Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 41

a section was deleted, which is Vandalism and offending NPOV
The section British_diplomacy_in_support_of_the_Arabs was deleted by user:pluto2012. In my opinion, this deletion is offending these 2 rules:
 * Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.
 * do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone.

Although user:pluto2012 was asked for specifics few times, he didn't provide any error or biased detail, and instead he repeats that in general this section is one sided, without any proof. Even if it was correct, he should have amended a supposedly balancing note, and not completely removing it.

The user:pluto2012 repeatedly tells me that I am not capable, which is a considered_to_be_a_personal_attack:
 * Belittling an editor's intelligence, knowledge, command of the English language, talent, or competence.

for Pluto2012, this is not the first time to be involved in editing wars. Under his previous nickname ceedjee, I assume he that he got sanctioned because of such wars.

I will appreciate it, if the section deletion will be reversed, and the user pluto2012, would receive a warning.

Ykantor (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

N.B if one is interested, here are more citations that proves the section to be correct and objective. Ykantor (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Ykantor,
 * I don't feel like discussing with you given your behaviour that doesn't comply with wikipedia principles of collaboration : 4 editors wrote on the talk page that you was wrong and not a single one supported you. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Ive removed a couple of posts here that have absolutely nothing to do with the content of an article. There is more in the first comment. As to the question, I largely agree with Itsmejudith's comment on the talk page, that being '' The section as it was relied far too much on Karsh 2002. The reliability of that source has been questioned, with someone arguing that it is not a scholarly history but a popular work. That question needs to be resolved before any material is restored.'' Accusations of vandalism should be preceded by the person first reading WP:VANDALISM, and accusations of edit-warring shouldnt be made by a user restoring material over the objections of the majority of the talk page participants. Other than that, keep the discussion here on topic please, that topic being if the material violates NPOV.  nableezy  - 15:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Languages of Algeria and point of view (part 2)
Hello again!

Previously we discussed Algeria in Archive 39, and the conclusion was that if a language is "important" it should be included in the infobox/lead. Summary: In Algeria there are more secular/liberal groups who approve of Arabic-French bilingualism in society while more Arabist and Islamist figures approve of Arabic-only usage in society. The government officially declares itself to be Arabic only (with Berber as a national language), and it had not joined the Francophonie (association of French speaking countries). However French is still in use as the primary language in non-Arabized government ministries (the government has been unable to completely phase out French and it has since stopped trying to completely eliminate it). The total count of French speakers (33% of the population can read and write in French as of 2008) gives Algeria the second largest French-speaking population in the world. There is a full account (to which I have contributed) at Languages of Algeria.
 * User:Future Perfect at Sunrise said: "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?"

Based on Archive #39 I concluded that the NPOV solution was to include French, and no further posts came after my announcement on the WikiProject page, so it signaled consent.
 * On 24 May User:TonyStarks removed French with the edit summary: "Arabic and Berber are official langauges of Algeria, French is not. We are on English Wikipedia. As such, there is no justification to include the French name of Algeria in intro or infobox." - There was no indication that he read the discussion
 * On 5 June I reverted his edit, and I left a talk page message pointing out the previous discussions.
 * On 5 June he reverted with the edit summary: "(when you add "Estados Unidos" to the USA article feel free to add French to Algeria. Again French is not an official language and the government has moved away from using it in official capacity. Arabic is the official language, Berber is the national one)" - No indication that he read the discussions
 * I responded, addressing his argument, and asked him to make a post on the NPOV noticeboard reconciling his position with the NPOV policy and the arguments made about inclusion of languages - Also I brought up Naming conventions (geographic names) which says "Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted."

I asked him to re-read Archive 39 and to explain how excluding French would satisfy the NPOV requirement. I would like for him to come on here and try to reconcile his position with the NPOV requirement.

Thank you, WhisperToMe (talk) 00:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Charles J. Hynes
Just wanted to point this article out, as it is horribly non-neutral, as two editors who have edited this article almost exclusively have taken to adding an absurd amount of negative information about the subject.  Grsz 11 16:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The sources are good but there is a lot of undue weight and POV as you say. I've made some edits and have it on my watchlist. I'll also alert folks at the BLP noticeboard. -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 18:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Forced adoption in the UK
This article seems to have some major NPOV and sourcing issues, and could use some more eyes on it to make sure it does not stray into BLP violation territory. -- The Anome (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The page is up for deletion. Reading the mind-boggling Daily Mail "article" used as a citation makes me thing that the paper should banned as a source! Paul B (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

No substance, Paul B. Please elaborate and cite sources if you disagree with the article. Newuser2111 (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see you proposed it for deletion! Paul B (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The article has now been trimmed by Bobrayner to a sourced stub, but unfortunately User:Newuser2111 seems intent on restoring the POV-pushing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no POV pushing. Please provide specific examples. Forced Adoption is taking place in the UK and the citations reflect that. Stop removing whole sections of the article without justifying the reasoning behind this in the talk page. I am willing to discuss edits to the page but do not just remove sections you disagree with. Newuser2111 (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Specific examples? Almost the entire article was either based on the misrepresentation of sources, or was entirely unsourced. Wikipedia is not here to put the world to rights, and articles must be properly sourced, and adhere to Neutral point of view policy. The article made no pretence at neutrality, and made no effort to explain the context of involuntary adoptions. If you want a soapbox, find one somewhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, the disease is spreading. A few months ago a few of us had to fight a similar battle at Forced adoption in Australia before that article settled into a reasonable (but still not ideal) state. Obviously those impacted by the actions under discussion have strong emotional involvement, and are not likely to see nor care about the broader issues and full historical context (nor Wikipedia's policies). I'll watch here too and see if I can help. HiLo48 (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * What disease do you mean? Paul B (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No need to answer that, having seen your comments at the article about Australia. Your objection there to very term "forced adoption" applies, I think, even more strongly to this article, as I've already noted in the deletion discussion. Paul B (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not familiar with this article or its content but I am aware of an alarming trend on WP whereby editors cite FRINGE or NPOV and then use it as an excuse to delete large amounts of reliably sourced content. If content is problematic then one should work in collaboration with other editors on the talk page or via a noticeboard or a WP project to clean up the article. If sources have been misrepresented then the text should be amended so that it properly summarizes the source. However the wholesale deletion of sourced content without discussion is a disruptive and non-productive practice on WP and can be a form of POV pushing in and of itself.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 17:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So, if one sees absolute fringe rubbish in article, and doesn't have time for the inevitably extended debate that single issue, fringe, POV pushers are so often prepared to engage in, we should just leave it there? No. Leaving garbage in Wikipedia doesn't ever appeal to me. HiLo48 (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Re: Please provide specific examples - if you check the page History you'll see mention of many phrases I've modified for their very evident bias or for being misleading. Off the top of my head, one footnote claimed "1360 forcibly adopted in 2010" while the actual article just gave a politician's estimate of "over 1000". There was frequent use of biased terms like "kidnap", "secret", "snatch", etc. that pre-suppose malign actions by the UK government. There were also sentences phrased to make routine court orders sound like some sort of secret tribunal; people in many legal cases are barred by a judge from publicly discussing their case, and it is not illogical that parents whose children are removed are ordered not to try to approach their children in an unauthorized manner and are arrested if they do so. There are assuredly many legitimate complaints about the UK adoption system, but this article is a (gradually improving) smear piece based on journalistic sensationalism. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The 1,360 figure comes from this passage from a supporter of the system: "Last year there were 3,040 adoptions - 1,360 were without the parents' consent. Overwhelmingly in all the cases that I have looked at, in all the research I have read I don't think there's anything to suggest that a significant proportion of those are inappropriate". In other words the number is correct, but the person who said it is saying that only a tiny proportion of that number could have been inappropriate. The M.P. who disagrees is saying that "about 1000" were "wrongly" adopted - in other words the overwhelming majority of the 1,360. The article itself say that the M.P. is claiming that "up to 1000" could have been wrongly removed and adopted. In other words that's the maximimum possible. Any NPOV use of this article would clearly articulate all these points of view. Paul B (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

