the last sentence of the paragraph. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see why the article can't say something like: GB is a disputed territory that is presently controlled by Pakistan. -- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 20:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the same thing. Further, if it's a disputed territory (which it certainly appears to be), then it should say so in the lead paragraph, not in graphs 2 or 3. Otherwise the opening would not be NPOV. The same would apply to the article on Jammu and Kashmir (assuming references support it) that is mentioned in the edit summaries, otherwise a double standard would exist. Smatprt (talk) 00:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Mrt asked me to weigh in here. To me, the sentence supported by Mar4d and DS seems obviously correct. What is this place (Gilgit-Baltistan)? It's a territory, a region, an area, that makes up a singular entity as defined by those both inside and outside of it. Who administers it? Pakistan. Thus, it is correct to say that it is the northernmost administrative territory of Pakistan. Adding "under Pakistani control" is unnecessarily clunky that doesn't even imply the things that Mrt is trying to point out (that there's a dispute). Furthermore, the second sentence does imply anything permanent or intrinsic about the control. Thus, given the choice between two sentences that say basically the same thing, we should choose the more concise version. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree. After reviewing the issue the second sentence seems to be the correct form.  A careful reading of the first passage. "Gilgit–Baltistan is the northernmost administrative territory under Pakistani control." asks the obvious question.   "Gilgit–Baltistan is the northernmost administrative territory (of what?) under Pakistani control."  In which case the answer is Kashmir.  But all questions are quickly answered negating the need for a clunky first sentence.  I really don't see the big issue here.  Arzel (talk) 03:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not add "disputed territory" and be clear about things?  little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 03:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * @Keithbob: "I don't see why the... is presently controlled by Pakistan." ——I couldn't agree more. That would be the clearest version if it ever materializes. @Qwyrxian:Thank you for responding. "we should choose the more concise version." - how is it a question of conciseness or clunkiness? :) All I am trying to put forward is that "region/territory/area under Pakistani control" is objectively more correct than "region/territory/area of Pakistan". Yes it's a small and subtle change, yet we are here and that should go to show the extent of ossification our contentious articles have attained. @Arzel: "asks the obvious question" - I humbly disagree. The thing is it is only an "administrative territory of Pakistan" in Pakistan's POV, we're supposed to be neutral and balanced. I am not saying the claim of Mar4d is wrong per se but A. it doesn't take into account the dispute B. sends a specious message as it presents only Pakistani POV. @Little green rosetta: I agree if that's a compromise we can reach. P.S. I am open towards proposals for minor changes in the wording. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 05:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * One other thing is if we say "GB is part of XYZ country" and then follow it up with "it is disputed" it might seem (not always but more often than not) that previously at some point of time XYZ country enjoyed the unfettered proprietary right over that chunk of land, and then later it became a subject of dispute. Which is exactly contrary to reality. Right since 1947 (independence of India and Pakistan) GB, along with Indian part of Kashmir, is the subject of serious dispute. In that sense dispute hasn't settled yet and these region's are only militarily controlled by XYZ country, they don't belong to any country until the dispute is formally concluded. I would like to refrain from commenting here from now on. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 06:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see where it's a "Pakistani POV" at all. That's like saying "Tibet is in the People's Republic of China" is a Chinese POV. The reality of the situation is that one of Pakistan's administrative territories is Gilgit–Baltistan. Reality is not POV except to those who don't like it. Tom Reedy (talk) 06:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "I don't see where it's a "Pakistani POV" at all" - you still don't see it as Pakistani POV? Besides, Tibet is not claimed by another country as its own. Maybe you don't want to see it as a Pakistani POV but some of the more neutral sources, the tertiary sources describe Gilgit-Baltistan not as a territory of Pakistan but as being under Pakistani control. Are they not reliable? That's the difference. Don't divert issue here., , , etc. Britannica describes it as "Baltistan, geographic region of Gilgit-Baltistan, in the Pakistani-administered sector of the Kashmir region". "The reality of the situation is that one of Pakistan's administrative territories is Gilgit–Baltistan." - That's only partial reality. There is more to it than that (which I have talked about already above). And not mentioning the other side of the dispute is censorship and not neutral. Kindly again read what I wrote. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 11:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Along the lines of what editors Keithbob and little green rosetta have suggested, why not switch out the first two paragraphs with something along these lines:
 * Gilgit–Baltistan (Urdu: گلگت بلتستان‎, Balti: གིལྒིཏ་བལྟིསྟན, formerly known as the Northern Areas), is part of the disputed Kashmir region, an area of conflict between India and Pakistan since the two countries' independence and partition in 1947. Currently a territory administered by Pakistan, Gilgit–Baltistan borders the administrative territory of Azad Kashmir to the south, the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to the west, the Wakhan Corridor of Afghanistan to the north, the Xinjiang autonomous region of China to the east and northeast, and the Indian-administered state of Jammu and Kashmir to the southeast.
 * Just a suggestion as to how you all might compromise on this. Note the link to the Wiki article on the Kashmir conflict, for those wanting further info on this longstanding dispute. Regardless of the final wording, the fact that the region is disputed and claimed by both countries really needs to be mentioned right up front. Good luck, everyone :-) Smatprt (talk) 06:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * -I added the bracket — Mr T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ]
 * I disagree, please see below. The fact that the territory is part of a disputed region is clearly explained in the paragraph that follows the lead. The opening sentence should start by explaining what the region is, and the fact is that it is an autonomous administrative territory that is a subdivision of Pakistan and under de facto jurisdiction of the government of Pakistan before anything else. The lead proposed by you is long and also does not meet WP:NPOV. For example, when you mention it as disputed right in the opening sentence, the question boils down to: disputed by whom? It is only disputed by India. The international community (United Nations) for instance is neutral on the matter; it recognises that there is a political/territorial dispute on Kashmir but does not comment on the legitimacy of Gilgit-Baltistan being a territory governed by Pakistan. Are you understanding my point? It's one thing to neutrally recognise that a territorial dispute exists over Kashmir and another thing to say that GB is illegally occupied. The international community is only concerned with the former, not the latter. Your usage of the word "controlled" is also unacceptable - that term is used in India. Even the United Nations does not use that wordage, preferring instead to call the region Pakistan-administed Kashmir and Indian-administered Kashmir respectively.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 07:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I like the proposed wording by Smatprt. "It is only disputed by India." - what does that supposed to mean? Of course it's India that disputes it. So? Does it not merit a mention? "(United Nations) for instance is neutral on the matter" - yes of course the UN is neutral and that is why even World Bank declined to provide loan for the construction of Diamir-Bhasha dam because of its disputed status. That is all the more reason to provide the reader with the information about the conflict. We ought to be neutral too. — Mr T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 11:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Please see my comment on this at Talk:Gilgit–Baltistan. The way that the lead currently is (Gilgit–Baltistan is the northernmost administrative territory of Pakistan) is neutral and perfectly makes sense. It explains that Gilgit-Baltistan is a subdivision of Pakistan while also differentiating it from the provinces by mentioning that it is a federally administered territory. And this fits the constitutional definition of Gilgit Baltistan too: GB is not meant to be a province, it's an autonomous administrative territory that is part of the Pakistani federation. There is no dispute over this fact. Many countries have territories that exist alongside states/provinces. So again, the opening sentence is an accurate description and I do not think the wording can be any more clearer, neutral, concise and more accurate. As far as the Kashmir dispute is concerned, the paragraph right below mentions that the region is part of Kashmir which is disputed - what more do you need? Adding in the same into the article's opening sentence is not only redundant and trivial but also WP:POV by repetition. If I may add btw, Mrt3366 is setting a very POV-ish precedent on articles using his personal argument; see the mount K2 article for example, where he changed the lead to this extremely POV-version: K2 is the second-highest mountain on Earth, after Mount Everest. It is located on the border between Baltistan, in the Gilgit–Baltistan region a disputed area controlled by Pakistan, and the Taxkorgan Tajik Autonomous County of Xinjiang, China. ) and at Nanga Parbat also: Located in the Gilgit-Baltistan, a disputed region controlled by Pakistan, Nanga Parbat is... . Lastly, I will add that the article on Indian-administered Kashmir, an internationally disputed territory, currently starts of by mentioning the territory as the "northernmost state of India." I'm amazed that we're even discussing this for this article while the same approach has not been advocated for the latter article. This reeks of double standards.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 07:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh dear, I believe you failed to read my suggestion correctly. I suggested replacing the first two paragraphs. No repetition, no redundancy. My only point, and I believe the point made my several other uninvolved editors, is that the dispute should be mentioned up front. Regarding the other article you mention, simply start a section on it and I'm sure editors here will chime in, with similar advice for that article. But this section was started about the Gilgit–Baltistan article and only that article. (Personally, I would agree that the same approach should be taken at the Kashmir article, and would be happy to say so if you start a section on it.)