RFC -- Brighton Park / Pershing Main interlocking
An RFC has been created for the resolution of the inappropriate removal of detailed, long-term content on a Rail Project page covering the interlocking at Brighton Park.

Brighton_Park_crossing Damotclese (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Timeline of the Syrian civil war - A Rebel Newsfeed?
We need to have a couple of editors taking a close look at this: The Timeline of the Syrian civil war, namely the Timeline of the Syrian civil war (from May 2013) but also others, seem to have a major neutrality issue. Most of the information given is directly taken from the mouth of the Local Coordination Committees of Syria (LCC) and that of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR). These two organizations, however, are aligned to the Syrian opposition, rendering this timeline to barely more than a rebel newsfeed turned to a Wikipedia article. Casuality figures, for example, are copied over from LCC which calls Syrian opposition combatants routinely "martyrs", then "martyrs" is changed to something more neutral like opposition fighters and voilà the information appears wikified, objectified. I am aware that independent, neutral information on the ground is hard to get by, but right now whole timelines seem to be relying largely on rebel propaganda outlets. IMO to the extent that they may be beyond repair and should be deleted and reworked from scratch. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This is an incorrect assessment. The info provided by those two organizations are only for daily death tolls. Sopher99 (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * For one, much of the information in the various timelines consists of little more than daily death tolls. Then, do you seriously believe these rebel networks would report death tolls objectively when it comes to civilians being killed by the government forces? And that they would publish massacres on civilians committed by the opposition forces with the same zeal, if at all? Particularly the death toll is a means of propaganda with which all sides like to win public support by portraying the enemy as evil and a criminal against humanity. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I directly state in every single paragraph that the reports are coming from the Local Coordination Committees. Additionally, it is perfectly fine for SANA's daily death tolls to be reported on the timeline. Sopher99 (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Saying that you rely on a strongly partisan source does not make it more trustworthy. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I am simply giving the daily death toll, and I additionally state where that death toll is coming from. As I said, if you want you could add SANA's or Al-dunia's daily death toll. Sopher99 (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Gun Powder Ma. In my personal opinion these timeline articles shouldn't include the daily LCC claims of the number of dead at all. Because it's not encyclopedic and Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia. The timeline articles should stick to major political and military events that happen in the conflict and mention a death toll when there is a massacre or a battle with a high number of deaths. We use numbers from the LCC or SOHR or whatever, but only when the toll is from a single notable event. Because, pages, which should be timeline pages for a conflict, that for the most part only list daily death tolls is not encyclopedic in any way. EkoGraf (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, dear. I won't address this in any detail and instead will simply point out a simple fact that should (but I understand never will) guide content creation here: A "Timeline of the Syrian civil war" should be written after the war is over and capable people, with the benefit of hindsight, can begin constructing a meaningful history.Dan Murphy (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV states that posting neutrally means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources. It is a given that we have at the moment no reliable sources for a daily number of victims. However one may personally feel about these tallies, the sources are not reliable from a WP:RS point of view (no independent fact checking, etc). Therefore, if these daily tallies are important, the best thing would be to present them from two sources: a rebel source and a government source. This will likely provide completely different, and equally unreliable numbers, but at least we'll have presented them in a neutral fashion. We should also intersperse this with official cumulative figures obtained from reliable sources. It should also be stated in the article that reliable numbers cannot be obtained.It is likely that these timelines will be later on summarized and incorporated in a comprehensive article on the Syrian civil war. At any rate, this is what I would advise. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have already cleared these pages of words like "civilians killed by Syrian army", as the word "martyrs" from LCC had been translated there (an example here, followed by edit war). Still, however, the timeline pages remain completely unbalanced. LCC is clearly aligned with rebel forces, as well as SOHR is (however they seem to be less biased). Counterbalancing it with biased info from the other side of the conflict is not a good idea, as first it is not encyclopedic approach, and second the government doesn't publish death tolls.
 * My proposal is: Remove the LCC data, then assess if the pages are worth keeping at all. --Emesik (talk) 12:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

A daily death toll is fine. It is perfectly acceptable to add the Syrian government's daily death toll too. Sopher99 (talk) 12:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Dan Murphy and Emesik are right: most of the material in this collection of articles fails WP:NOT, and simply shouldn't be here. Having deleted everything which is just a collection of data from a primary source reassess whether the article should exist at all. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I also agree that there are no reliable sources for this information, my suggestion was based on what I consider a temporary compromise, if we assume this article is to exist at all, until such time that reliable information becomes available. As someone pointed out, it is extremely difficult to provide a timeline in a daily fashion of something that is in progress. If we removed the toll, as Jonathan A Jones said, it may be a case of seeing if this article should exist at all. If not enough reliable material is there, there is another article Human rights violations during the Syrian civil war that could possibly accommodate whatever reliable information exists in this one. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 08:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the latest part of the timeline, you will see sentences like "The LCC reported XX people killed by the Syrian army". However, the source does not say that these people were killed by the army. I have removed tons of such propaganda from previous pages, but the most active author, Sopher99, still keeps adding this bullshit. Anyone needs more evidence that the page serves propaganda purposes? --Emesik (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You suggest we submit the timeline to Afd? At least we could get this way a clearer picture on what the community view is with all this sourcing from rebel outlets. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I would rather see these pages cleaned of information from unreliable sources, but every time someone does it, an edit war occurs. I don't anticipate any action resulting from our discussion here, so we could use the shortcut and submit them for deletion. Anyway, once stripped of LCC/SOHR/SANA info, the pages would become almost empty. --Emesik (talk) 23:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Articles for deletion/Timeline of the Syrian civil war (from May 2013). There is always the possibility to vote for stub and rework. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard Syrian Civil War: Local Coordination Committees of Syria and Syrian Observatory for Human Rights Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Virtual Case File
Someone might want to check on this article. Particularly the lead section. 96.55.20.179 (talk) 05:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I improved it a bit, but it still needs work. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Elizabeth II
I have begun an RfC on the question of whether it is bias to describe Elizabeth II as "Queen of the United Kingdom" in the infobox. Please comment at Talk:Elizabeth II. DrKiernan (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Fregoli delusion
I just by chance ran across the Fregoli delusion article because I heard it mentioned elsewhere. And I ran across the explanatory picture shown in the article, which was added in this edit by User:Quasar45. Normally, I would go and talk with the editor about it, but this edit in May was the only one they've made since (and the previous edit to it was two months prior).

Now...is it just me or does it seem like this is trying to push a political point? I mean, I think most of us have seen this picture around, but its exact context is people comparing Barack Obama with George W. Bush and trying to make a political point on their policies. It doesn't seem very appropriate or neutral to include in an article unrelated to the political subject, even if it is a potential representation of Fregoli delusion.

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to use, say, that one image made a while back that was an approximation of a person that had the average features of everyone on Earth? Silver seren C 22:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Concerns for an early Mars sample return
was split/forked from Mars sample return mission. I am unconvinced whether it is feasible to write a neutral article about this topic (similar to a "Criticism of..." article), as so far it seems to focus on negative concerns about said mission without much balance (I get the impression that the overall scientific community is more enthusiastic about a Mars SRM than this article implies). Involved parties notified of discussion. VQuakr (talk) 03:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes the overall scientific community is enthusiastic for MSR. However the official view does not ignore the negative concerns about the mission. They totally align with the conclusions of Carl Sagan that there is a potential of existential risk that can't be ignored. The majority view is that the mission should go ahead by reducing risk to a level considered acceptable. They also stress the need for public debate. This is the 2012 ESF report:


 * For details of the official view with more quotes, see this (I have just added it)

User:Robertinventor/Debate_about_scientific_value_of_Mars_sample_return_and_methods_to_avert_low_probability_existential_risks


 * It is accurate reporting of the official view as you can easily check by reading the citations.


 * My aim was to write an article along the lines of this one: Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change


 * Following that model, my suggestion is that the majority view needs to be clearly stated. Also, each minority view needs to be presented exactly as given without comment, mainly with use of quotes, or accurate summaries, so the reader can make up their own minds about them.


 * The main difference with the climate change article is that this is an ethical debate rather than a scientific one. The differences are mainly due to different attitudes to existential risks - how small the probability of a large scale ecosystem disruption needs to be for it to be acceptable


 * There are also differing views on the scientific benefits, which need to be presented since the benefits of MSR are an important part of the debate, as the scientific benefit is the reason given for taking low probability but severe existential risks.


 * It is impossible to get a clear idea of the official view or the dissenting views in Warren's version. He has deleted most of the material on both sides. Much of what is left he refutes with his own original arguments, an uncited synthesis.


 * Please check out my draft, the majority view and all the minority views are reported exactly, to the best of my knowledge. Check the citations given to verify that I report them exactly.


 * User:Robertinventor/Debate_about_scientific_value_of_Mars_sample_return_and_methods_to_avert_low_probability_existential_risks


 * I am editing it in my use space as I am unable to collaborate with Warren on the main page. He removes large sections without discussion on the talk page, and doesn't ask me for comment, to defend myself against his allegation that they are OR, just removes them. He then rewrites what I had in his own fashion, using an editorial tone of voice and synthesis, omits most of it, and tries to get me to accept that what he wrote is okay. The result does not fairly represent the original sources, as you can see if you compare his version with mine, which does report them. Indeed I don't think he has actually read many of the sources, while I have read all the literature cited.


 * There is no point in adding them back in again (all sections from the original article) if he is just going to immediately remove them. It would also be edit warring behaviour to keep attempting to do that. So I am working on the original version of the article in my user space.
 * Robert Walker (talk) 08:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The first draft of the article was basically an editorial rant about why we shouldn't do MSR. The latest version in Robert's sandbox is not much improved, except that he's fixed numerous factual errors that were pointed out to him. It is not a whole lot different from an avowed "Opinion Piece" that he has recently published online: http://www.science20.com/robert_inventor039s_column/need_caution_early_mars_sample_return_opinion_piece-113913 Basically, the first draft was a trial balloon for the later OP. Essentially, he was using Wikipedia editors to do the fact checking for his published opinion piece.


 * I have attempted a major edit of the original draft in order to render it into a NPOV. However, the few people (other than Robert) who have commented say it still reads like an anti-MSR OP. Indeed, it's very existence arguably gives undue weight to the extreme minority view that MSR represents an existential risk. (Note that Robert's sandbox version is literally 5 times the length of the main article: 11,296 words versus 2242 in the main article; the very length of the article gives the impression that back contamination is a huge issue that completely overshadows the scientific value of MSR.) In fact, the risk of an Andromeda Strain coming from Mars is practically negligible--but the NASA plan is to incorporate stringent planetary protection measures anyway.


 * The consensus of the 3rd party commentators so far (of which I include myself) is that the page be further condensed and folded back into the BC section of the main MSR article and that the separate page on back contamination (BC) be deleted. Warren Platts (talk) 15:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd like to point out that Warren Platts is a strong advocate of eventual human missions to the Mars surface, a regular poster to nasaspaceflght.com, and someone who argued vigorously against me on that forum on Mars forward and backward contamination issues. For his POV see for instance his commet here: "To really take it to the next level IMO would be a serious manned exploration program. IMO, that would require the support of a permanently manned research station, with ISRU, the whole nine yards.". So his neutrality as a third party commentator is in question for this article.


 * I stated my own POV when I created the article and asked for help from other editors to help create a balanced article. He should do the same if he continues to work on it. You create a balanced article on a controversial subject by representing all the POVs, and not by adjusting it to express by its overall tone what you consider yourself to be a NPOV attitude to the subject.


 * He has indeed now removed all mention of the need for an international public debate (as in the quote from the ESR review above), and all mention of the ICAMSR advocacy group who work against MSR, and removed much of the material that went into detail about NASA's own concerns about a MSR (e.g. to mention one, the potential risk discussed in the ESA report from virus-type and GTA-type entities, ultramicrobacteria and life not based on DNA), as well as all the minority alternative views on the science and biological value of MSR and the potential hazards of a return.


 * As a result it doesn't give due weight to the mainstream NASA and ESA concerns, and most minority views are not expressed at all. Since the current article's NPOV is in question I'm going to add a POV template to it. I am not going to attempt to edit it however. Robert Walker (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The COI is that those who are keen on early colonization of the surface of Mars will see delays in their goal as a result of measures taken to prevent forward and bakward contamination. Whatever his particular POV on that, anyone who vigorously debates contamination issues on a human spaceflight message board can't be considered an uninterested 3rd party commentator on planetary protection issues. Robert Walker (talk) 15:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * anyone who vigorously debates contamination issues on a human spaceflight message board can't be considered an uninterested 3rd party commentator on planetary protection issues. I gotta love it Robert! Congratulations, you just disqualified yourself as a commentator. You've spammed that forum with so many threads and off-topic walls o' text on Mars contamination issues, it's not even funny. Moreover, like here, you're one of those guys who can't stand to let anyone else have the last word. Well, since you think that neither one of us can render a NPOV article, what do you say we just delete it and be done with it! :-) Warren Platts (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Nice cherry picked quote you got from me, Robert. Of course that's also a typical trope within the article itself. Also, I'm confused: you're saying I don't given enough weight to the mainstream--NASA POV in addition to not giving enough weight to the fringe view that MSR might cause the end of our world? Well, if that's the case, it would seem to be an equal opportunity case of not giving enough weight to either position, in which case it's evidently neutral. Of course, I would think that it's hard to argue that enough weight isn't given to both sides, given that the article is nearly twice as long as the main MSR page. BTW ICAMSR is cited in the lede.