 * And note I changed controlled to administered in this edit. Smatprt (talk) 07:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The dispute is already mentioned in the opening of the article so I do not understand what you mean by replacing the first two paragraphs. And again, the first sentence of the article does not need modification, it is accurate per the reasons stated above. Why do you believe the dispute needs to be mentioned "up front"? Also, I do not see any consensus building up at the moment to suggest that any part of the article needs replacement or modification. The discussion here is currently oriented towards whether the article lead even needs any modification, not proposals of what it should read like.   Mar4d  ( talk ) 08:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Mar4d, I understand you're predisposed to hate any proposal that wants to clarify the disputedness of the GB-sector of Kashmir but Smatprt's proposal is sensible one and to me an acceptable compromise for both of us. Guys please check out Talk:Gilgit–Baltistan, Talk:Gilgit-Baltistan/Dispute. Other sources that point to the disputed status of GB-sector: " ",, Google scholars, , there are numerous other sources. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 11:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You cannot claim what I'm predisposed to "hate". The only reason I am here is to maintain WP:NPOV. The opening sentence above is vague, redundant, clunkly, not to mention long and also a POV nightmare. Mentioning the Kashmir conflict with India before introducing the region is an administrative territory is also WP:UNDUE.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 11:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * See the map from Library of Congress, Geography and Map Division, Washington, D.C. 20540-4650 USA. CIA describes Kashmir as "the site of the world's largest and most militarized territorial dispute with portions under the de facto administration of China (Aksai Chin), India (Jammu and Kashmir), and Pakistan (Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas)" CIA says here and here: "the Pakistani-administered portion of the disputed Jammu and Kashmir region consists of two administrative entities: Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan". Yet while talking of omitting this assertion you harangue me on maintaining neutrality? Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 05:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Question: For Mr. T (Mrt3366)- Hypothetically speaking, if the changes suggested above (or something similar) were enacted, would you support similar changes to the article on Indian-administered Kashmir? Mar4d has pointed out this area, which is also "an internationally disputed territory", "currently starts of by mentioning the territory as the "northernmost state of India." This would address any "double standards". Would you support near-identical wording and simultaneous changes being made?Smatprt (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I kept you waiting. But my answer is I would support any change that would raise the level of neutrality in articles related to India, Pakistan or anywhere else for that matter. Why do you ask, is it not obvious? Why is my neutrality being put to test? I don't support the phrase "northernmost state of India" either. Nevertheless I fail to see how this questionnaire is relevant here. You know that "this section was started about the Gilgit–Baltistan article and only that article." P.S. I would like to point to constitutional status of Jammu and Kashmir in India based on that we may also modify the language further. Again these are not exactly germane to our current topic. "Jammu and Kashmir" should be discussed elsewhere. Kindly don't digress from our current topic. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 05:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) We're not changing anything, neither do I see any strong consensus here for that. 2) "You know that this section was started about the Gilgit–Baltistan article and only that article" - doesn't matter actually. In fact, I am going to change the title of the thread to include J&K as the latter is clearly relevant to the discussion here and it's scope. 3) "P.S. I would like to point to constitutional status of Jammu and Kashmir in India based on that we may also modify the language further" - doesn't matter, again. What status India gives to Jammu and Kashmir does not negate the international designation of the region. You're so ardent about bringing a change on the GB article and yet display leniency on J&K? Double standards!??  Mar4d  ( talk ) 15:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "In fact, I am going to change the title of the thread to include J&K as the latter is clearly relevant to the discussion here and it's scope." - I will not allow you to do that, you first start a discussion at J&K talk or better yet, just go ahead and put the changes you like to insert in J&K article. Stop badgering here. "What status India gives to Jammu and Kashmir does not negate the international designation of the region" - it matters a lot as far as Indian POV is concerned, don't say it doesn't matter. But I never said I was opposed to J&K changes, did I? Why the heck do you want to create unnecessary fuss about that here? No body is opposed to it here. That's why I am wondering why not incorporate a similar and much relevant change in gilgit baltistan article? What is the matter with you? J&K is not directly relevant here. And we have reached some sort of consensus (which doesn't have to be unanimous). Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 16:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wrong, strong consensus is formed through agreement between multiple editors and there is no such consensus here. "it matters a lot as far as Indian POV is concerned, don't say it doesn't matter." - so does Pakistani POV. That's why I'm saying all along, the article should start of with the fact that it is an administrative territory of Pakistan, which is a reality, and then merit a single sentence in follow-up about the Kashmir dispute. This is the only neutral option. The J&K issue is being used as an example because it is relevant to this discussion. I'm just merely pointing out that if any changes are proposed to GB, they will be applied in equal measure to the J&K article. But I do not believe any changes are needed in the first place in both articles; the leads are accurate. You're the one who's raised all the fuss here.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 17:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep attacking strawman. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 05:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Question The BGN database does list it as part of Pakistan. Where is it with reference to the original border which was drawn? Where is it with reference to the de facto frontier between Pakistan and India in Kashmir? Who administers the territory? Is it completely self-administered? Has there been a plebiscite on state membership, autonomy, or other? These questions should be addressed in the lead. Are there any disputes with reference to the answers of any of these questions? VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Answered Just my take on a start... "Gilgit–Baltistan is part of the disputed Kashmir region seized by Pakistan in late 1947 while the Kashmiris peoples of the region themselves had not yet decided whether to join Pakistan or India. The small principalities in the region, including Gilgit and Baltistan, remained semi-autonomous until 1974, when Pakistan dissolved them and integrated their territories. Complicating the situation further is a Shia–Sunni Muslim sectarian conflict ignited in the administrative center, the city of Gilgit, more than two decades ago." [Continue on to say something about the background of the indigenous inhabitants, for example, the Tibetan Balti language spoken in Baltistan, that is all outside the area of editorial conflict here.] Your mileage may differ, of course. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, hats off. I sceptical about whether pro-Pakistan editors will allow this much flow of truth upfront in the lead. They will probably just point to random policies and oppose it. Although I have been assailed personally by knee-jerk accusations like I am biased, nationalist, etc by my opponents, I would love to support these disclosures and their expositions (back them up with some reliable source if you can). Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 05:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I sceptical about whether pro-Pakistan editors will allow this much flow of truth upfront in the lead. - Wikipedia isn't truth, it gives preference to NPOV. Besides, this is digressing off-topic and was never part of the discussion. We were here to discuss WP:NPOV, WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT and per all these three policies, the territorial status of GB deserves ideally no more than one sentence in the lead and that too in the second or third paragraph. It's been clarified over and over again. It beats me that some are confusing this article with the Kashmir conflict article - perhaps that may be due to lack of know-how of the topic and perhaps also obliviousness to the fact that a comprehensive article already exists for the Kashmir conflict. The GB article is about Gilgit-Baltistan, not the Kashmir dispute. The proposals you are supporting are nothing but an attempt of heavily WP:COATRACKING the article.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 15:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wrong again, that stuff is more germane here and more factually correct (with some minor changes in the language) than J&K is. You keep belaboring on J&K issue (which no one seems to oppose in the first place) and try to frame this proposal to change the language as "off-topic"? Man are you biased?! "the territorial status of GB deserves ideally no more than one sentence in the lead and that too in the second or third paragraph." — do you really believe that the thing that makes GB-sector (of Kashmir) a matter of Global concern doesn't merit more than one line in the article?! Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 16:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Pakistan "seizing" territory certainly does not impart any rights. Every Kashmiri territory doesn't need to have a full recap of the original territorial division of Kashmir, but there should be some mention of conflict, whether between Pakistan-India (China in parts) or more parochial disputes--like over when to start observing Ramadan in Gilgit. Note that I indicated the lead needs additional essential content--GB is an amalgam of two separate principalities with different languages and cultures. As for "POV", quite frankly, accusations of pro-Pakistan and pro-India are themselves POV considering the multi-cultural assemblage of distinct principalities with their own customs and. in cases, languages, which we know as Kashmir and whose peoples would likely prefer that Pakistan, India, and China all stop stomping through their gardens planting their flags. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I notice that your comments are mainly focused on the history of the territorial dispute. We already have a history section in the article (Gilgit-Baltistan) so most of this should go there. And at the moment, it's not like the lead does not mention Kashmir; look at the second paragraph! Over here, we are only discussing the opening sentence of the lead. A good lead is one that takes into consideration WP:NPOV and avoids WP:UNDUE WP:WEIGHT. Quite simply, the debate is whether the lead should say "administrative territory of Pakistan" (my argument) vs. "territory administered by Pakistan" (Mrt's argument). What's your contention, may I ask?  Mar4d  ( talk ) 18:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As there is no sovereignty, neither. Territory controlled by Pakistan would be the most accurate. "Territory of" implies sovereignty and legitimacy according to international law. Administration also implies some measure of external legitimacy. As far as how Pakistan exercises its control, it can administer GB any way it likes, but that's immaterial with regard to territorial status according to international law. I don't see that there's a whole lot of wiggle room here. This has nothing to do with being pro-Pakistan or pro-India.VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "'Territory of' implies sovereignty and legitimacy according to international law." — Yes. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 05:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with Qwyrxian that the "territory of Pakistan" is the most concise and correct way of referring to Gilgit-Baltistan as a unit. If we're talking the Indian POV, then they don't recognize the legitimacy of that administrative division, and the dispute is about something broader. Mr. T's arguments are really strange, especially considering the apparent double standard of the lead of Jammu and Kashmir, which unproblematically refers to it as a "state of India". Also, he uses the term "military occupation" incorrectly, since there is an autonomous civilian administration in GB. Also, make no mistake, to tar GB with the "Kashmir" brush, whether in the lead or not, is to tacitly accept some Indian POV. Pakistan only designates part of the disputed territory, Azad Kashmir (to be reunited with "Jammu and Kashmir") as "Kashmir". The indigenous Shias and Baltis of GB don't like to be under Kashmiri control, and successfully fought for devolution. India also claims that certain territory of China is part of "Kashmir", although neither China or Pakistan accept this. The point is that while the world may recognize that there is a "Kashmir dispute", there is far less agreement on the scope of this dispute, and whether it applies to peripheral areas like GB, whose self-determination is denied by Indian claims. This controversy is why mention of GB's disputed status (as opposed to Azad Kashmir's status) should come second, not first. Shrigley (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Territory of" Pakistan implies sovereign authority. This is an encyclopedia, and we can't make such implications. Conciseness does not trump accuracy. Nor does "not Pakistan" mean "India" (or "China"). And @ Shrigley, what "tarring" brush are you talking about? We are talking Kashmir the region, not the distinct cultures, religious practices, etc. to be found in that region. I think the scope of the dispute is quite clear--that's everyone who lives there and what they want, versus which power wants to claim the land (IMHO...) and the people along with it, like some chattel.
 * Given the original intent, which was for (effectively) a plebiscite, until that plebiscite is held we can't talk about the legitimacy of claims on the part of any of Pakistan, India, or China. We can only represent the claims themselves. That a lot of time has passed is immaterial. It's well established in modern international law that time does not impart legitimacy. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree with Shrigley on almost every count. I never ever tried to argue that Jammu & Kashmir lead is perfectly neutral, albeit it does mention "Indian-occupied Kashmir" & "Indian-held Kashmir". Should I create a fuss about that "double standard" here?? I even encouraged Mar4d to just insert the changes he wants. Hence I would appreciate if you guys didn't keep harping on J&K for the time being and let this issue about first line of GB settle first. Also, let's keep it focused on the content and not on editors for a change. The status of that territory is disputed right from the very beginning, that dispute is at least as enduring as Pakistan's right over that land. We are not here censor selected parts. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 05:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I also agree with Qwyrxian and Shrigley. Irrelevant to what India, the UN, or others think, the territory is fully controlled by Pakistan, who claim it, and has been for quite a while. The reality is that it is part of Pakistan, and the wording shouldn't be subject to whatever individual editors think about the implications of eternal legal right or truth or some such. There's more to this territory than just a dispute. CMD (talk) 13:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed wording of lead sentence
"Gilgit Baltistan (formerly known as the Northern Areas) of Pakistan, is a self-governed region in the north of Pakistan. It is governed through a representative government and an independent judiciary." Tom Reedy (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * oppose - it is worse than the current line. This first line doesn't describe (to a nonspecialist reader) the graveness of the situation there at all. How about something like "″The region of Gilgit-Baltistan is the Pakistani-administered territory/sector of the Kashmir region that is subject to a long-standing dispute between India and Pakistan.″"
 * This is to serve as the substitute for the first two paragraphs of current lede . Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 05:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the first few sentences of an article lead is not to give the entire history of the topic to alert the reader to "the graveness of the situation there". We're not here to right great wrongs or solicit supporters to the cause. See the article United States; it doesn't lead with all the Indian wars; it gives it further down the lead in the penultimate paragraph. Instead of fighting over the first few sentences of the lead you and the rest of the editors need to work on making the lead more comprehensive and ensuring that it covers all significant views in a neutral manner.
 * And BTW, here's where I got that sentence: http://www.gilgitbaltistan.gov.pk/. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Look Tom, I don't know if that was your intention but http://www.gilgitbaltistan.gov.pk/ is a page from Pakistani government website thus Pakistan's POV. Putting that assertion as a statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice would be an extreme manifestation of bias. We need a neutral source preferably a reliable tertiary source like Britannica. The neutrality of this article's introduction is very important and the first paragraph should adequately summarize key points of its contents: "the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view; it should ideally contain no more than four paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate." - that is what the Manual of Style/Lead section says. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 14:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * For the record, I support the proposal by Tom as a neutral alternetive. @Mrt: The lead proposed by you is nonsense and not even in the equation. Since when did Kashmir dispute merit a mention in the first sentence, goddammit? Go back to the start of the thread, the debate is "administered by" vs. "territory of". Don't just go back on your words now. An article lead should be neutral and impartial and having a trivial start on a territorial dispute in the first sentence of an article about a region, not the Kashmir conflict, is wrong on all counts. What you are proposing is simply unattainable. And as a user above (Shrigley) very aptly pointed out, tarring the the lead with the Kashmir conflict is like tacitly accepting a bit of Indian POV upfront.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 16:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the first few sentences of an article lead is not to give the entire history of the topic to alert the reader to "the graveness of the situation there". We're not here to right great wrongs or solicit supporters to the cause - spot on, Tom. Lead paragraphs of articles on regions always begin with the region's official/de facto location. This is the convention for all region articles on Wikipedia. Everything else, including political disputes/claims, is of subordinate importance and follows much after (preferably in the article body in more detail). Fact is, GB is de facto territory of Pakistan and this is an established status quo. Status quo matters the most before anything.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 16:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As mainly Pakistan and India both rushed in where the peoples of Kashmir had not yet weighed in on their preferences, the conflict is central; the de facto circumstances are the conflict and frontiers of control. I don't see that (to earlier section above) the status of any other piece of land within the Kashmir region is germane to the GB article. Lastly, @Mar4d, however you indicate de facto anything, it cannot be stated in a way which imparts more than exists in international law. What Pakistani or Indian laws or regulations state are artifacts of their chosen method of territorial control. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * @Mar4d: You really think Tom's proposal here is neutral? "Neutral" would be mentioning both sides of the debate. The debate is between those who control the land (Pakistan) and those who claim the land (India). You have cleverly contended that you wouldn't mind omitting Indian claim altogether. You have resorted to all kinds of impertinent sophistry, chicanery but these aren't going to help your case. You're just proving your tendentiousness further. @Vecrumba: You're again right. "De facto" is an euphemism for "no indisputable evidence exists" or something like "not ordained by law". Hence we cannot use "de facto" anything to describe the official status of a place; either it's disputed or it's not. In this case the former is true. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 05:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "De facto" does not mean "no indisputable evidence exists", it means "as a matter of fact". It's a statement of reality. The status according to law varies depending on the POV in question, but the de facto position does not. That something is disputed doesn't mean it lacks official status, just that it has more than one. CMD (talk) 11:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am behooved to tell you that Wikipedia is about verifiability not the subjective perception of "reality" as we see it. I assume you do know what the meaning of word "euphemism" is? Besides that de facto literally means "holding a specified position in fact but not necessarily by legal right ", in this case because of the long-standing dispute that hasn't settled yet. International community is neutral on it, so should be Wikipedia. Any immanent or oblique indication of that nonexistent "right" would surely be misleading. We don't engage in disputes but we are tasked with the job to neutrally describe it. Yes de facto it's controlled by Pakistan at this time. However that is only partial truth and there is another equally notable and relevant side to the story but you, Mar4d and Tom are talking of essentially censoring the fact about its disputed status altogether. I couldn't help wonder, why? Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 06:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Jesus I get tired of POV editors complaining about "censorship" on Wikipedia just because everything is not worded just exactly the way they want it to be. Nobody's censoring anything. As I have said before, the material can be covered later in the lead. Everything doesn't have to be jam-packed in the first graf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Reedy (talk • contribs) 01:01, 1 April 2013
 * You may do well to avoid personal attacks. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 08:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please stick to the topic—there was no significant personal attack, and the implied criticism was on par with the suggestion that two named editors are censoring a fact with presumably sinister motives ("I couldn't help wonder, why?"). Reasoning along the lines "that editor is censoring a fact" is totally unhelpful—what counts are policy-based reasons to either include or exclude certain text. Johnuniq (talk) 10:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Question
Is it neutral to show the Portal:India on the see-also section of Gilgit-Baltistan (see the ugly edit war in that article recently)? GB is not administered by India neither does it belong to India per WP:NPOV, yet a bunch of nationalist Indians are eager and over-the-top zealous to add Indian POV. Even Mrt3366 has started dancing to the tune; it's amazing how he opposes GB being called a territory of Pakistan (when it is) because it's Pakistani POV according to him and yet he has no qualms about adding Indian POV to the article? Talk about double standards? There is no moral equivalence between Pakistani POV and Indian POV in the case of Gilgit-Baltistan, because it is administered by the former and not the latter - hence, it is the Pakistani POV that should prevail, whether anyone likes it or not.

One of the POV-warriors who's been part of that edit war (User:Zeeyanwiki) was enthusiastically opposing my removal of Portal:India from the article on the talk page, accusing me of "aggression" and treating Wikipedia as my "home property" and ironically was the first editor to remove Portal:Pakistan from the see-also section of Jammu and Kashmir which I added as counter-POV. What to say of this POV-pushing by nationalists? I am aware that there are sanctions imposed on the Afghanistan, Pakistan and India topic area. In my opinion, single-sided POV-pushing like this should be rewarded by instant blocks.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 05:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, given the recent removal of Portal:Pakistan from Jammu and Kashmir, I've removed Portal:India from Gilgit-Baltistan. Any one who jumps in to escalate the situation towards more ugliness is warned forthwith.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 05:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Pizzicato (software)
Pizzicato_(software): I added templates for neutrality and primary sources and a user, whose username indicates association with the article, has repeatedly removed them. I attempted discussion on the talk page and have been ignored so far. I also warned the individual about edit wars and am now stepping back to allow WP moderators to deal with it. I'm pretty new myself, so I'm not sure if this is the correct forum for this notification. If not, please educate me! Plays88keys (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I've re-added the templates for notability and advert and have nominated the article for deletion. I just can't see how a piece of software like that is notable. I also have some WP:NOTHOWTO concerns which extend from the fact that those sources which do exist seem to be exactly that - how-to guides. Stalwart 111  05:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Prison-industrial complex
Seems to have endemic POV issues - and an editor now has been trying to add specific corporations as being part of it, although the sources used make no claim about them being part of a "prison-industrial complex" and thier articles made no such claim until he added it to their articles. I suggested that he needed consensus to add such material per WP:BRD, but was rebuffed, alas. More eyes would be useful to assure adherence to policies and guidelines, and maybe even get the POV reduced a tad. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. that article has some serious POV issues. It looks like whole sections are each built from a single source being cited more than once, giving the illusion of multiple sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed it appears to be a term used more in a polemic sense by a couple of books than as a "real term in wide usage" at all. The precise same logic could be used to make a Grocery-industrial complex and a Petroleum-industrial complex article.   THough I kinda like a Lawyer-industrial complex.  Collect (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the recent edits were very POV. Nothing I saw in the refs noted any connection to specific companies. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Clean up for Sensitive articles
Several articles were created by an editor User:BengaliHindu where some articles like 2013 Canning riots didn't follow a neutral point of view. I tried to clean-up by citing from reliable sources but this was reverted by the user & some other ip. The difference is here. May be i'm wrong but it may also possible that such articles were created per Islamophobia. I believe Wikipedia should be free from personal feelings or views and articles on sensitive topics need extra care to maintain a NPOV. Best Regards,  Mrwikidor  ←track  17:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Mrwikidor, thanks for reverting it back to your version; is far more NPOV than BengaliHindu's. Ashleyleia (talk) 03:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

SLAPP
Seems an odd sort of article - it uses an acronym, and lists a slew of cases, but the sources do not use the acronym nor the term Strategic lawsuit against public participation. I wonder if this is a neologism-push where OR and SYNTH is used to connect disparate cases to promote a legal theory. The states described as having "anti-SLAPP legislation" appear to have laws not referring to this concept at all, but only to aspects which have always been problematic in law. The legal cases cited for other nations also appear not to involve use of this term or any similar term. Opinions thereon should surely be of value. Collect (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I see what you are driving at, but this might be the wrong forum.
 * "Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Include a link here to that discussion."
 * WikiProject Law might also be interested. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Khalsa
The article Khalsa has this sentence in the intro:


 * The Khalsa is also the pinnacle of the Sikhism. Once an individual becomes a member of the Khalsa they overcome the inside-evils and the shred weakness of the body, mind, and heart, and become brave as lions.