 * My take is that it is still slanted against MSR. All traces of Robert's bias have yet to be removed. Here's one example: "They noted the discovery of new types of entities such as viruses capable of viral growth outside of the host." As if viruses can reproduce outside of host cells--they cannot. This is but one example of over-exaggeration since the truth is rather non-dramatic and not worth reporting. WADR, this is fear-mongering. Warren Platts (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Virus outside cell citation (citation for it next to that sentence in the original version of the text) - simply paraphrases what they say here:

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12576&page=32


 * I'm glad you brought that up: this is a paradigmatic example of cherry picking quotes: Your "quote" is actually a 2nd hand paraphrase of a different article: when one goes to the primary source, one discovers what happens during so-called "viral growth" is that "the lemon-shaped viral particle develops a very long tail at each of its pointed ends after being released from its host cell." IOW, the virus isn't growing in the usual sense, rather, because of special conditions in a certain hyperacidic, hot environment, the virus "grows" a molecular tail for some reason. It is unclear whether this tail is an adaptation or not. What is not in doubt AT ALL is that the virus requires a host cell in order to reproduce. This example is typical of the original article; quotes are cherry picked in order to make it look as scary as possible. Warren Platts (talk) 16:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Note also how Robert the Inventor twists the paraphrase of the paraphrase to make it extra scary by inventing the clause "They noted the discovery of new types of entities, such as viruses capable of viral growth ...." leaving the impression that viruses that can grow outside a host cell are not the only scary "entity", whereas the original source is about a single type of virus. This is pure invention. Warren Platts (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry all these insults got too much for me, and they also suggest one is unlikely to be able to engage in calm reasoned debate, so I won't attempt a direct reply. For anyone else reading this, please note I paraphrased what they said, as they said it. They said growth, not reproduce, and my paraphrase said the same. My job was to describe the arguments as presented in the report and not to make up new arguments of my own, and that is what I did.Robert Walker (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Having been in the receiving end of Robert Walker's trolling obnoxious behavior introducing his POV and Synthesis in Mars-related articles, I will say this about his "article": it is an alarmist, slanted editorial rant. The only way to achieve neutrality of some kind is to move the article to Robert Walker's concerns for an early Mars sample return. Yes that was sarcasm. Robert would be happy to have Wikipedia readers wear a Biosuit Protection Level 4 every time they read the word Mars. That was not sarcasm. The said article and title were doomed from the start and needs to be deleted. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Third noticeboard lucky!
Okay - so I tried the following on the notability noticeboard and they recommended that I try the reliable sources noticeboard and they said sent me here with the following!

Both quotes make up the entirety of the Anti-pornography movement section of the article on Pornography in the United States. Although to me it reads like a "Criticism of the anti-pornography movement".

--The Vintage Feminist (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems to me this is actually a two step process 1 determining whether the two sources you mentioned are reliable (generally a task for WP:RSN and 2 assuming the sources are reliable, we need to determine whether they are being used correctly in the article.


 * 1 Regarding the paper by Anthony D’amato, the article does not use the paper itself as a source, but a review article from what seems to be a reliable source, an Australian e-journal with an editorial board and editorial supervision. The Journal itself therefore would appear acceptable as a source. Depending on whether you view the review of d'amato's paper as a review of a scholarly paper this may or may not fall under WP:scholarship. It is likely though that is more like an opinion piece, which makes it less reliable as a source, and if used should be marked as an opinion piece, not as a statement of fact (WP:RSOPINION). As for the original d'amato paper, it is really hard to know whether it amounts to scholarly work or, as you say ,is just a self published source, certainly the source you offer appears to be a collection of largely unsupervised self published items. Still, as to the second article, I would say it can be used with caution. If an opinion piece, I would not quote quite at as much length.


 * The book Approaches to Popular Film[] does appear to be a reliabe source.


 * 2 assuming therefore that both sources are reliable, are they being used correctly? I agree with you that neither belongs in the Anti-pornography movement, the Hallows book does have a strong critical Anti pornography movement POV, and the paper is definitely a defence of pornography. This does not however necessarily disqualify the sources from being used, In my opinion a new section should be created called something like "Criticisms of the Anti pornography movement and defence of pornography". At the same time if possible I would recommend expanding the Anti-pornography movement section with relevant material for a more balanced POV. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 05:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I advised the editor to come here after the matter had been discussed at the Reliable Sources board. There's no doubt that the section is "skewed", as it says next to nothing about anti-porn history, theories or campaigns, but it may be that there's not much that this board can do about it. One would need to induce editors with an interest in feminist theories, the social effects of porn etc to participate in the article and create content — perhaps by notifying editors at WikiProject Feminism, WikiProject Sociology, WikiProject Sexology and sexuality or WikiProject Pornography (not sure about the last one. It seems to be mainly for "fans"). Paul B (talk) 13:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, the article needs more sources describing the anti pornography movement, as you stated, but it is not something that can be done on a noticeboard. However, this may simply require willing editors to do some research and add material. Then, by moving the two sources discussed above into a pro- pornography section, it will be possible to create a more balanced article. I might attempt to do a few searches myself to see what is available. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Just as an extra piece of information about the book Approaches to Popular Film. There is another online preview of it which shows, in the index, that the quote from Rogerson and Wilson's book was on pages 164 and 166. That places it in the chapter From Psychoanalytic Feminism to Popular Feminism by Lisa Taylor.


 * The introduction has the following description of it: Lisa Taylor's chapter, 'From Psychoanalytic Feminism to Popular Feminism', explores the implications of psychoanalysis for feminism, and considers feminist approaches which have taken issue with psychoanalytic feminism, approaches which have been largely ignored within film theory. She examines how other currents in feminism - for example, debates about the practice of reading romantic fiction and about the sexual politics of pornography - might be useful in analysing popular film. In the process, Taylor highlights the limitations of psychoanalytic feminism and the usefulness of alternative approaches. Finally, her chapter examines Penny Marshall's A League of their Own in order to illustrate the ways in which feminism has developed within popular film, not simply as a critique of it.
 * ...so I think Rogerson and Wilson's book was just one of a number of references that Taylor used in the course of doing that.


 * What I propose is this:
 * *Extend reference of Approaches to Film to:- mentioned in Taylor, L.'s chapter From Psychoanalytic Feminism to Popular Feminism cited in
 * *Rename this section "Criticism of the anti-pornography movement".
 * *Add a new section, above it, called "Anti-pornography movement" with the existing hat note to the main article, and the template
 * *Tidy up - remove orange boxes, and direct talk page discussion to here.
 * *Appeal for people to help with "anti-pornography movement" section (and while I'm at it the main article).--The Vintage Feminist (talk) 10:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Since noone has objected I will go ahead and do that. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 23:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

History of the Ukrainian minority in Poland
I have serious concerns about the NPOV of this page and think it needs to be merged with something else such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_minority_in_Poland or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polonization

There is a problem with one editor attempting to dominate the page with a certain ethnic POV about some great injustice done to those who spoke a Ruthenian language and where not at least bilingual Polish speakers. He is promoting a POV that Poland had some moral or legal obligation to continue the Hapsburg model of education that left the Hapsburg empire trailing Germany industrially. He refuses to acknowledge that Poland's policy of one national language was in the national interest of modernization and industrialization, that it opened educational opportunities to minorities in all Polish universities and polytechnical schools nationwide, and that Poles who had been educated in German, or Russian were also adversely affected by this policy.

Although the page is about the Ukrainian minority in Poland, he wants to discuss how other former Hapsburg nationals educated their Ruthenian populations, while ignoring the affects of the single language educational policy in Poland effected other ethnic groups in the Second Polish Republic. If we are to start comparing Poland's educational system linguistically with regard to the rest of Europe, it would need to include Germany where the Pomerianan language is now extinct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.44.15.214 (talk) 14:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * These are the opinions of a disruptive IP being disruptive. His behavior has already led to a semiprotect on the article for sockpuppetry (multiple IPS by same user) .  An example of this IPs "neutrality" is here: .  Phrase "Ukrainians were worse off in Poland than they were in neighboring Czechoslovakia.  In that country, the first Ukrainian school system was only established in 1918 and already by 1921-1922 89 percent of Ukrainian children were enrolled in Ukrainian-language schools" taken from Janusz Radziejowski. (1983). The Communist Party of Western Ukraine: 1919-1929. Toronto: Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies Press at the University of Toronto, pg.7, was replaced with "Ukrainians unhappy with Polish language instruction were free to study in the Ukrainian language in Vienna or Czechoslovakia" which is not what Radziejowki said (this can be confirmed on googlebooks here. The source stated "In the 1920s, the situation of the Ukrainian and Belarussian minorities was generally worse than in neighboring countries...in Transcarpathian Ukraine the first Ukrainian school system was only in 1918, when this area was incorporated into the new Czechoslovakian state. But already by 1921-1922 89% of Ukrainian children were attending Ukrainian schools").  This is the IPs idea of "neutrality." On that article's talk page, I wrote "There are dozens of reliable sources for the information included in this article; indeed, every bit of information is based on a reliable source (a book published by a university, a peer-reviewed journal, a well-known historian, etc.)  Please point out a specific statement in the article that is not referenced to a reliable source, and we can discuss it and remove it, rather than just remove info and disrupt the article." I received no reply from this IP on that.


 * This article states "In 1924 the Polish government excluded the Ukrainian language from use in government institutions. It also avoided the official use of the word "Ukrainian", replacing it with the historical name "Ruthenian". Interesting that this IP also only uses the name "Ruthenian" when referring to Poland's Ukrainian minority.  It seems clear who is pushing a non-neutral POV here.Faustian (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The work cited by Radziejowski was first published in Communist Poland in 1976 before making its way West into an English translation in 1983: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0920862241/ref=dp_proddesc_1?ie=UTF8&n=283155 (The translation is not a revised edition, nor is a translation of book from a foreign language by university press an endorsement that the content is accurate.) The comment is only used as introductory or background information, and is simply repeating Communist era propaganda against the Second Polish Republic. Nothing published under communism can be considered a reliable source unless it is independently confirmed. The fall of communism has allowed modern historians to reexamine the history of the era. Some here don't want to move away from the official Communist version of history.

According to the quote from Faustian, life was better for Ukrainians in the Soviet Union than it was in the Second Polish Republic. Now better is a subjective term, but considering the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor occurred in the Ukrainian S.S.R., it defies belief from anyone other than a communist apologist. So did the Holodomor not occur, or was there a greater policy of starvation of Ruthenian peoples in the Second Polish Republic that no one has ever reported? You will note the response, or lack thereof, from the editor presently holding the page hostage to his POV.

Jan Gross also disagrees and note that Poles saw "in the marketplace how these Soviet people ate eggs, shell and all, horseradish, beets, and other produce. Country women rolled with laughter"  Jan Gross, Revolution from Abroad: The Soviet Conquest of Poland's Western Ukraine and Western Belorussia (2002), pg. 46 We have other contemporary accounts: "All witnesses are unanimous in stating that the Bolshevik troops on entering this part of Poland (which was generally regarded as a poor and backward region) were seized with admiration for the extraordinary wealth and abundance of the country into which they marched. … The women," writes an eye-witness, " wore rags wrapped round their feet or felt slippers, instead of shoes: they brought all their family belongings in one battered suitcase, and sometimes even an iron bedstead. Bedding was not known to them and the luxury of fresh linen was never dreamed of in the Soviet Republic, even by dignitaries and important women commissars. The pick of the Soviets sent out for display to this bourgeois country were ignorant of the simplest arrangements of everyday life. Accustomed to being herded together, they did not understand the superfluous habit of enjoying individual lodgings: bathrooms and kitchens they considered as uncanny inventions, and their way of feeding and housekeeping could - by its extreme misery and primitivity - only make one think of the simplicity of requirements attributed to cave-dwellers." The Soviet Occupation of Poland, Free Europe Pamphlet #3, (1940) edited by Casimir Smogorzewski. http://felsztyn.tripod.com/id15.html

Please note that the term Ruthenian applies to a family of languages which includes Belarussian, Ukrainian, and Rusyn: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruthenian_language Also note that only Ukrainian Nationalists refuse to recognize Rusyn as a separate language: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rusyn_language

Now what Faustian refers to as “blatant falsification of a source” was in fact moderating POV from a clearly unreliable and dated source. He simply refuses to work collaboratively with others who attempt to edit the page and resorts to labeling anyone with a differing perspective “disruptive”. However, another editor posted the following reply about Ukrainian language instruction in Czechoslovakia “Acc. to Magocsi: "even by the end of the 1930s the general environment in the province [ Carpathian Ruthenia ] was not pro-Ukrainian. This was evident in the results of a kind of referendum carried out in 1937 by the Czechoslovak government among local parents, who were asked which language they wanted for instruction in schools. A majority of schools (73 percent) voted against having their children taught in Ukrainian. The height of Ukrainian propaganda in Subcarpathia was reached in late 1938-early 1939, during the period of autonomous Carpatho-Ukraine. The subsequent period of Hungarian rule revealed, however, that the Ukrainian idea penetrated only a small percentage of young people. In general, Rusyn society remained indifferent to Ukrainian propaganda in 1938-1939, and if anything, felt nostalgia for the previous era of Czechoslovak rule. (...) In 1946 all Rusyns were by force recorded by the Soviet administrative organs as Ukrainian." (Encyclopedia of Rusyn history and culture. 2005. p. 512). Rusyns are recognized as a national/ethnic minority and have separate linguistic status in all the east European states in which they live, except Ukraine - Poland, Slovakia, Romania, Serbia, Croatia, BiH (European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages)” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_the_Ukrainian_minority_in_Poland#Dispute Again you will note the contentious response from Faustian, and how the entire page is being dominated by Faustian, with the concurrence of exactly one other user name, whose purpose appears to be to appear whenever Faustian has one of his many disagreements with other editors to side with Faustian. This page simply lacks anything approaching a NPOV.