I had removed it earlier, but Vickle1777 (now blocked as a sockmaster) and Jujhar.pannu kept adding it back. I discussed this and several other problems at Talk:Khalsa. However, Jujhar.pannu insists that this statement should be allowed in the intro since it's supported by a reference. No luck at WP:THIRD, so dropping a note here. utcursch | talk 00:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

In regards to the context of the complete argument I would like to add what I originally wrote, "The first part is basically saying the Khalsa is the ultimate end point of devoted Sikhs which is imporant because people of little knowledge may not be familiar with the context, the next part is a quote and quotes can say whatever they want as long as they are referenced and relevent to the topic. Quotes may only be removed with benift if something better is used in its point. If the user feels the word pinnacle to be subjective I would be alright if the the first statement is changed to - Once a Sikh becomes baptized he is called a Khalsa." Jujhar.pannu (talk) 08:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I suggest the statement be prefaced with "According to (whoever wrote it) ..." to attribute it instead of it being presented as objective fact. There's no end to these kinds of disputes in religious articles, and it's just gonna go back and forth ad infinitum. Tom Reedy (talk) 06:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Cold fusion
The other editors persistently keep telling me I'm trying to push my POV into this article. My talk page proposals either get ignored or they are used to call me a pov pusher. To give an example:

There are hundreds of researchers involved. As of 2008 we have peer reviewed cold fusion complete with replications. Most of the article is sourced on Pons and Fleischmann, who are just 2 of them. You don't notice it at first sight but for example reference numbers: 19, 41, 44, 61, 68, 100, 130, 133, 141, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 156 and 157 all point at a single book published in 1991.

Because the elaborate Pons and Fleischmann coverage is basically good content, I propose to create a separate article about the initial P&F press release. With over 300 reliable sources there cant be any question about notability. When creating such article it should always reflect the same scientific consensus as the main article. I know this perfectly well, I'm an ip editor not allowed to edit the article and there is a huge cold fusion police force watching the article like a hawk.

This is not a question if the article should be split but if I have the right to propose it.

The responses:

As the first response this is fair enough. Between these POV acusations I keep explaining Article spinouts:""Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork." It is suggest I'm whitewashing something without edit privileges. 1989 is not recent. I have no idea what this means. It may seem that way at first sight but the sources are used to describe things that happened 20 years after their publication without much attribution. It is great for P&F coverage but this is the main article about a science topic. Between the POV acusations I keep explaining the splitting guidelines. Fair enough, even said please. But I will get back to this one. This doesn't seem an important argument for splitting off the excessive coverage. It doesn't even go there? Is it really true that I have to address this argument or else I'm pushing my pov?
 * Disagree per WP:POVFORK
 * Disagree, this is another POV attempt to whitewash "LENR". It's the usual claim that "LENR" is not a continuation of F&P's experiments.
 * WP:Recentism
 * "it has not been shown that Pons and Fleishmann have any notability other than their work with cold fusion."
 * and "the article has many sections that have zero or almost zero mention of Pons and Fleishmann"
 * "The first step in your whitewash is to remove mention of P&F (which is also the content with most WP:WEIGHT). Then comes the re-branding exercise."
 * "Please don't bold again the first word in my comment. I purposefully left it unbolded because of Polling is not a substitute for discussion, article content is decided by strength of argument, not by counting votes in polls."
 * continued "You are avoiding the most important argument: the reliable sources say that it's still the same field. And wikipedia is based on reliable sources. If you don't address that argument, then you are posting your own personal opinions (And here is my own personal opinion: sources say that CF, LENR and CNMS are the same because the last two haven't achieved their own breakthroughs. For example, a replicable experiment that requires a new theory. I think that sources will keep saying the same until this happens. But this is only my personal opinion)"

This is the whole text in our article dedicated to peer reviewed cold fusion:


 * In May 2008 Japanese researcher Yoshiaki Arata (Osaka University) demonstrated an experiment that produced heat when deuterium gas was introduced into a cell containing a mixture of palladium and zirconium oxide.[text 5] In an August 2009 peer-reviewed paper Akira Kitamura (Kobe University) et al. reported replication of this experiment.[85] Replication of earlier work by Arata had been claimed by McKubre at SRI.[86]

I think it is not enough. Am I entitled to such opinion? Am I allowed to propose such split? Because apparently I'm not, the proposal is shut down after 1 day.

I've tried asking 2 other editors for their opinion, neither showed up but I now stand accused of canvassing: and this is now a talk page topic? 

This is just one example out of many. I've never managed to produce acceptable content for this article. I've suggested many very sensible improvements. Non of which have ever been accepted. I've seen many new and experienced editors get screamed down and/or banned by these editors.

I'm going to leave for a while now. I'm writing this in case there is anyone who still cares about content. This is the only reason.

bye

84.106.26.81 (talk) 06:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * And what was the question? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I can't say I've ever seen an editor screamed down at the cold fusion article. As has been stated elsewhere, P&F are where most of the weight lies (since it is where most of the coverage about cold fusion is). Attempts to split that coverage off will result in an article that is unbalanced towards recent attempts to create devices by a fairly small group of fringe proponents (just look at the peer-reviewed publication decline for example, and you see where the weight is, the graph is somewhere in the talk page archives). IRWolfie- (talk) 09:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

"Lists of martyrs" articles that repeat fabrications and legends as historical facts
Does anyone have any ideas about what could or should be done about these articles List of Christian martyrs and List of Christians killed during the reign of Diocletian? The first one, List of Christian martyrs, tries to list notable Christian martyrs from all periods and is divided into sections. In the first section "Apostolic Age—1st century", 16 names are listed, of which the death of one, James the Just, is corroborated in a work of secular history, Josephus, and two, James the Great and Stephen, have their deaths described in the New Testament in the book of Acts (although whether they can really be called Christians is highly debatable, there was not a clearly defined Christian identity at that early time, they were a sort of sect of Jews.) The martyrdoms of Peter and Paul are early Christian traditions, though uncorroborated by any independent historical evidence. The rest are made up fabrications from hundreds of years later although this article just flatly states things like "Saint Matthias was stoned and beheaded" and "Saint Luke the Evangelist was hanged" even though if you click on the link "Saint Luke the Evangelist" it takes you to the WP article where it is stated that "Luke died at age 84 in Boeotia"! (when the truth is that no one has the faintest idea when or how he died). In the next section of that article "Age of Martyrdom—2nd to 4th centuries" 17 martyrs or groups of martyrs are listed, again saying things like "Saint Lucy/Lucia, martyred in Syracuse for refusing to marry a pagan suitor" with no indication that this is anything other than undisputed historical fact, when out of those seventeen entries there are seven that have some possible historical facts behind them, the rest,as Professor of Early Christianity Candida Moss has written in a recent book 'The Myth of Persecution were "fabricated out of thin air". The article goes on into more recent times and lists other figures who are undoubtedly historical. It is not right to mix fact and fiction in this way, I have left other remarks on the article talk page. The second article List of Christians killed during the reign of Diocletian is if anything a bit worse as it lists some seventy names and the WP article Diocletianic Persecution says from all the many stories of martyrs at that time "only those of Agnes, Sebastian, Felix and Adauctus, and Marcellinus and Peter are even remotely historical" so that's six out of some seventy or so that may have some truth to them, although even those are questionable and have been highly embellished, but the "list" article not only states flatly that all these saints were killed at that time but even gives exact dates and places for their supposed martyrdoms, for instance "Eulalia of Barcelona (February 12, 303, Barcelona)" - their saint's day being assumed as the day they were killed, the year I can only imagine that whoever created this article ( by a google search according to the talk page) just made it up. Really these articles are not just presenting fiction as fact, they are lies. I have tagged them both for accuracy and neutrality and left messages on the article talk pages, but I don't know what steps to take - try to move them to List of (legendary) Christian martyrs mixed in with real ones and List of Christians supposedly killed during the reign of Diocletian, according to ridiculous old made up stories, except for three or four that might have some truth to them, who knows? Nominate them for deletion? Go through and mark every one as invention except for the tiny handful that may have a kernel of truth? And then I suppose you would have to have a source for every one saying that there is not any truth to that story, and who knows how long that would take. But I do feel it is just intolerable for WP to be presenting these old fabrications as truth. Can anyone suggest anything?Smeat75 (talk) 04:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Since martyrdom is a theological concept, rather than historical, it is fine to use information from theological sources, provided we are clear that the information may be uncorroborated or inconsistent with known history. We can have for example a list of Norse gods, even though there is no historical evidence that they existed.  However the "List of Christian martyrs" is not neutral, it is just a list of what editors have added.  Since different churches have different martyrs, there should be lists for each church.  Thomas Cranmer for example who is on the list is in Fox's Book of Martyrs, which lists Protestants killed by Catholics for their religion.  Obviously they do not appear on Catholic lists of martyrs.  TFD (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * TFD's analysis seems insightful. The clarification that these are theological concepts rather than straight historical accounts would be the best improvement of the articles. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That approach might work for List of Christian martyrs but List of Christians killed during the reign of Diocletian should be based on history not theology. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a good point in principle, but in practice I think that sources for lists of martyrs will often be dominated by religious sources rather than secular historical ones; we have to acknowledge that limitation and work with it. bobrayner (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I changed the wording to make it clear that the list is of reputed martyrs. Then of course we have to have WP:Reliable sources to show that they belong on the list. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking at the article, I support the change to "reputed". However, while martyrdom is indeed a theological concept, it doesn't mean it's unhistorical, and the comparison to Norse gods seems a bit bizarre. What we have here is a curious mix of history, church tradition, and outright legend. I guess I would feel most comfortable with the qualifier, "according to Church tradition", but I don't think it needs to be in the article name. StAnselm (talk) 05:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Martyrs are, in general, a form of saints in Christianity, and I tend to think that the word is primarily used in a religious context, so at least personally I don't think that qualifiers like "reputed" are necessarily required. Most editors would realize up front that a religious perspective is more or less implicit here. Also, in the process of canonization, or inclusion in martyrologies, many if not most "martyrs" will be described as such there, and that in most cases martyrs are specifically recognized as a separate group from, for instance, confessors or clergy or whatever. Considering that those sources, which are basically the ones that "establish" whether someone is a martyr or not, call someone this, I think they can be relied upon. Having said that, there are a rather monstrous collection of reference books regarding saints, including martyrs. The most extensive I know of is the old Holweck biographical dictionary of the saints. I tend to think that if one or more of those reference books, which can include up to 10,000 or so names, describe someone as a Christian martyr or a Christian martyr of the Diocletian era, that would probably be sufficient for our purposes. John Carter (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have several problems with what John Carter has said. First, English wikipedia is read all over the world now and by people from many different cultures and backgrounds and I don't think we should make assumptions about shared cultural backgrounds such as knowing that a martyr is a theological concept. I think it is perfectly possible, for instance, that someone visiting an art gallery and seeing a painting of St Lucy holding her eyes on a platter or St Lawrence holding the gridiron he was supposedly roasted on, might wonder if that story is true or not and look it up on wikipedia to see and they deserve to find the best answer we can give. We need to make it clear, as it is a perfectly reasonable thing to wonder about, whether it is known, or not, if a particular story like that has any truth to it. If it is agreed that it is entirely "legendary" (ie fictional), or nobody knows for sure whether it is or not, the article should say that.Also one of the things that bother me about wikipedia is just how much it does rely on such sources as extremely old books, we should be giving the results of the latest research and scholarship and not just repeating Sunday school lessons from a hundred years ago. That's my opinion anyway and I am revising the opening sections of the article List of Christian martyrs at the moment, others are of course welcome to check what I am doing and agree or not or make their own contributions.Smeat75 (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Since my views on this are represented on the talk page, here I'll just say that the article is misnamed: List of Christians killed during the reign of Diocletian could be any Christian "killed" (as distinguished from dying by natural causes) during the reign of Diocletian. If it's a martyrs list, it should be called that. As several editors have noted, such a list will include saints or martyrs as recognized by the religion that created them. The individual articles, as well as such venerable sources as the Catholic Encyclopedia, address issues of historicity. Without these nuances, the list becomes an implicit argument (that is, a synthesis that points toward a conclusion not present in the secondary sources themselves) if it treats every figure as of equal historicity or even religious validity (some figures seem to be part of the narrative tradition, but not even "certified" by the Church). The problems with this list article come from an initial lack of clarity about its scope and purpose. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (e-c) I have no particular disagreement with some of what Smeat75 said, although I do have some rather clear reservations about what seems to me to be possibly jumping to conclusions which aren't particularly warranted, and which, in some cases, are actually counterindicated by facts. You will find, for instance, that the Catholic Church, who is the primary user of the term "martyr", has actually made a serious recent effort to review all the declariations of saints and label many of those stories which have little if any objective support as "legends," and, in some cases, like Clement of Alexandria, actually removed the name of the person from the martyrology. There is, and has been for about a hundred years now, an academic journal, Analecta Bollandiana, which basically has been among the leaders of this more intensive historical review. And many, if not most, of the more recent serious reference works relating to the topic of Christian hagiography have incorporated their findings, generally following the lead of the Catholic Church. Some other churches, like I think some of the Orthodox churches, will still, once in a while, canonize someone without much, if any, real historical evidence to support it, that's a different matter, but even they tend to describe such individuals in a way to indicate that there is no real historical evidence. And, actually, as per WP:TRUTH, we do not need to make it clear whether anything is known to be true or not. All we have to do is say what the most reliable independent sources say. And many, if not most, of the more recent ones, like I said, tend to themselves differentiate between the "legends" of a saint and their canonicity. For lists like these, I tend to think myself that if the Catholic, or Orthodox, or whatever, churches explicitly describe someone as a "martyr" in their current official documents, with in this case are generally their current liturgical calendars, that would probably be enough to establish their basis for inclusion. Even some of those are open to question, like the Anglican church describing Martin Luther King, Jr. as a martyr in their calendar, but I honetly don't know how many other examples of that type there are, and trust me, I've looked over a lot of reference books on this subject. John Carter (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We could compare different church's lists, determine if there is evidence the subjects existed and whether their deaths were caused by their belief in the true religion, and prepare a list. But that would be synthesis.  The Catholic church is the authority on who they consider to be martyrs, as are the Anglican and other churches.  As for saints, they are people who performed three miracles after their deaths and now are perfect sinless creatures residing in heaven.  There is no historical evidence that any saints existed.  TFD (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree for the most part, although in recent years the number of miracles has been I think dropped to two for standard saints, and less for martyrs, and I guess I would think being more or less officially commemorated by any religious bodies, including several forms of Christianity, Sufism, some forms of Hinduism, Thelema, and other religions as a "saint" more or less for our purposes makes that person a "saint". John Carter (talk) 23:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Listing languages of a country and NPOV: Algeria and the French language
In Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Algeria there is a debate over whether French names should be listed in articles about Algeria (for instance, "Algèrie" for Algeria and "Alger" for Algiers).

In Languages of Algeria I did extensive work on chronicling the language situation. On one hand Modern Standard Arabic (which is different from spoken Algerian Arabic) is official and French is not official, and in the past the Algerian government attempted to eradicate French from use in society by enacting government policies that would remove French. Unlike Tunisia and Morocco Algeria is not a part of the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie.

On the other hand, as shown by the CIA World Factbook and other sources, French is the lingua franca of Algerian society and is still extensively used in the business and technology sectors in society. Senat.fr says that Algeria has the second largest French-speaking community in the world. Recently the Algerian government has reintroduced French into the education system. While some Algerian government agencies are Arabized (they only use MSA Arabic) others are not (the agencies make documents in French, and provide MSA Arabic translations). The documents submitted to United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names and the United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names from the Algerian government used French, and the government used French in almost all of its conferences.

There is an undercurrent of divisions in society. The sources I used say that bilingual Arabic-French is promoted by upper class and secular elements of Algerian society, while Arabic only was often promoted by Islamists. Also, the elites in Algeria at one time had their own kids learn French while others learned Arabic, making an "elite closure" that only gave the best jobs to those who spoke French.

Anyway, in terms of POV, knowing that there is a conflict over how important French should be in society, what is the NPOV solution? WhisperToMe (talk) 07:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The NPOV solution is to completely forget about the question. We must move away from this odd but very wide-spread fixation on using the mentioning or non-mentioning of name variants as a symbolic sign of linguistic "territory-marking", i.e. as a symbolic recognition of the ideological "importance" of some language. We are not writing our articles for Algerians, neither French-speaking nor Arabic-speaking ones. We are writing them for English-speaking readers. The relevant criterion is not "how should we position ourselves to the ideological issue of how important French should be in Algeria?" The only criterion is: Are our English-speaking readers likely to come across the French name variants out in real life (in otherwise English-language contexts), and hence, will mentioning the French names help to clarify situations that might otherwise be confusing? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I think this approach might be a little over-complicated. In relation to articles on European countries, readers are quite likely to run into Latin and Greek names in otherwise English-language contexts (Britannia, Albion, Gaul etc). Does that mean those should be added? What about Cathay or Hindustan?
 * What you're getting at would probably be equally-served by: "Is the language widely-spoken in the place the article is about?". Formerip (talk) 13:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "The only criterion is: Are our English-speaking readers likely to come across the French name variants out in real life (in otherwise English-language contexts), and hence, will mentioning the French names help to clarify situations that might otherwise be confusing?" - That is a large Yes, Yes, Yes (The primary webpage is French, not Arabic), Yes (the webpage for this ministry is only available in French) - One editor is in favor of not using French in situations other than "إقلي or إجلي or إكلي We can not identify the proper pronunciation only through the french writing (Igli)" but he also said "I think that in this case what applies to the arab language applies to English. for this, I propose the deletion except in cases similar to the previous example" WhisperToMe (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Narendra Modi
Narendra Modi is a controversial Indian politician running for the Hindu Nationalist BJP party -considered by some to be a likely candidate for the next Indian Primeminister. The lead of the article currently doesn't mention the political stances of either MOdi or the party he is a leader of, and it only gives the Hindi names of the parties - without supplying even the English translation nor the political platform. When I tried to insert mention of his politics, as neutrally worded as I could, it was removed without explanation. And the article now again does not mention anything about his politics. I think it might be worth it to keep some eyes on the article as it seems it may become a likely problem area with the upcoming Indian elections. It is nwt claimed on the talk page that it is undue weight to mention his political stance or to describe the political platform of his party in the lead.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Clear ownership issues as well. I am butting out, but someone should add this article to their watchlists.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher
This article has had a low-level POV problem for years, with negative views on her minimised. However, after an 800-strong party in Glasgow in celebration of her death], and another in Brixton, amongst others, and even some MPs speaking out in celebration of her death. . This is is not normal, but all criticism of her is being systematically removed. The miners hated her, and still hate her. ,.

At the moment, the artocle contains meaningless platitudes by Cameron and Milliband, and doesn't mention the controversy.

The simple fact is, Thatcher is widely hated. Not by everyone, of course. But by presenting positive views and censoring the negative, we hide the controversy of one of the most divisive and controversial PMs of British history. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree, its a problem. Two Danish right wing foreign ministers who worked with her in the 80s today remembered her as "terrible" and "rude".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopedia and not a Danish tabloid. Articles are written to be of long-term interest. Let some serious journals and newsmagazines provide hqrses. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  23:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Who said it was tabloids? Your comment is disrespectful and almost made me call you something ugly. These are serious Danish newspapers. There is no shortage of serious peer reviewed sources describing how hated she is in a large part of the world - the article doesnt reflect that.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * [to Kiefer] The links I give include the BBC, Reuters, the Herald Scotland, Sky News, and the Belfast Telegraph. Have you actually checked the links? Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Although my Northern bias may be showing, I do think that we need to be wary of hagiography. As much as she was loved by the right-wing, she was also absolutely despised by most people north of the Watford Gap. Sceptre (talk) 01:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't forget Facebook, Adam. Some people have said things about her on Facebook and I know you think this should be in the article. Needless to say, I disagree. Neither the bland nor the rabid reactions should be reported verbatim in the parent article; this is recentism and we have a daughter article for that. --John (talk) 09:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Seriously, you don't think that this is notable? Do you have any idea how unusual this sort of behaviour is in Britain? Apparently, the last person whose death was marked with widespread street parties in Britain was the death that marked the end of the European front of WWII, which I'll phrase like that because I don't by any means think that she's comparable to him, and it'd just be a distraction. This is arguably the most notable fact about her death, and today's coverage has only expanded the scale. I can only imagine what things are going to look like on the day of her funeral, when people actually have time to plan. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such, all that belong there are facts. There should be no "opinions" either positive or negative in an encyclopedic article. It sounds to me as if you're asking for people to "put more negative stuff in there to make it fair." That's clearly contrary to the purpose of an encyclopedia. Perhaps you should read WP:Introduction. Cheisu7 (talk) 09:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree with Cheisu7. "Just the facts, ma'am" should be the guiding principle. Especially with politicians, one can find many people ready to offer negative quotes. It should be addressed purely in an encyclopedic, biographical way. Also a bit of "assumption of good faith" and having a bit of respect for those even with whom you disagree wouldn't hurt. Whether "pro" or "con", it cannot be denied that she was a very important person in world events, and those events can be described with NPOV. Individual's reactions really aren't relevant. That's what blogs are for.JohnKAndersen (talk) 11:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen
 * You can cover an opinion as a fact, as in WXY group had a favorable opinion and ABC had a not so favorable opinion WhisperToMe (talk) 17:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree with JohnKAnderson. "That's what blogs are for" should sum up my opinion on this. Too many people try to use Wikipedia to further their personal agenda rather than having anything substantial and encyclopedic to contribute. No offense to the folks above but this has been my general observation on this project. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 04:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Too true that Maggie was a polarising figure. I've already complained about the meaningless [mainly eulogising] rhetoric in that article (which was a major part of it when I last looked) that I'd like to see removed. But I would add that if the positive stuff stays, then so should a non-undue part of the negative comments. The reporting on the street parties definitely merits staying, as this is incontrovertible fact, but we just need reliable commentary as to how sizeable and widespread these parties were. --  Ohconfucius  ping / poke 04:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I do not agree that what you are calling "eulogising" information is equal to peoples' individual and personal dislikes. As with most famous people, their page is usually reserved for their accomplishments, with perhaps a "she did not have unanimous support" or "some considered her a polorising figure due to her positions", without getting in the dirt might be acceptable. Most American politicians' pages are locked, and controversial issues kept to a minimum, or given their own pages. If, say, your beef is with the Miner union deal, then write an article about that controversy (if there already isn't one). On her Wikipage, which sadly will have no more additions and hopefully soon locked, should reflect more of a biographical tone, not a pro/con ripping apart of her polices. Time to exercise that British propriety that is so widely admired, allow her to have this "story of her life" wiki, but absolutely add to related pages that had merited entries, and have some empathy and respect for this leader, regardless of your political predilections. "Golden Rule"...her page should focus on her and her achievements primarily, everything else should go to the specific "scandal" pages.JohnKAndersen (talk) 09:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen

Steinberger guitar discussion is an extended rant.
Sorry, I don't have the content background to start a meaningful discussion on the talk page, but as a passer-by looking for information hoo boy is Steinberger (regarding the instrument manufacturer of the same name) far off NPOV once it gets to "history and production". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.105.44 (talk) 02:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the POV edits made by IP:32.134.161.26. If you find any unsourced controversial edits, revert them and leave a message on the talkpage. Thanks --Neelkamala (talk) 10:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Including union affiliations of prosecutor who refused to charge union members with assault/Steven Crowder
In Steven Crowder's article, the alleged assault against him was included, and he attempted to press charges against the other party.

Despite video of the incident, and the Union Spokesman himself condemning the violence and the acknowledged trampling of a tent by union protestors that belonged to a group Steven Crowder is affiliated with, the Prosecutor dropped all charges against union members, and refused to charge the ones involved in this alleged assault.


 * The prosecutor that refused to bring any charges against the union is endorsed by the very same union (according to his own site, on the opening page). This seems like relevant information.


 * Group affiliations for everyone else involved were included; Crowder,the alleged assailant, as well as the spokesmen. Why omit it in this very influencial person's case?

The dispute is that some think it is sufficient to say only that the charges were dropped, which leaves the impression they charges were completely without merit (that's usually the reason charges are dropped against the will of the complainant). Others believe that mentioning that the prosecutor was endorsed by the unions provides critical context, as well as treating him with the same standards as all the other players by being transparent with his affiliations.


 * No suggestion is made that he refused to prosecute BECAUSE he is endorsed and gets campaign money from those unions. That would be a clear cause/effect, and obviously not neutral.

However, it is misleading to omit the information that he is endorsed by them, which he displays prominently in his campaign material. Including it lets the reader decide, with complete, relevant information and full context on both parties' affiliations.

There have been multiple attempts to resolve this on the "talk" page by rewording, deleting the actual name of the union and using the generic noun, rearranging words within the sentence, separating the sentences completely to further any possibility of a suggestion of cause and effect, with no counter-compromises being offered nor any discussions of the compromises proposed as is suggested in the guidelines for resolution.


 * So, being totally objective, do you think that a Prosecutor that refuses to charge any member of an organization should have it noted that he is endorsed by and/or takes contributions from that very same organization; and that this one simple fact provides important context to the broader discussion? These are provable encyclopedic verifiable truths which assist the readers in making their own determinations.

Thank you, JohnKAndersen (talk) 05:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen


 * You say, "No suggestion is made that he refused to prosecute BECAUSE he is endorsed and gets campaign money from those unions." In that case the the information is irrelevant.  On the other hand, mentioning it implies a cause/effect relationship.  Why else would it be "misleading to omit the information."  TFD (talk) 06:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Because, omission of relevant information steers the reader to one conclusion, "the charges must have been without merit". Offering both sides, WITHOUT making the conclusion either way, allows the reader to decide with more complete context. In case I wasn't clear, I do not want to say the affiliation WAS or was NOT the reason for his actions. Just want to include provable facts and let readers make their own determination. Omitting the affiliation leaves out a pertinent fact that along with everyone else's affiliations, can lead the reader to EITHER conclusion, or a completely different one altogether, IF they are presented with all the facts. If you take out everyone's affiliations, the section would essentially read "two guys got in a fight in a park". Since this was a very political event, affiliations become critical context.JohnKAndersen (talk) 07:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen


 * Except that you are not "offering both sides". You are inventing a new side in contravention of the neutral point of view. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Both sides are offered in that including the affiliation balances the statement that leaves the impression the charges were frivolous. Evidence for both sides should be presented to be NPOV and to provide the full context, and let readers decide if it played a part or not. That's the fairest compromise. As it sits now, only evidence for the later is included.JohnKAndersen (talk) 10:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAnderson


 * TFK, I believe it should be up to the reader to decide their opinion on the matter of what the prosecutor's reasons were for dropping the charges. Whether one believes it or not, the fact is that the connections are indeed relevant. Merely including the information implies nothing. Are you also against the idea of presenting the information beginning with, "some point out that..."? The information would be relevant no matter who the article is about, yet its exclusion seems purely political here. Cheisu7 (talk) 07:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Inclusion is absolutely implication. A serious encyclopedia is not in the business of including irrelevant information, or turning an article on one subject into a coatrack on another. If reliable sources have mentioned the prosecutor's union affiliations in connection to this case, then and only then are they relevant outside his own article. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * What is exclusion, then? Cheisu7 (talk) 07:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * If readers can reach into the author's mind and figure out what he deliberately excluded, they probably don't need to be reading Wikipedia anyway. But it's very simple: Sources, sources, sources. If you want to add a bit of content to an article, produce a source that mentions that content, in the context of the article's subject. You don't go digging up tangentially related facts to make some point no source ever did. You add to an article, "Prosecutor X, who received campaign funding from unions, refused to press charges against a union", and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what you're implying. So show that a source implies the same thing, and we can talk. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * No one has ever suggested including campaign funding. There are many articles that do link this prosecutor to union "issues", but in this case the edit (which was improperly deleted before consensus/no consensus could happen by the way) just mentioned that he was endorsed by those unions. It also ties Crowder to AFP, the Spokesman to the AFL-CIO, etc. Why should this one person who has made such an important decision in this story be immune?