In conclussion, using Soviet era Communist propaganda from a 1976 communist publication is not a NPOV and it is the person who insists on employing it who is being disruptive, petty, and narrow minded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.44.15.214 (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * IP wrote "According to the quote from Faustian, life was better for Ukrainians in the Soviet Union than it was in the Second Polish Republic." Nope, that's not what the quote ""In 1924 the Polish government excluded the Ukrainian language from use in government institutions. It also avoided the official use of the word "Ukrainian", replacing it with the historical name "Ruthenian" says. But thanks for trolling.Faustian (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Reviews of Radziejowski's work:


 * "A significant contribution... to the history of the Comintern, the KP(b)U, and the Ukrainian question in Europe." -- Roman Solchanyk, Slavic Review


 * "A well researched and comprehensive treatment... Will interest historians of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union" -- John-Paul Himka, American Historical Review


 * Biography of Radziejowski:
 * Janusz Radziejowski (1925–2002), historian, was born in Kyiv and was a graduate of the University of Warsaw. He studied under the eminent Ukrainian historian Mykhailo Slabchenko and published widely on twetieth-century Ukrainian history. He was involved in underground publications, particularly the journal Krytyka, and helped with the preparation of underground Polish edition of John Armstrong's and Alexander Motyl's books on Ukrainian nationalism.
 * To smear him as a communist propagandist is not very nice.Faustian (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Moreover, in his lengthy diatribe the anonymous IP also makes a false statement. He falsely claims "The translation is not a revised edition, nor is a translation of book from a foreign language by university press an endorsement that the content is accurate." Wrong.  See here: .  "I began to realize the complexity of the issue rather late, in 1980. I was working closely at that time with a scholar from Poland who was a visiting professor at CIUS, Janusz Radziejowski. He was mainly in Edmonton to help prepare the uncensored English  version of his book on the Communist Party of Western Ukraine, which the Institute published in 1983." Quote by John-Paul Himka.Faustian (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, someone here is ignorant of the difference between a revised or second edition and a censored text. Polish censors would blank out things that could not be published. Things were published with blank white space to show that something had been censored. All that has been stated is that that the original text was published in the West in 1983 with the censored text now published in an English translation. This is not a second edition of anything. Even if the work was published in the West, this individual never appears to have emigrated from the Soviet Bloc at the time and also would have been under pressure to not stray to far from official Soviet history to keep his job. The work dates to 1976 or earlier, and is also dated. It must be again noted that education is not the focus of the work, and the context of the quote is that all things were better for Ukrainians and Belorussians in the Soviet Union than they were in the Second Polish Republic in the interwar period. Now that is an incredible statement considering the mass starvation in Soviet Ukraine, but hey, the food was confiscated by a government that used Ukrainian as an official language. So things must have been better in the U.S.S.R. even if people had to resort to cannibalism of dead family members to survive. Better really depends on one's POV.

So here is the rest of the quote from Janusz Radziejowski: "In the 1920s, the situation of the Ukrainian and Belarussian minorities was generally worse than in neighboring countries; in terms of  employment and wages,  Ukrainians and Belarussians were even worse off than they had been in tsarist Russia...”

For this statement to have been true, for Ukrainian and Belarussian minorities to have been worse than in neighboring countries in terms of employment and wages, this would mean that Ukrainians and Belarussians in the Second Polish Republic would have been worse off than those it the Soviet Union. So I have asked Faustian this question: “So did the Holodomor not occur, or was there a greater policy of starvation of Ruthenian peoples in the Second Polish Republic that no one has ever reported?”

He has not answered that question. He has given us a link to a discussion about how many died in the Holodomor, from which we may assume that he is now acknowledging that it did occur. Therefore, we must demand that he provide us evidence of a greater policy of starvation of Ruthenian peoples in the Second Polish Republic that no one has ever reported. We are waiting...

Lastly, even a respected academic is limited by the information which is available to him. When all that is available to him is official government propaganda, the conclusions which he tdraws from that information are unreliable. This should be obvious to anyone with any common sense, but those who have an agenda refuse to consider common sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.95.32.229 (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Garbage in, Garbage out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.95.32.229 (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The writer was discussing the 1920s, as is clearly written in the quote you posted, when the situation of Ukrainians was indeed better in many ways in the Ukrainian SSR than in Poland (this is why, during that time, many Ukrainians moved to the USSR). You do realize that the Holodomor occurred in the 1930's rather than the 1920's?
 * You do realize multiple IPs by the same user is a form of sockpuppetry? You have been warned about this here:Faustian (talk) 12:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

A fair comparison of life for Ruthenians in the interwar period in Poland vs. the U.S.S.R. would note that those in the U.S.S.R. had been systematically starved, while in Poland there was relative prosperity, and not the propaganda that has been presented here by you and your Communist era historian without any credible source. They did have options to choose which country in which they wanted to live under the Treaty of Riga and St. Germain. Somehow life in the U.S.S.R. could hardly be considered better by any serious person. But using your sole metric of recognition of Ukrainian as an official language, the thousands of deaths in the Holodomor are irrelevant for comparison. That is your point of view, but most people would consider its effect of those deaths and the effects of malnutrition and psychological effects of cannibalism on the survivors.

Furthermore, it is well noted that the closest thing to a referendum on Soviet rule in the Kresy (Eastern Poland) was when men attempted to vote with their feet and join the Polish army of General Anders. The Soviets refused to permit many who were not ethnic Poles from leaving the U.S.S.R. (Harvey Sarner, Anders and the Soldiers of the Second Polish Corps (1998) pg. 95, 101) So much for how bad things were in the Second Polish Republic. Your myth is busted and so is the communist era propaganda. Of course, Ukrainian nationalists have different heroes: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/52209227

The following refutes your claims which you are using to further disrupt participation on this board: “Also, there is no prohibition on editing non-protected articles using an IP address. If one makes frequent good-faith edits without an account, and the result is a large number of IP addresses being attributed to his/her edits, no violation has occurred. “ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signs_of_sock_puppetry#IP_sock_puppetry Continue the harassment at your own risk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.95.33.133 (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for Comment.
Requesting help for RfC at Talk:Race and genetics regarding Dawkins' position on Lewontin's argument. Topic has been in dispute for months, please help us resolve it. Thank you. BlackHades (talk) 12:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Jim Flaherty
I'm wondering if we could get a few more sets of eyes on the article about Jim Flaherty (Canada's Finance Minister). Starting almost 2 months ago, huge blocks of uncritical (and sometimes downright fawning) text have been added by a new single purpose account. I see violations of NPOV, OR, undue weight, and reliable sources policies all over the article in its current state. I have tried removing some of this content with thorough explanations on the talk page, but the user does not seem interested in discussion.