It's done more in the interest of full disclosure and transparency. Many would find nothing wrong with his endorsements. Fine. They can draw their own conclusions, I do not want to make them for them. But leaving as it is implies the charges were frivolous (there were documented physical injuries). Additionally, I don't think the Prosecutor's home page where he lists his endorsements, and the union page that proudly endorses him, is "digging up tangentially related facts". And it certainly can't be considered irrelevant. Selective omission to steer the reader to a particular conclusion is not NPOV, providing a readily (actually the primary biographical fact, often before his party affiliation) simple, provable fact from reliable sources is harmless, where selectively omitting a fact that is so clearly part of the story leaves a gaping hole in the article's integrity, not to mention POV issues.From the guidelines, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority AND significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered."JohnKAndersen (talk) 10:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen
 * If any of these arguments sound familiar, it's because the vast majority of editors at the page have told John the exact same thing he's being told here. I've explained that if there were verifiable sources (such as newspaper articles) where a direct link is shown between the prosecutor's union ties and his decision to not pursue the case, then that would be allowable under WP guidelines.  However, the addition of the union tag in question without such sources ends up creating a guilt-by-association tone that is not encyclopedic.  John, however, has continued his rants, varying them little, and ignoring the consensus of everyone else at the page (save for a single editor who joined WP and whose only 2 contributions to date to Wikipedia have been comments at this article). 5minutes (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * From the discussion here, I assume there is no Reliable Source that points out a link between the prosecutor and the unions? GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, independent reliable sources state that the prosecutor declined to file charges because, after viewing unedited footage of the fight, he concluded: "It's pretty clear the person that they wanted to charge was acting in self-defense." ("Fox News footage flawed: No protest fight charges planned", Lansing State Journal). So not only is there a problem with original synthesis in our article, but we're also neglecting to convey the content of actual independent, reliable secondary sources on the subject. MastCell Talk 18:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * GeorgeLouis: No, there is no RS that connects the two, and while I personally think that it's reasonable to hypothesize that a Democrat politician in a union-heavy state will likely have some union-based influence, it's my opinion and hypothesis, not a stated, reliable fact. And to answer MastCell's question: I don't think we're seeking a synthesis of positions as much as we're trying - with difficulty - to create a list of encyclopedic facts on a politically volatile article. 5minutes (talk) 18:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I get it - that's never easy. I'll just reiterate my view that the more politically volatile the article, the more important it is to stick closely to reliable secondary sources and limit editorial syntheses. MastCell Talk 18:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * GeorgeLouis, yes, there is a direct source and RS connecting the prosecutor to the unions. His own website, the unions' websites, and numerous newspaper and online articles about him and his past cooperation with the unions who contribute to his campaign and whom endorse him. (Again, not asking that the contribution issue be included, as part of a compromise to try to reach consensus.)JohnKAndersen (talk) 03:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen


 * 5Minutes, your "vast majority" of 4 or 5 (depending on how often some changed their minds) against 2-3 is very misleading. Also, it's clearly stated in the process of consensus building that it is NOT ever arrived to by a vote, and there is no "seniority". Even if it were 20 to 2, guidelines indicate that majority input should never bulldoze minority input, and a compromise should be reached. No one who disagreed responded to compromise, nor offered compromise themselves (another requirement of building a consensus). Just a "gang" style bullying, refusing to engage in meaningful compromise, despite my repeated attempt at dropping content, re-wording the language to try to please everyone, per the guidelines. So that's why it may sound familiar...I was never engaged with someone willing to work towards an equitable consensus, just dictated to, "this is how it's going to be, even if it violate guidelines, time to give up". Whiffs of page-owning and simple interpersonal issues having obstructed consensus. You particularly could have found a way to word it where it is included in a way that all agree that it is just relevant facts that don't draw conclusions; as you agreed with me on the talk page, but refused to include on the article in a fair and NPOV way. But with no dialogue, there's no way you and I CAN come up with a compromise if all I'm told is "I've decided. Let it go." JohnKAndersen (talk) 03:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen


 * John, WP is not about looking for compromise. It's about publishing verifiable fact.  The compromise that comes from that is a neutral POV article that explains events without extrapolating on them.  Again - I DO believe that the prosecutor's union connections are involved in his decision, just as I'd believe that a Republican's NRA connections are part of why they vote for pro-gun legislation.  It's the nature of politics.  However, what I BELIEVE is not necessarily verifiable encyclopedic fact.  You seem to have a great deal of trouble in understanding this concept, but it's a key concept in editing a fact-base resource.  5minutes (talk) 12:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I have had to repeat myself because often my inputs were ignored with no compromise and often no response whatever, but plenty of personal attacks and profanity, and implications about editors that happen to agree with me. (There have been more than one; 5minutes agreed with me at one point, and Cheisu7 noted above, and others who WikiBold edited on the actual page.)

Meanwhile another editor has dropped in from time to time, made proclamations, edited arbitrarily while we were working on consensus, then announced they are done and leaving with no compromising. To make it perfectly clear, once again, I am NOT suggesting that there should be a link made between the Prosecutor and the unions charges being dropped and/or not brought. Simply as part of contextual info of a major public figure in this event, including that he is endorsed, since this entire article is ABOUT the union protests, just as the alleged assaulter had his union affiliation immediately pointed out, Crowder's conservative affiliations pointed out, I think it's worth merely mentioning the person's affiliations who at this point is attempting to end the issue. Additionally, his political affiliations, being an elected official, should never be hidden. At least in the normally used form of "(D)".

I do not understand a clear and concerted effort to to include every negative statement about Crowder, even if they are conjectural, but refusal to include relevant, provable, biographical facts about the person who refused to press charges and who conjectured about Croweder's intentions. It is NECK DEEP in POV; presenting only one side of the case rather than the balanced approach that is expected by an encylopedic source and the consensus procedure. The reliable sources issue is specious as it is on both the Prosecutor's website and the union's website, pointed on in numerous articles, etc. As far as what his opinion about the video (opinions I thought were to be excluded? We can't include the other side's opinions? Crowder's quotes about the union and why he is pressing charges and about the Prosecutor? To truly make it "facts only", saying "he refused to press charges" would keep it "facts only", since the rest of it is HIS interpretation, dripping with sarcasm, and his opinion alone. That carries absolute zero weight in court, just keeps it out of court for now; he would not be a witness to offer his subjective point of view.

So we're back to just facts. The problem on the talk page has been an extreme lack of compromise and assumption of good faith that is clearly spelled out in the guidelines about coming to consensus, for instance, offering different ideas that INCLUDE everyone's input and that everyone can agree with. As it is, it is worded to imply that the charges were without merit (in one man's totally objective opinion we are led to believe). THAT'S why including his affiliation, just like everyone else's in the article is noted, would balance and give sufficient information for a reader to decide on their own which scenario is more likely. Without it, misleading by omission results.

There were other details from reliable sources about people being injured in the tent collapse admittedly caused by the union protesters, among other details. One by one these were deleted to imply they caused no violence, even by their own admissions, which puts more weight to the Prosecutor's decision. "No one was hurt, not laws broken,right?" Wrong. They even pleaded guilty to FELONIES. There also were death threats, racial epithets, etc. All deleted to remove context of what led to the altercation (and the charges) that involved Crowder defending the tent that contained heating stoves, a food vendor with cooking appliances, women and elderly volunteers; all deleted to imply that the charges against the protesters had no merit. Going by the video alone and ignoring all the eye-witnesses, even from union members supporting Crowder's version of events not considered (or ignored). I think with the context of the protest in regard to Crowder. For anyone to make an informed opinion about this subject, I STRONGLY encourage you to watch the UNEDITED version on the article which supports the threats, intimidation, people crawling out from a collapsed tent, etc (sometimes from multiple angles). As always, I'm open for compromise to include everyone's input; the edits made now destroy the painstaking progress made over weeks and months (the polar opposite of consensus).JohnKAndersen (talk) 03:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen


 * Someone questioned reliable sources linking the Prosecutor's office with union issues in other situations. Even more relevant, here is just one RS demonstrating a relationship resulting from this very SAME protest; there are numerous others.

"On Dec. 6 — the first of the two days of major protests — eight people were arrested and charged with felonies in Ingham County’s 54A District Court, because they attempted to rush the Senate floor. All of them pleaded GUILTY in February to a misdemeanor charge and are scheduled to be sentenced in September."

"The three individuals arrested during the massive right-to-work protests at the Capitol on Dec. 11 won’t face criminal charges, Ingham County prosecutors have decided."

"After being made aware of the miscommunication and reviewing the criminal statute this past week, (Dunnings' Chief Asst DA) McCormick said prosecutors couldn’t find a crime that fit this particularly case...“We’re denying all the charges,” she said today."

"The determination means that ALL FORMAL CHARGES formal criminal charges stemming from (all of) the right-to-work demonstrations in December have been resolved." (Emphasis added)

That is just one reliable source of the Prosecutor's office dismissing ALL charges by ALL union members at this protest, even those that had been arrested and charged with felonies. This article includes about a dozen, even some who had pleaded guilty, but there are other RS articles with additional detail. (Btw, the legislators in the article ARE identified by party affiliation.) This should satisfy "second sources" of incidents and connections to the union from the Prosecutor.

And I'm not even suggesting including this information in the article...ONLY that he is simply endorsed by the local unions. So, does there need to be a whole new section included that shows this entire history in order to include that simple affiliation?

http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20130321/NEWS04/303210067/No-charges-against-3-arrested-right-work-protest-Dec-11


 * http://danaloeschradio.com/mi-prosecutor-lets-union-off-the-hook-in-crowder-case/ Cheisu7 (talk) 05:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the two of you don't seem to be reading what is being written. If you want to mention that Dunning has been supported or endorsed by unions, in any article other than one about Dunning himself, you need to show a source that mentions Dunning's union connections in that context. We don't need sources about Dunning dismissing charges against union members, and we don't need sources about Dunning being supported by unions - rather, we need one single source that mentions the union association in connection with the dismissals. Anything else is original synthesis at worst, and utterly irrelevant at best. The neutral point of view is not about "presenting both sides", or coming to a compromise every time editors disagree with each other. The neutral point of view is entirely about sticking to what reliable sources have mentioned, in context. When you invent a new side to a story, you are violating the neutral point of view. The only "sides" we care about, the only points of view that make it into an article, are the ones discussed in reliable sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The post above was completely reworded, so the response below will seem not to make sense. It was a simple matter of someone who is not really familiar with the source material misstating the case. I also dismiss the new post out of hand as it ignores previous info; but at this point debating it is moot, as the article now satisfies the issues that were being debated; consensus. :)JohnKAndersen (talk) 03:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen


 * (See the post above). Somebuy1221, you are so far off base about this subject...those of us deeply involved in it understand the incident, where, when, why it happened, who was involved and their respective affiliations. NO ONE is trying to connect Crowder to the unions. That post was in response to someone saying that if there was evidence in OTHER cases that the Prosecutor had acted improperly in the past in his dealings with unions, that it would provide context in order to simply MENTION that he is endorsed (NOT INCLUDE THE PAST INFORMATION). I would say reversing charges of people who had already pleaded GUILTY, without any judicial review of any kind, and the other actions in the articles show this. I was just offering what was asked for; previous shady activities. Those three felons/non-felons were at the same protest, and the charges were dropped on all OTHER union members that had been arrested or charged with vandalism, assault, intimidation, etc. EVERY SINGLE ONE. That's the background context, BUT I DO NOT WANT TO PUT THAT ON CROWDER'S PAGE, only the simple fact that he is endorsed by the local unions. For the moment, the Prosecutor's conjecture about Crowder's intentions has been changed to include a NPOV quote, which diminished the necessity to balance it with Dunnings' union ties. His other quote was an opinion that essentially charged, tried and convicted Crowder as being at fault for the WHOLE mess. Dunnings' original quote is just factual without his conjecture.JohnKAndersen (talk) 08:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersent


 * There's no reliable source that what happened in that case is in any way shady. Just your personal opinion, and the opinion of some blogger. You've made it very clear with this comment that you think you can read a source, draw conclusions, and add those conclusions to an article. And so we're back to the beginning: mentioning the union connections is at worst original synthesis, and at best utterly irrelevant. There is no more need to mention that the unions supported his campaign than there is to mention that Billy Bob's Craw stand supported his campaign. The only reason to add it in the article is to make a point, and there is no reliable source that makes that point. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, I just realized that some of this confusion was caused by my swapping Crowder and Dunning's names in my comment above. I have corrected that. My apologies. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, if we want to suggest, even with a nudge and a wink, that a public official has discharged their duties in any way that is less than proper, we need, as a bare minimum, strong and unambiguous sourcing that makes the same allegation. That would include a situation where a judge/proseuctor is alleged to have dealt with a case based on anything other than his understanding of the facts and the law. There's really no wriggle room on this one. Formerip (talk) 12:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I've carefully avoided reading this article to see which union you are talking about, since my own affiliations are a matter of public record. The point is that your belief that the endorsement of this politician (which is not the same as an affiliation with that union) by a union is relevant to the article, is original research and synthesis, and has no place here, per WP:NOR (not to mention our constraints on BLPs). -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  12:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, it seems as if we have come to an equitable compromise and the page is all the better, and more accurate, for it. The NAME of the union was never an intended addition. There were several "opinion", POV statements made about the main subject, Crowder, that made it seem like it was appropriate to include information that didn't leave the reader with a very slanted view. Now that those have been removed, and "just the facts" type statements made, alternate NPOV quotes replacing opinion-tainted ones, there is much less feeling to give "the other side" in order to balance. So even though the Prosecutor who has a log history of union "issues" as you see in the links above,  affiliations to them are NOT included, but anyone going to his website or reading the he released even those who had pleaded guilty can draw their own conclusions which are quite clear. This idea that overpowering and incontrovertible evidence is irrelevant is naive. Just because he isn't video-taped taking a bag with a $ sign on it doesn't mean that certain repeated, targeted, specific actions are irrelevant. People have been convicted of murder with less evidence than some editors require when they are either A)Biased or B)Stubborn and refuse to admit they MIGHT be wrong purely out of spite or pride, even when they agree in "talk" sections. In any case, the page now is much approved, thank everyone very much that offered constructive input, and I feel the two most involved editors have reached consensus....hallelujah!JohnKAndersen (talk) 03:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen
 * Your comments here, in which you repeatedly imply unethical or illegal activity by a living person with zero reliably-sourced supporting evidence, verge on violations of site policy. The goal here is not simply to develop an agreement between the two "most active" editors of the page, but rather to take on board feedback from outside editors. I'm not convinced you've made any effort to listen to or engage any of the feedback you've gotten here, except for that which reinforces your previously held viewpoint. MastCell Talk 18:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

War and oil
Please review these deletions. I do not believe they are neutral. Thank you. EllenCT (talk) 09:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * They appear neutral -- for gosh sake what do Palin's 2008 comments have to do with any of this?  Or for that matter most of this "synth by collection of unrelated quotes" to the article which already includes the topic?   And Cheney's words: . And that flow of resources, obviously, belongs to the Iraqi people, needs to be put to use by the Iraqi people for the Iraqi people and that will be one of our major objectives. seem to be on a "D'oh" level indeed -- for it by itself negates most of the attempted POV push that the US mainly sought to make money off of Iraq (which it appears in retrospect never occurred, nor did the US make any actual attempt to loot the oil).   Sorry - the deletions appear quite proper from here. Collect (talk) 12:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Do you think it is unnoteworthy that there are sources in agreement from across the political spectrum? Palin need not be quoted, but summarized. Perhaps by someone who understands her nuance. Who has that kind of ability? In any case, here are additional sources:


 * "Correction: In this article, The Daily inaccurately attributed a comment equating countries in the Arab world to gas stations to retired Army General John Abizaid. The comment was actually made by New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman."


 * "The man once regarded as the world's most powerful banker has bluntly declared that the Iraq war was 'largely' about oil."


 * "The U.S. and U.K. went to war against Iraq because of the Middle East country's oil reserves, an adviser to British Prime Minister Tony Blair said."


 * "Tony Blair today derided as 'conspiracy theories' accusations that a war on Iraq would be in pursuit of oil"


 * Please let me know your thoughts. EllenCT (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Psychoanalysis and the pseudoscience category

 * We have an Arbcom decision that has already decided this matter, so this thread needs to be closed. If you question that, then discuss it in the appropriate section below. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

There is an issue as to whether putting psychoanalysis in the pseudoscience category would be an issue of NPOV. As far as I can tell, if reliable sources criticize an article for being pseudoscience it should be listed. CartoonDiablo (talk) 09:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * CartoonDiablo is currently refusing to respect WP:BRD on this and has not used the talk page to make a case. He has not listed reliable sources to support his view.  In any disputed issue we have to look to the balance of what the sources say, and in any event editors should respect the use of the talk page.   Not the first time we have seen this combative and game playing attitude from this editor  Snowded  TALK 09:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This discussion is not about user behavior (for which I did go to talk (diff) and did add another RS (diff)) and so far as I can tell BRD favors my position at this point. But the point is even if a single reliable source accuses it of pseudoscience it should go into the category. CartoonDiablo (talk) 09:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've never seen that "single reliable source" rule before and in many another discussion a balance is required. Your diff is just a statement that you are right, you are not engaging on talk and you are edit warring so it may become a behaviour issue.  However lets see if other editors agree with the "single source" idea.  If so there are going to be a lot of other articles to be changed :-)  Snowded  TALK 09:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There is obviously more than one RS saying that in the article but regardless I don't see it bringing about a large change. Very few science related topics have RSs accusing it of being a pseudoscience at all which is what makes it significant. CartoonDiablo (talk) 09:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Then show them on the talk page. We should note that the advocates of CBT (and you have been one) take this particular line about psychoanalysis and its not without controversy.   Snowded  TALK 09:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I took a stroll through Category:Pseudoscience, and what I notice is that literally every article I saw is on a subject that is widely recognized as pseudoscience. For the purpose of consistency with how the category is used, it seems that a small if significant accusation that psychoanalysis is pseudoscience should not necessarily place it in that category. To quote from the category itself, "This category comprises highly notable topics that are generally considered pseudoscientific by the scientific community (such as astrology) and topics that, while perhaps notable, have very few followers and are obviously pseudoscientific (such as the modern belief in a flat Earth). The pejorative term itself is contested by various groups for various reasons." Again, I don't think psychoanalysis fits the bill here. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll list the overwhelming sources later but even a few seem to fit the bill. Compare the Evolution and intelligent design articles, in the former there are none while in ID there's only a few sources and it seems to be that way for all the articles. CartoonDiablo (talk) 10:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not the number of sources that matters, but the prominence of that viewpoint in the scientific community. You only need a few for ID because literally zero mainstream publications think ID is actual science. For psychoanalysis, on the other hand, there is an entire body of mainstream science that treats it as something real. So it's not a matter of showing that you have any number of sources that psychoanalysis is pseudoscience. You need to show it's the major viewpoint. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * According to Science (the journal) it's on the fringes of modern psychology; according to the mainstream sources, it's not a part of mainstream science. In fact, Nature points out that all of "Clinical psychology ... is drifting away from science". IRWolfie- (talk) 11:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

My statement is here. I think this category is highly POV. Not only in this article. It displays a narrow unterstanding of philosophy of science. CartoonDiablo is a user I can't take seriously anymore. He fights the psychoanalysis by using dreadful arguments and reveals a minor understanding of scientiffic fields and the wikipedia. I think, he should banned for this an other POV-wars. -- WSC ® 10:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Claiming psychoanalysis is science is rather dubious. The sources I've shown show how it is treated by the most reliable scientific journals; with apparent disdain, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if something is treated with disdain, that does not mean it is pseudoscience. Because this is a perjorative word, don't we need a clearly expressed scientific consensus that it is pseudoscience to describe it as such as per WP:LABEL?  Otherwise, we use neutral, unloaded language.  Also, whilst you mentioned a source, you didn't link to anything we could verify. WykiP (talk) 12:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

''We have an Arbcom decision that has already decided this matter, so this thread needs to be closed. If you question that, then discuss it in the appropriate section below. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)''

Scientific consensus on psychoanalysis as Pseudoscience
Scientific sources that considered the field pseudoscience:
 * Karl Popper (based on secondary analysis of his views) (1990)
 * Steven Pinker (1997) How The Mind Works
 * Kevin B. MacDonald (1996) Psychoanalysis as religion, cult, and political movement
 * Noam Chomsky (2003) Interview
 * Stephen Jay Gould (1981) The Mismeasure of Man
 * John F. Kihlstrom (1999) Is Freud Still Alive? No, Not Really
 * Robert F. Bornstein (American Psychological Association) (2005) - "The Dependent Patient: Diagnosis, Assessment, and Treatment"
 * Hans Eysenck (1985) Decline and Fall of the Freudian Empire

Scientific sources that considered Freudian theory pseudoscience but that it was useful in appropriating concepts for modern usage. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Drew Western (1998) "The Scientific Legacy of Sigmund Freud: Toward a Psychodynamically Informed Psychological Science"
 * Jason and Greenberg (1996) "Freud scientifically reappraised: Testing the theories and therapy"
 * CartoonDiablo, I had a lot of patients with you but your distortion of facts is unbareble. I don't deny that psychoanalysis is called pseudoscience by considerable sources. I criticize the use of a catagory inside of wikipedia. Do you understand the difference? -- WSC ® 19:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be a question of the category, not the article. The category can be nominated for deletion but it should not be prevented from being used because you disagree with it especially when you agree that considerable sources call it as such. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Even this point is unclear! Grünbaum deny the pseudoscientific status of psychoanalysis. He described also the falsifiability of it. Do you now want do deciede who's right? Popper or Grünbaum? But wait! You want! Right? -- WSC ® 19:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And several of those sources are polemical in nature - Pinker is subject to multiple attacks as is Chomsky from Cognitive Science and elsewhere. Its reviews of the field that would need, not protagonists.  Academic anyway no editorial support for CD so we might as well close  Snowded  TALK 20:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * They are reliable sources for science. The one essay was even reprinted in the The Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, this is beyond clear. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry Snowded, he got us! Theres a "Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience" edited by Dr William F. Williams as article in Wikipedia. Let's pack up and go home. This argumentation is so cleare I can't find any arguments anymore. Thats it! He pulped us. -- WSC ® 20:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah well, given normal cycles CBT will end up there soon enough and then we can see if there is a consistent position Snowded  TALK 20:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * First I'd like an apology for WSC's derisive comment, second it's even in the List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Review of some of the authors/citations above:
 * Popper: "based on secondary analysis of his views". Does that mean "an opinion" of what was in Popper's mind (view)?
 * Chomsky does not use 'pseudoscience' in interview.
 * Gould does not use the word pseudoscience or psychoanalysis in Mismeasure.
 * Pinker uses "pseudoscience" only once in * reference to "orbs, luminous vapors, auras..." and never uses the word psychoanalysis in the text.
 * Kihlstrom's does not use pseudoscience in article.
 * Bornstein does not use the word.
 * Western doesn't use the word.
 * Can we suggest then there is any "consensus"? This is an example where citations are not being scrutinized enough on Wikipedia leading to OR, POV, WP:DUE. Why would the list be offered when the word is not being used? Eturk001 (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

''We have an Arbcom decision that has already decided this matter, so this thread needs to be closed. If you question that, then discuss it in the appropriate section below. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)''


 * No, we haven't a arbcom decision. What's your next argument? -- WSC ® 12:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * What part of my instructions do you not understand? Discuss it in the appropriate section below. The Arbcom does NOT use psychoanalysis as an example of pseudoscience, but as "questionable science." Ergo, they state clearly that it must not be placed in Category:Pseudoscience, yet may contain content about the issue. Now go below and discuss it there. -- Brangifer(talk) 07:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thusdays I don't follow any instrucitons. Thusdays I always think for myself. As you can read below, the Arbcom doesn't decide anything. And if they do, it has no consequence for our discussion here. Sorry, but you have to conceive new arguments. It would be nice and easy to use the Arbcom as excuse for having no arguments on this discussion. But it failed. Now it's on you to justify the catagory. Or try it again at the weekend. -- WSC ® 07:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I suspect you mean "Tuesday," but whatever the case may be, a collaborative approach would suit you well. I'm on your side on this one, and so is the Arbcom decision. That's my point: The category must not be applied to psychoanalysis. As far as whether an Arbcom decision still applies, yes, it trumps our opinions until a new Arbcom decision overrides it. Any attempt to override it would result in a new Arbcom proceeding, but the more likely outcome to avoid such a disruptive process would be to block or ban anyone so foolish as to think they are wiser than Arbcom. Even without the discretionary sanctions created for alternative medicine/fringe/pseudoscience issues, that could happen, but the discretionary sanctions give individual sysops/admins the right to do it on the spot, without (lengthy) due process (other than a warning), to anyone who appears to be disruptive, and your IDHT campaign places you near the top of the list for such action. You need to drop the stick and walk away. Find something more useful to do here, because you aren't getting anywhere. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 1. I ment tuesday! 2. Do you think, when a user gives another a instrution to discuss what he wants is some kind of collaborative approach? 3. The Arbcom ain't god! If some wikipedians belief such a institution are able to decide contentual questions, they shoud ask themself if they really understand what we are doing here. We had such a case in de.wikipedia. The german Arbcom (de:Wikipedia:Schiedsgericht) decides a name of a Lemma (morphology). It was de:Beschneidung weiblicher Genitalien. Last year the hell broke loos when some competent users (including me) gain attention. Now the Lemma is de:Weibliche Genitalverstümmelung. The Arbcom is a usefull instance to resolve conflicts betwenn users. But the Arbcom is overrated if they have to resolve contentual issues. 4. Is that a threat? Do you threaten me? Is this your understanding of collaborative work? I've made the experience, that some Admins are not only bloodthirsty zombies. Some of them are able to estimate such a case and notice whose arguments are based on scientific sources and whose are only a mishmash of misunderstood wikipedia policies and sophistry. I have faith in the admins of en.wikipedia... and a prayer on my lips. -- WSC ® 17:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Detailed analysis
Just so you all know where I am coming from: My personal opinion on psychoanalysis is that it is clearly a pseudoscience, though for historical and sociological reasons it is not generally recognised as such. At this point it is not clear what will happen. There are some encouraging signs that it might mature into a proper science, but it is certainly possible that it will be generally seen as a pseudoscience before that happens.

But here is my analysis as to the pseudoscience category and the psychoanalysis article:


 * Pseudoscience is relevant to psychoanalysis, as there is mainstream criticism of psychoanalysis making the connection, and even some of the criticism coming out of psychoanalsysis itself just stops short of using the word. (I am thinking of de:Martin Altmeyer.)
 * Conversely, though not particularly important for the present question, psychoanalysis is relevant to pseudoscience as one of the original theories that Popper tried to distinguish from proper science when he coined the term, and one of the standard test cases for the various precise definitions of pseudoscience. (Each time someone comes up with a new definition, people immediately write about the question: Where does it put psychoanalysis?)
 * Psychoanalysis is listed under List of topics characterized as pseudoscience, and ever since that article was renamed from its original title "List of pseudosciences", there has been little controversy about that.
 * Psychoanalysis cites Popper and Cioffi:
 * "Karl Popper argued that psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience because its claims are not testable and cannot be refuted; that is, they are not falsifiable."
 * "Frank Cioffi, author of Freud and the Question of Pseudoscience, cites false claims of a sound scientific verification of the theory and its elements as the strongest basis for classifying the work of Freud and his school as pseudoscience."