Among the specific problems:
 * At a glance the additions look sourced, but even cursory examination reveals problems. The majority of the sources are primary, including Can gov't sites and Flaherty's speeches and press releases, which are not reliable sources for how well Flaherty is doing as FM.
 * Also, there seems to be some misuse of non-primary sources. For example, the sentence Flaherty's leadership during the Great Recession and budgetary measures helped pull Canada out of the recession is sourced with an article that does not mention Flaherty at all. It is therefore original research, and possibly POV-pushing, to credit Flaherty. The sentence Since coming out of the recession, Flaherty's measures have helped create "over 1 million net new jobs" is sourced to an article that mentions and even quotes Flaherty, but does not say that it was his measures that created the jobs. Again, it's original research, and apparently in promotion of a POV.
 * I think there's a possibility the Wikipedian adding this content has a conflict of interest. I'm basing this on the nature of the edits and the user name, which contains "fmo" - a standard abbreviation for Finance Minister's Office - indicating this might be someone on Flaherty's staff.
 * The section Best Finance Minister in the World seems like an almost absurd violation of WP:UNDUE. A magazine called Flaherty the best FM in 2009, and it has been translated into a glowing six paragraph section, that has little to do with the "best FM" honour. Even having a section entitled Best Finance Minister in the World seems a bit much, given that its really a minor honour, and is now out of date anyway.

There's more, but I don't need to go on forever here; I'll let the article speak for itself.

I'm tempted to revert much of Jmfmo's text as promotional and poorly sourced, to be honest, but I think maybe it would be good if there were more users than just me and Jmfmo paying attention. I'd like to have uninvolved editors check my edits for neutrality, too. I'm curious what others think of the state of the article. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * There is too much detail. We do not need long sections about the school tax credit and the income trusts.  TFD (talk) 01:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Lots of puff, argumentation, and stuff not of use to the reader is now removed. Collect (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, TFD and Collect. Unfortunately, Jmfmo has started to add back some of the content we removed, after accusing me of bias on my talk page. The user has been informed of this NPOV discussion, and has been pointed to the article talk page, but does not seem interested in discussion. I'm reluctant to straight-up revert Jmfmo because it could trigger an edit war, but again I'd like to see some uninvolved editors get, well, involved, especially since Jmfmo believes that I am biased. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Jmfmo posted a message on my talk page that seems to indicate they are willing to move forward collaboratively - they asked me to review their most recent edit. I hope this means it is resolved moving forward, but I'm still going to be watching. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 18:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Gun control rfc
There is an RFC that may be of interest to this group at Talk:Gun_control. Subject of the RFC is "Is the use of gun restriction legislation or other confiscations by totalitarian governments (Nazi, Communist etc) accurately described as "Gun Control". Are such instances appropriate for inclusion in the Gun Control article. (Details at RFC in article)" Gaijin42 (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources at Stop Islamization of America
An editor insists on the following language in the lead of the above-named article: "Stop Islamization of America (SIOA) is an American anti-Islam/anti-Muslim organization led by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer." There are at least two problems with this.
 * 1) Using the word construct "anti-Islam/anti-Muslim" to link to the article Islamophobic.  This is simply a stealthy way to introduce a racial-political slur into the article, and goes against WP:SURPRISE.
 * 2) More importantly, it uses Wikipedia's voice to make an editorial statement not actually supported by any of the three sources.
 * CS Monitor: "In the Bay Area, more than 125 religious leaders of various faiths signed a statement in July denouncing the ads as "Islamophobic" and saying they "promote fear of Muslim Americans.""
 * Pittsburg Post-Gazette: "CAIR's national office is also airing a series of public service announcements educating people about what it calls growing Islamophobia and anti-Muslim bigotry."

As we can see here, the sources are merely quoting the organization's critics; the are not applying the word "Islamophic" in their own voices. Therefore, in Wikipedia we must attribute the use of the word to whoever originally said it... assuming that such language even belongs in the lead at all, which is highly questionable. Federales 19:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * CS Monitor: "The anti-Islamic campaign is sparking thought about the religion's place in American society." Post-Gazette: "Muslim center here copes with increased Islam-bashing," "anti-Muslim rhetoric has been escalating to unusually high levels...Websites such as Stop Islamization of America and Creeping Sharia only fuel the flames". Neglecting to read the sources is not an acceptable excuse for misrepresenting the disagreement or for adding inaccurate and self-congratulatory material about the organization's stand against growing Islamist influence. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC) (NB: I have done a search for more recent stuff and added more sources on top of the ones that were there already) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * So let's remove the WL to Islamophobic, since that isn't what the sources actually say. Federales 20:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Federales (talk • contribs)
 * This seems like a reasonable use of a piped link. a13ean (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Doing so would entail unnecessarily linking to a disambiguation page. The sources' description of "Islam-bashing," "hate," "Islamophobia" etc. support the use of the piped link (or the editorial judgment to use "Islamophobia" in-text). –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A good fix for the complaint would be to describe the group as Islamophobic, using a directly visible wikilink and the references. Binksternet (talk) 20:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Another couple of sources describing both Pam Geller and Robert Spencer as Islamophobic are
 * Islamophobia in America: The Anatomy of Intolerance edited by Carl W. Ernst and published by Palgrave Macmillan
 * Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire by Deepa Kumar, page 179: "...the other leading sources of anti-Muslim racism are... Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer's Stop Islamization of America..."
 * I found a third source written by Ronald D. Smith, an attorney: Strategic Planning for Public Relations, page 135. Routledge ISBN 9781136172472. This book appears to describe SIOA as Islamophobic. Google snippet views are not quite enough to cement the relationship. Binksternet (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to the description (1) if it's attributed to the speaker, (2) if it's tied to a non-deceptive link, and (3) if the opening sentence of the article is changed back to the earlier neutral version. Federales 21:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Federales (talk • contribs)
 * Nothing in this comment is correct. We don't attribute broadly sourced descriptions - imagine how disruptive it would be to say "called Islamophobic or anti-Muslim by the Christian Science Monitor, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the ADL, CAIR, Deepa Kumar, Ronald Smith, Carl Ernst, the SPLC, the Huffington Post, ..." As "anti-Muslim sentiment" and "Islamophobia" are synonyms, the link is not deceptive. And the lead sentence you propose, far from a "neutral" version, is laughably inaccurate and promotional. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's an absurd and obtuse rendering of reality. What's needed is attribution to the source of the opinion, which is "religious leaders" and CAIR, per the sources.  The fact that it is widely reported merely means that we can use it.  Your notion that a neutral and objective description of the organization (which is used by the sources in their own voices, I might add) is somehow "promotional" is nothing but a red herring.  Federales (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, neglecting to read the sources, far from getting you off the hook for bad edits, displays a larger problem behind them. I've even quoted relevant passages for you above from a few: the sources themselves use these terms. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Scholars writing neutrally about the topic are the providers of our definitions. We do not have to attribute such definitions to the source in the text. We merely are required to cite the sources in references. Binksternet (talk) 22:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