 * Psychoanalysis is mentioned as an example of pseudoscience given by Popper, in Pseudoscience.
 * From WP:Categories: "Categorizations appear on article pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate. A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession [...]"
 * From WP:NPOV: "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to [...] categories [...] as well."
 * From WP:NPOV: "Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution. [...] Another approach is to specify or substantiate the statement, by giving those details that actually are factual." I wouldn't call the statement that psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience biased, but the principle is generally applied to statements that are not uncontroversial in the most appropriate mainstream sources. That's clearly the case here. Attribution is essentially impossible with a categorisation. Specification or substantiation could theoretically be done via an appropriate subcategory such as "unfalsifiable theories". Neither seems to be a reasonable option here, so the categorisation is not possible. (This interpretation of WP:NPOV is in line with the quotation above from WP:Categories.)
 * WP:NPOV refers to WP:FRINGE for detailed guidance. It roughly classifies questionable theories as follows: 1. Obvious pseudoscience, 2. Generally considered pseudoscience, 3. Questionable science, 4. Alternative theoretical formulations. Topics of types 1 and 2 can be put into Category:Pseudoscience. ("1. [...] may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification." "2. [...] may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.") Topics of types 3 and 4 can not be put into the category. ("3. [...] should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point.") This classification dates back to an old Arbcom decision (2006) which was also explicit that psychoanalysis falls under type 3 and was a bit more explicit than the present text that type 3 topics can't be put into the category: "Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized." See WP:ARBPS. This case is dated but still highly relevant: What (not) to put into the pseudoscience category was one of the key questions.

Conclusion: Though the criticism of psychoanalysis as a pseudoscience is highly notable and relevant, according to long-standing principles which were developed with an eye to this special case, this is not sufficient to put its article into the pseudoscience category. Hans Adler 12:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry I've read through List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience this list. And I'm horrified. The Attachment Theory in Psychology is called pseudoscience (it's Attachement Therapy). The source are stage magician and other sources are websites as [quackwatch]. This is pure POV and no serious basis for discussion. I put a POV-box in this naive "List" and hope, no one will read this nonsens ever.
 * Futher it's true that Popper called psychoanalysis a pseudoscience. It is one of his examples of pseudoscience and falsifiability. But Adolf Grünbaum, another main character of critical rationalism and the main critic of psychoanalysis, described, that psychoanalysis is very well falsifiable. But that is not the point. The point is, that these category is nonsense. Other philosophical schools, as positivism or analytical philosophy also use terms like pseudoscience with other requirements. So pseudoscience arn't well defined. Futher pseudoscience just testify that some schools of philosophy would call a discipline a pseudoscience. Not all of them. Other philosophers, like Theodor Adorno grouded there theories on psychoanalysis, for example. Futher you always need a well established source to call a discipline a pseudoscience. Let's have a look at the category:pseudoscience and pick a example. Theres Attachment Therapy in it and it is explict called pseudoscience in the article. I don't think, that Attachement Therapy is a good therapy, but to call it pseudosciens you need more than a textbook from other psychologist like the article does. They use the term pseudoscience very naive and don't go back to the philosophical roots of this theory. In other cases like E-rays no serious scientist or philosopher ever gives himself the trouble to estimate that theory. Maybe some sceptics? E-ray arn't pseudoscience e-rays are pure nonsense. Wikipedians estimated it as pseudoscience. Thats WP:OR. And the category is full of such OR.  -- WSC ® 15:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The list certainly has problems. Not the least of them – and it has this in common with the pseudoscience category – is that its motivation and to some extent actual use (branding topics as pseudoscience) differs significantly from the justification for its existence (encyclopedic information about the pseudoscience debate, a legitimate philosophical topic). There is quite a bit of POV pushing going on there, both to include topics that don't really belong there or paint them more negatively than appropriate (currently this problem seems to exist with hypnosis and probably also hypnotherapy), and to exclude topics that clearly belong on the list.
 * I basically agree with your concerns about sourcing claims about relatively notable topics to non-scholarly anti-pseudoscience/anti-fringe activists. For little discussed topics this is sometimes unavoidable, and so it is general practice to use such activist sources when most editors basically agree that the activists are right. However, some editors take this as a licence to use such weak sources to criticise highly notable topics that are not so criticised by the scholarly mainstream, or if they have been, in preference to better sources. That's a problem.
 * Your example, attachment therapy: That field clearly has serious problems of an ethical nature. E.g., the interpretation of attachment therapy by a group of German therapists apparently amounted to serious physical abuse of autistic children. I don't know enough about the field to say that it's definitely not a pseudoscience, but (1) such ethical issues are orthogonal to a characterisation of the field as pseudoscience, yet professionaly anti-fringers tend to use pseudoscience as a generalised accusation against everything that is somehow questionable, and (2) it takes proper scholarship to determine whether the problems pertain to the field or only to some of its proponents/practicians. Therefore I agree that the sourcing for this entry is too weak.
 * Regarding psychoanalysis as a pseudoscience, and also your general comment that we should not have such a list because pseudoscience does not have a generally agreed, perfect, objectively verifiable definition: The last point is clearly an example of the continuum fallacy. And as to unfalsifiability of psychoanalysis, that's not something that we can consider objectively wrong and the accusation is highly notable. Therefore we can and should report the accusation, regardless of whether others contradicted this (which we could also report, though). And IMO psychoanalysis, in spite of some claims that are falsifiable in principle, has severe tendencies of improper immunisation against falsification. What is more, Grünbaum's book "Is Psychoanalysis a Pseudo-Science?" is part of a fruitful philosophical debate on whether psychoanalysis is to be characterised as a pseudoscience. That's more than enough to satisfy the inclusion standards of a list of topics that have been notably so characterised. And as a result of that debate, we now have more refined definitions of pseudoscience, some of which do cover psychoanalysis. Hans Adler 19:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You said it! Pseudoscience is a combat term. And I don't want to defend Attachment Therapy as method. But that doesn't justify the catagory. As I try to describe CartoonDiablo above, the status of Psychoanalysis isn't cleare. Even in critical rationalism. Grünbaum is a important representative of it but also disagree with Popper (and nevertheless not gentle with psychoanalysis). Such issues arn't solvable by using categories. It's not a benifit to esthablish catagories which are not able to give an overview in a debate but distort a issue. Thats why the catagory isn't usefull. -- WSC ® 20:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The category makes sense for topics such as Time Cube or crystal healing. There is a well established demarcation line between what goes in and what doesn't: cold fusion clearly doesn't belong, homeopathy barely belongs, and psychoanalysis doesn't. Pseudoscience being a fighting word, the category is asking for trouble. But on Wikipedia that's rarely considered sufficient reason to suppress an article or category. Hans Adler 20:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No it doesen't make sence anyway. Crystal healing for example, is an esoteric issue. Not a scientific. Futher theres still no clear definition of pseudoscience. Sociologist makes research about such esoteric teachings. Do they estimate esoteric as pseudoscience? Thats just superficial and a denial of reality. The term pseudoscience is unsuitable as catagory. -- WSC ® 21:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that crystal healing is more esoteric than pseudoscientific, but it is really both. A better example might have been bioresonance therapy, a prototypical pseudoscience. Hans Adler 21:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

When all is said and done -- nothing that is not "empirically provable" is "science." Religion is "not science". Numerology is "not science". Economics is "not science." Philosophy is "not science" and virtually anything to do with how or why people act as they do is "not science." Labelling any such as "pseudo-science" is, moreover, of no real value to anyone. Why not restrict the term and label to such things as someone might reasonably expect to be "hard science" which is empirically disproven as being of value? Thus stopping a huge amount of useless discussion and drama on Wikipedia. (BTW, since no one really claims Astrology to be "science" the label "pseudoscience" is pretty useless, folks.) Collect (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Pseudoscience means, roughly, activity which pretends to be science but isn't. When we categorise astrology as a pseudoscience, we are not thinking of newspaper horoscopes (they are just entertainment) but of what astrologists consider 'proper', 'scientific' horoscopes. Therefore astrology is. Excluding it on the grounds that nobody can reasonably expect it to be hard science would take us too far from mainstream definitions of pseudoscience. I would consider this original research. Hans Adler 21:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the extended commentary on the parenthetical remark - but you do not affect my position that we can reduce drama vastly by simply placing a rational limit on what we label or categorise as "pseudoscience" and that reducing drama on Wikipedia is a "good idea." Anythng regarding human thought or behaviour is pretty much guaranteed not to be empirical science. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I started a list at User:John Carter/Pseudoscience articles of all the articles contained in an encyclopedia of Pseudoscience. Guess what, "psychoanalytic theory" appears as one of them. From what I remember, that article at least suggests that psychoanalytic theory is in part based on ideas of questionable scientific accuracy, and thus qualifies as a form of pseudoscience. I could check the source itself, or alternately others could, because I have noticed that some of these encyclopedias of various topics include topics which do not directly fall within their titular scope. Augustine of Hippo, for instance, is included in an encyclopedia of heresies because he spoke out against some "heresies", not because he himself argued anything "heretical". But, based on at least what I think I remember of the article there, I can't see any real objections to its inclusion in the category, based on what I remember of its being included in that source. John Carter (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * On Quackwatch; Quackwatch is a very large organization with over 1000 scientific advisors. It is a highly acclaimed, and very reliable: Quackwatch. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Also: : "Anyone reading Sigmund Freud's original works might well be seduced by the beauty of his prose, the elegance of his arguments and the acuity of his intuition. But those with a grounding in science will also be shocked by the abandon with which he elaborated his theories on the basis of essentially no empirical evidence. This is one of the main reasons why Freudian-style psychoanalysis has long since fallen out of fashion: its huge expense — treatment can stretch over years — is not balanced by evidence of efficacy." : "Freudian psychoanalysis is far from the mainstream in modern mental health care." IRWolfie- (talk) 11:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You have shown that it is not "mainstream hard science" - but that, it appears, is not the same as having Wikipedia specifically label and characterise it as "pseudoscience" which is a matter of judgement, not one of absolutes.  In the case at hand, it appears yur arguments have not swayed a consensus of editors in this venue.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm actually fine with the category not being there because I doubt many people even look at the categories. I'm making points for the record, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Categories are a navigation device. Someone interested in pseudoscience will go to it to find articles about pseudosciences.  They do not want it to be cluttered by every discipline that has been called pseudoscience, which probably would include all the social sciences.  TFD (talk) 06:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Where to start? Maybe the removal of the category and list article, as suggested? "Pseudoscience" is a declaration and list-gathering editing style on a slippery slope that has slid too far without preserving Wikipedia's voice.Eturk001 (talk) 04:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * When we look at Oxford, Websters, et al, we see that "pseudo-" means "false" or "to "deceive", i.e. pseudo-intellectual, which is clearly intended as an insult. Pseudoscience is a pejorative term and not scientific, if science is the aim. Is the term the desired voice of Wikipedia? Does a "list" really serve readers directly or a certain community? The caution of creating a separate "Criticism" section in an article is that it becomes a "troll magnet". What does creating a "list" of all things "not deemed by several authors to be science" serve? "Pseudoscience" might be considered language of editorializing or even a weasel word. Is psychoanalysis "false" or meant to "deceive"? Maybe we can agree that a dictionary can begin to be a first source on language usage. (Occam's razor?)
 * It seems that the grammatical style being used when "pseudoscience" is the POV is quite unscientific. Absolutist declarations are made such as, " IS ", as if it is an absolute truth, without question. True science is humble about truths. NIH is a great example, where continually they use cautious language and will say, "may", "suggests", or "more study is needed". This is a curious voice, the voice of science. When study does not show results, science realizes the studies may be flawed, insufficient, etc. Science is fallible. It realized it may not know how to test some things. This is scientific and style reflecting "scientific inquiry" and curiosity rather than declaration of truths. Declaring that something is pseudo- (false) because it has not been tested enough is not scientific, it's just pejorative, and again not a good voice for Wikipedia. If the aim is science, be scientific in language and suggestion. If science will categorize psychoanalysis, let it be scientific in language.
 * Without finer discernment of levels, WP:ARBPS is being ignored, as noted. This seems a style issue of generalization, to the level of Logical Fallacy. The argument is that one person writes a paper that says "psychoanalysis didn't get results for depression in study" (maybe because of technique or understanding), for example. This is generalized to "it never works for depression", up to "it doesn't work in psychology", then to "it doesn't work anywhere and is not a science". Again, this is gravely UNscientific and declarative. There doesn't seem to be care for finer classifications: it's either science or false/deceitful. That's the black and white style of opinion journalism not scholarly encyclopedic description. Editors can take more time to craft precise articles reflecting subtle Aristotelian categorization. There's a large vocabulary between science, theory, esoteric, folk legend... to false and deceiving. Psychoanalysis may not be a reproducible, easily testable, or even a time efficient methodology. That hardly throws it immediately into a pseudoscience genus.
 * All citations of pseudoscience need full text carefully read. The entire "list of pseudosciences" needs careful review. Another generalization or OR problem? Long lists of citations can be given to overwhelm the system. Full text may not be available. Just one example in this Talk: Noam Chomsky (2003) Interview. Read the full text. Chomsky says, "I do not think psychoanalysis has a scientific basis." The word "pseudoscience" is not in the full text. Also, the words "I think" are very important to the context, i.e. opinion. Why is it in the list above? It is a huge disservice to Wikipedia readers that so many claims of pseudoscience are supported with citations they won't be read. There seems to be a systemic bias that has an author's words morph into the word "pseudoscience".
 * Lack of studies is not a proof: An implication can be suggested to readers that "it's not studied much so it's false", when the simple data may be the expense of a double-blind, MRI machine, etc. study is cost prohibitive. No conspiracy, just market reality. Does Wikipedia's voice want to declare: "if thou hast not funding thou are not science?" The reality may be that human creativity is outstripping research budgets. The defunded university system cannot test everything.
 * Economics, social "sciences", all of psychology soon could be labeled "pseudoscience" without a clear set of criteria. There just needs to be one skeptic that publishes an article. Could anything that requires humanity (intuition, intentions, communication, etc.) be considered pseudoscience because testing methods are still too far behind? Are Maslow's Hierarchy theory and Jung's Synchronicity also to be labeled pseudoscience because they are difficult or expensive to test? MIT is beginning to do study on inference. It will be a large budget of time and money before simple ideas can be suggested to support decade’s old theory. Even then science won't declare a truth.
 * Criticism is a human part of inquiry but not a proof of fault. Are the criticism citations science or opinion pieces? This also needs to be reviewed in each citation. To declare decisively that psychoanalysis "IS" pseudoscience is a logical fallacy leap from stating that several authors "said it in a paper" compared to the 99.9% of scientists that didn't need to say anything.
 * Quackwatch is one person's web site: Stephen Barrett, M.D. The non-profit was dissolved in 2008. The funding page states clearly "I", indicating it is one person's POV earning income from those supportive of the POV. Citing this as a source is questionable. I realize it's getting difficult to decide on a "reliable source" these days now that it is so easy to print a magazine or book. Again, several citations don’t mean truth. That's not scientific.


 * Yes, we absolutely want to represent our best reliable sources and tell the reader that a not-very-scientific field of study, one that avoids the scientific method, is pseudoscience. Your detailed arguments above are interesting but not relevant; your target should be all the people who publish scholarly works naming and describing pseudoscience. Wikipedia uses WP:Reliable sources, not arguments from editors. Binksternet (talk) 05:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, but there are relevant and reliable sources who suggest that psychoanalysis is a science. And of course there are eliable and relevant sources who don't even question the scientific state of psychoanalysis. Who's right? You? -- WSC ® 07:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Let us rely on the English language as being a prime reliable source, even though authors take creative license to invent their own definitions. Oxford:"not genuine, sham, pretentious, insincere." from Greek pseudēs 'false'. WP:LABEL: "The prefix pseudo- indicates that something is false or spurious, which may be debatable." The usage of pseudo- in any article outside science in Wikipedia would be considered Words_that_may_introduce_bias. Labeling any person in an article as "pseudo-intellectual" would clearly be POV, opinion, and simply pejorative. Giving a quote using the word, with authors name and citation, may barely be acceptable, but then Undue weight would be given to that authors opinion. This lengthy debate is giving undue weight to the fringe terminology of pseudoscience.


 * On CartoonDiablo's above list of 10 authors who "considered the field 'pseudoscience'", how many used the specific word 'pseudoscience' specifically about psychoanalysis? Can the word be found? It was previously noted that Chomsky did not use the word in that article. Gould does not use the word pseudoscience or psychoanalysis in Mismeasure. Pinker uses "pseudoscience" only once in reference to "orbs, luminous vapors, auras..." and never uses the word psychoanalysis. That's just the first four citations I took the time to check. Is the entire list a pseudo-list? This is an example of many WP topics continually being labeled as pseudoscience where the citations do not reflect the POV bias. It's not just OR, it's mischaracterizing authors and their text to forward a POV. Eturk001 (talk) 01:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems that the general case of whether or not there should be a category of pseudoscience makes the individual case moot.


 * Describing something as pseudoscience when it is a minority viewpoint (as indicated by the reliable sources) is clearly against WP policy. WP:DUE says:
 * Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views.


 * It seems some people are regarding the concept of "pseudoscience" as the opposite of scientific.  The opposite of scientific is actually "unscientific".
 * Our own article on pseudoscience states that something can only be a pseudoscience when it is misleadingly presented as being science. If we are making pseudoscientific synonymous with unscientific, we should edit that article.  However, it lists a number of  reliable source definitions  that support the existing view.


 * If we go by this existing definition, pseudoscientific refers to the presentation of some apparent phenomenon as science. Others might present that same phenomenon without any scientific connotations.  For example, past life hypnosis might be presented as scientifically validated, or merely an interesting and fun 'trip'.  The former is pseudoscientific, the latter is not.  When, then would past life hypnosis become a pseudoscience?  My own use of pseudoscience implies that the overwhelming majority of its presentation of is pseudoscientific, but I cannot assume that everyone has the same definition.


 * Likewise, as "pseudoscience" has multiple definitions, it is highly confusing for Wikipedia to pick one and not explain to the casual reader which it is.


 * This categorisation makes something into a black & white issue. We are forced to describe something as either a pseudoscience or not a pseudoscience.
 * No matter which definition we use, intelligent design is clearly much more pseudoscientific than psychoanalysis can be. Categorisation leaves no room for this nuanced point of view.


 * As "pseudoscience" is perjorative as per WP:LABEL, this is an especially unfortunate categorisation.

So, because it's not clear to the causal Wikipedia reader what pseudoscience means and because we cannot include that definition on the same page as the article on the pseudoscience, it should be removed. The category being perjorative makes this very important. Can someone PM me when this is being considered please.

Secondly, from personal experience of hanging around skeptics (one being Derren Brown, to namedrop), criticising woo woo stuff can become a pastime, even a profitable one. I'd cite Dawkins as a well-known example (I prefer Randi who prefers to let science do the talking). Whether or not this attempt to classify psychoanalysis as a pseudoscience is motivated by an anti-psychoanalysis POV, I suspect there is a widespread vested interest in abusing this term. We all know that Wikipedia is subject to edit wars when there is any vested interest. To allow this categorisation to continue would be to waste thousands of hours of Wikipedians' time.

For some of the same reasons, I want to add that we need clear guidelines on relevant pages (perhaps WP:MEDRS?) on the use of perjorative terms like pseudoscience, as it is featured in the lead of Psychoanalysis and probably dozens of other articles. From WP:LABEL, they are "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." WykiP (talk) 11:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * We have an Arbcom decision that has already decided this matter, so this thread needs to be closed. If you question that, then discuss it in the appropriate section below. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Arbcom decision decides this matter
I agree with the position to not use the PS category for psychoanalysis, but that decision is based on the PS Arbcom. Otherwise psychoanalysis is often described/labeled/characterized as pseudoscience, but that doesn't override the Arbcom decision for using the PS "category" on the article. The Arbcom decision still allows ("requires"... as always ) us to follow the sources, and thus psychoanalysis is listed at the List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. We do document that it is often characterized as pseudoscience, which is not the same as categorizing or classifying it as an absolute pseudoscience. We just document that RS have done so. That doesn't settle the issue at all. Whether it is or is not is another matter entirely. We just follow the sources.

Here is the box used to notify of the PS Arcom decision:

Note the first two of the four groupings allow for using the PS Category, but psychoanalysis falls in the third grouping ("questionable science") and we must not use the Category for it. It is even mentioned as an example! We can (and must) still document that some RS (of many types, including scientific skeptics) do call it a pseudoscience. Some of those RS are very notable and controversial, but we still use them, even if we don't like them. That's the Wikipedian way.

BTW, attempts to defend pseudoscientific subjects and fight against the use of the term pseudoscience have been such a problem that the Arbcom has special "discretionary sanctions" which can be applied to such editors:

So....beware. Editors have been banned or blocked very quickly, and any admin can do it.

As far as pejorative terms, Wikipedia is uncensored and we don't care a flying hoot whether a term is pejorative or not, the only exception being in BLPs. There we are a bit more careful, but even then, if RS use a pejorative term, we use it too, but not in Wikipedia's voice. We use the source's voice, and when doing so we do not censor the source. Editorializing and editorial censorship are very unwikipedian. We must present things in the same manner and spirit as the sources. If a source presents a subject with a bite or punch to it, we try to preserve the source's tone and convey it the way the RS does. Doing otherwise violates proper use of the source and actually misrepresents it. Editors aren't allowed to do that. The same obviously applies if a source is favorable.

We are obviously not required to use pejorative terms when they are unnecessary, but we should not avoid them when they are the proper term to use. We don't exclude any words in the dictionary from coverage here, nor the concepts and controversies associated with them. The deciding factor is how RS use them. There is no question that the word "pseudoscience" is often used in a decidedly pejorative manner. That is something we should document and not shy away from.

This really freaks out believers in those ideas and practices to which the term is applied, and understandably so, but that is of no concern to us. Using the word in the lede at Homeopathy has probably been the biggest battle of this type. Every true believer and quack has tried to get it deleted, but because it is one of the most notable examples of grossly pseudoscientific piffle, and myriad RS describe it as pseudoscience, we document that fact and don't hide it. (It appears that the quacks have succeeded at getting it deleted from the lede at present, but the article is still in the category, which is proper.)

We cannot whitewash Wikipedia articles out of concern for the feelings of such people. We are not allowed to censor reality to appease the feelings of readers or believers in pseudoscience. We must objectively document "the sum total of human knowledge," which is the primary goal of Wikipedia. All existing encyclopedias have been censored, but this is a totally different encyclopedia. Everything notable gets covered here. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Based on this Arbcom, the word 'pseudoscience' should not be used: "Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized." Thus, the term "pseudoscience" should not appear in the article. Note key word: allege. Psychoanalysis should not be "characterized" or generally listed in the pseudoscience category or any lists furthering that POV or 'characterization'. If the term is explicitly used in RS then it may be cited as direct usage, by that author, BUT following DUE. To put psychoanalysis on List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience when one author, Karl Popper is cited, gives undue weight to Popper when balanced against thousands of authors who have not used the term. We will be hard-pressed to find authors investing resources to fight allegations and specifically state that psychoanalysis is "not a pseudoscience". Absence of literature against allegations does not prove allegations to be true. It just needs better categorization in science. Wikipedia drifts into the realm of political rhetoric when allegations by a few authors guides editor's attention to having to disprove the allegation. This is a 'hasty generalization' logical fallacy. The continued usage of listing numerous citations that do not use the term pseudoscience (see CartoonDiablo above) is POV, OR, and labeling. Arbcom says to not use the term. Eturk001 (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Not quite... the term "pseudoscience" may be used in the article... but only if directly attributed (saying "Dr. Ima Expert has called psychoanalysis pseudoscience  " is OK... saying "Psychoanalysis is pseudoscience  " is not). As for Categorizing (which is what this thread is about) I read the Arbcom decision as a clear indication that psychoanalysis should not be included in that category.Blueboar (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia and psychoanalysis have no feelings. It is not a question of feelings. However, "pejorative" means "expressing contempt or disapproval" and is not a correct voice for Wikipedia, though it may be cited as a quote by another author's voice. Calling things "false", "fake", is an opinion, POV, of an author not a fact. We want to "avoid stating opinions as facts" and "these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice." Eturk001 (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * We don't give a flying hoot about feelings IF a RS has used a pejorative word. We agree that such terms are always cited using a RS. No problem. If mainstream RS are in wide agreement that a subject is pseudoscience, and it qualifies as part of one of the first two groupings, we can even use Wikipedia's voice (without doubt for the first group), but still only because we have multiple RS that say so. The third grouping can use the term, but only in the context of quoting RS, and we can't use Category:Pseudoscience for articles in the third and fourth groupings.


 * Your logic happens to be flawed. We don't have to "prove a negative." Multiple authors in RS, besides Popper, have characterized psychoanalysis as pseudoscience. Maybe it is, or maybe it isn't. We don't care. Wikipedia has no opinion on the matter and we do not use Wikipedia's voice to state such things, but we do allow RS to state their opinions on the matter. We do not censor them.


 * So, what's your real objection? Me thinks thou doth protest too much. If it's because you don't like the word "pseudoscience," well, that's your opinion, and it has NO weight here. Otherwise, please explain. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see where you two disagree.
 * I have started a discussion on making guidelines for pejorative language.  I hope this brief off-topic call for eyes is acceptable given the importance of this matter.
 * However, perhaps this Noticeboard would be a better place to discuss the ARBCOM position. Were they aware they were sanctioning pejorative language in at least one case?  Abolishing the pseudoscience Category (as opposed to the ruling's 4 categories) might be consensus here.  How would we reopen that case assuming it is at all possible? WykiP (talk) 02:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. I don't see any real disagreement, and yet there are objections, but to what?! No concrete examples have been provided.


 * I think your approach here is the proper one for dealing with pejorative language.


 * As to the use of pejorative language on Wikipedia, the Arbcom doesn't usually get involved in content matters, but I wouldn't rule out some involvement in a matter like this. You could try to contact the Arbcom members and see if they are willing to take on the task, and what procedure to use. The problem would not be "sanctioning pejorative language", but to violate policy by censoring its use. Our de facto position is that we use what RS use. The one area where we are especially careful is with BLPs. We do take some consideration there, unless the individual starts violating policy in attempts to whitewash their article of any properly sourced negative information. In such cases I have seen the article quickly getting more such content that is even better sourced. That's an example of the Streisand effect, a sort of Pyrrhic victory, but without any victory, just a negative outcome caused by their attempts to censor Wikipedia. In the end, if RS use pejorative language, we will likely use it too.


 * Further discussion about pejorative language should happen here. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what reference to Hamlet and "real" objection mean. Looks like we're in agreement that psychoanalysis is not to be "categorized" as pseudoscience. I like the word pseudoscience, it's in the dictionary. ;-) If an RS uses it, that's the word to use. It's just the reading of the arbcom, to me, says psychoanalysis should not be "characterized" as a pseudoscience. It was just the arbcom. Putting it on a list of topics "characterized as pseudoscience" seems to ignore that sentence. What do we say about that? My concern also was that citations actually be reviewed for content. It's a big job but important to avoid OR or worse. When 8/10 citations by CartoonDiablo above don't use either psychoanalysis or pseudoscience, is it correct Wikipedia style to interpret their words into new words? Chomsky, for example: "not based in science" only means that. Should we translate that into words he didn't use? It just respect for the RS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eturk001 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, the arbcom is a instance of wikipedia "to act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve" The don't have the competence to resolve such contentual questions. Thats what they have done. They decided user banns. I've read the request for arabitration but I can find only sanctions of users. A large phrase is crossed out. I can't find any repercussions to ore discussion here. -- WSC ® 09:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm learning the deeper areas of Wikipedia and appreciate the pointers I'm getting here. When I read Final Decision/Principals/#17 (20.1.17) of the PS Arbcom it notes the principal that psychoanalysis should not be "characterized" as pseudoscience and was "Passed 8-0 at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)". What does that mean? Eturk001 (talk) 03:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure. I think the arbcom votes for every statment. But the arbcom can't decide that psychoanalysis ain't a pseudoscience, also. Thats a decision of sientific sources not of the arbcom of en.wikipedia. Imagine, the arbcom decides that GB doesn't lacates in europe but in africa! What the arbcom decides ain't a dogma like a Encyclical. It's the jugement of some volunteers. They can't decide anything contentual. If they do, thats a overestimation of there own role. -- WSC ® 07:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I concur with Widescreen upon reading WP:ARBCOM. ARBCOM's ruling was binding at that time, but not binding forever.  According to the page, they resolve disputes the community cannot.  They do not set Wikipedia policy and guidelines.  However, those rulings are extremely indicative as to how they would rule in the future and thus editors who wish to contradict them would need to have a very strong case.
 * This Village Pump discussion says much the same.
 * Also, see WP:What_Wikipedia_is_not WykiP (talk) 10:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Eturk001, you wrote:


 * "When I read Final Decision/Principals/#17 (20.1.17) of the PS Arbcom it notes the principal that psychoanalysis should not be "characterized" as pseudoscience and was "Passed 8-0 at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)". What does that mean?"


 * In the context of all that was discussed, written, and decided in that Arbcom, it means that Wikipedia editors must not use Wikipedia's voice to characterize psychoanalysis as pseudoscience, or to add it to Category:Pseudoscience. Otherwise, they expressly allow that articles "may contain information to that effect" (psychoanalysis as pseudoscience) if it is attributed to RS. Wikipedia takes no side in the matter, but does report that others have done so. Fair enough. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)