That might be true, if there were any such scholars. Nobody has presented any such source at this point. Federales (talk) 22:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Will this do? - see page 93. "Geller is also co-founder of the Freedom Defense Initiative which is dedicated to stopping ‘Islamic supremacist initiatives in American cities’ and identifying ‘inﬁltrators of our federal agencies’. She is also a founder of the organisation ‘Stop Islamization of America’, which in the ﬁnest Orwellian fashion, describes itself as a ‘human rights organization’. It recently raised enough money to place advertisements on the sides of New York City buses identifying Islam with the September 11 attacks. The organisation’s motto is ‘Racism is the lowest form of human stupidity, but Islamophobia is the height of common sense’" AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably not, since that motto comes from SOIE, which is a different group. Assigning it to SOIA would be naked WP:SYNTH. Federales (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * How is citing something for exactly what it says WP:SYNTH? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Without something to corroborate it, the accuracy of that source is highly suspect. The quoted motto is widely attributed to SOIE, not SOIA.  I'm not finding any other source that attributes it to SOIA, and that language does not appear on SOIA's website.  And I will add that your source appears to be extremely partisan.  Federales (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, the lede as written was neutral. The book IS a reliable source. And AndyTheGrump has the quote right - the books says it is about SOIA. Neutrality is NOT taking the sting out of something, it is presenting that something clearly as the reliable cites do. If sources say it's a book, we call it a book. If sources say the person was the founder of a group, then the person was the founder of a group (even if Jimbo disagrees.) In this case, a hate group is a hate group. Or, for the purposes of this lede, Islamaphobic. In point of fact, this group may be the definition of Islamaphobic. EBY (talk) 23:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Federales, the author is Professor Lawrence Davidson of the Department of History West Chester University West Chester, Pa. The article is published by the Edinborough University Press. Unless you can provide evidence that this source is partisan, I see no reason to assume that it is so - it seems to be stating the obvious. As for whether the motto is actually that of SOIE rather than SOIA, it matters not a jot - the article describes SOIA as Islamophobic in multiple places. Please take the time to read sources presented to you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I must say that the ADL piece and its concerns (to put it mildly) about SIOA has swayed me to agree that the organisation gives a perception to many of it having an aggressive stance to Islam. If the ADL is concerned, then I am. However I do still believe that there is a deliberate blurring by some sources of what appears to have been an anti violent Jihadist mission by the organisation originally, and now a perception that it is anti-Islamic per se. I think that should be thoroughly explored here. The issue is more subtle than many Eds appear to grasp or accept. All sources are to a greater or lesser extent infected with a latent POV which is human nature. However I think a line by line examination of the original source and POV track record of the author(s) should be essential here. If an author is also an activist of any type, then it should be clearly stated in main body text. It gives readers a better idea of where voices are coming from politically, and it stops stealth editing to sway the uninformed user. BNot everything that is published is actually accurate. Irondome (talk) 02:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps what they are infected with is a plain English reading of the name of the organisation. Are you telling us that the name is not accurate? HiLo48 (talk) 02:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Islam and Islamification are two completely seperate concepts? Have you thought of that? Irondome (talk) 02:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have, but I don't see your point. Perhaps this whole thing needs a much clearer explanation. HiLo48 (talk) 02:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Well see Islam and Islamification. Spot the difference. Irondome (talk) 02:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm well aware of the difference. Have you considered the possibility that not everybody else is? Including members of the organisation in question? I'm always sceptical about organisations who choose names like that. Swinging to the end of the name, it clearly has nationalistic goals (despite what members might say - I try to look globally). That's a worry to start with. Once we start with that, questions arise in my mind about the rest of the name. HiLo48 (talk) 03:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Irondome's right - what the organization's name suggests is that it opposes the US becoming an Islamic country (the impression that users like Federales would like to promote with the silly "opposes the expansion of Islamist influence in the United States", as though it does anything in support of this goal), but what it actually does, as the sources point out, is oppose people building mosques, run ads portraying Muslims as terrorists and savages, etc. The name alone is not a basis for any sort of judgment. (unless someone were to propose for some reason that what they opposed were Christians, then we might have a basis for pointing at the name as some indicator) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Back to the original NPOV call - the issues were, to summarize, that 1A) using "anti-Islamic" was to introduce a racial-political slur. I argue it would introduce calling a spade what the sources say is a spade; 1B) that piping "anti-Islamic" to "Islamaphobic" violates SURPRISE. If that's REALLY true, my recommendation is to use "Islamaphobic" to pipe to "Islamaphobic", it seems a fair representation. 2) That calling this particular spade what sources say is a spade would use Wikipedia's editorial voice unfairly. This is an organization called a "hate group" by the SPLC and ADL and that went to court for the right to run anti-Islam ads on the subway. It doesn't feel so subtle as all that. EBY (talk) 04:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Congrats, you killed the straw man. Federales (talk) 05:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Quickest way to end your game of Deadliest Warrior. EBY (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well said Thereandnot (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

NPOV of Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012
The WP:NPOV has been in dispute for a long time now. Some Relevant discussions on the subject are:

Archived Discussions
 * Working on the Page and making it NPOV
 * Selective Quoting in violation of WP:MOSQUOTE and WP:BLP and WP:NPOV
 * NPOV
 * Request for comment on neutrality of article
 * Attempts at FA have now violated NPOV

Still Active Discussions


 * Roscoe Bartlett */ major BLP violations Requires tag and/or deletion
 * POV tags for King and Bartlett
 * King and Bartlett Section of Other comments Section

Recently open Discussion to resolve the two NPOV tags on the page
 * Roscoe Bartlett
 * NPOV issues with Wider impact Section

I am posting here because I would like to finally gain consensus over any WP:POV issues. First, I would ask for editors to review the whole article for any WP:POV issues. Second, I would like to gain consensus to remove the two WP:POV tags. Things are at a standstill on the talk page. If editors would give their input to the recent open discussions, it would be helpful. Thank you.Casprings (talk) 23:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Hookup culture
This substantial new article (created June 16) contains many references and quite a bit of useful material, but it is essentially an essay aiming to convince the reader that "hookups" are a bad thing. The article needs a major pov-cleansing. I would be willing to do some work on it if there are other editors who are willing to get involved, but I don't want to get into a one-on-one dispute with the article creator. (I have also raised the problem on the article's talk page.) Looie496 (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Rfc at Hookup Culture
There is currently two RfC's at Talk:Hookup culture (which is also being considered for deletion here), that would benefit from community participation.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

North American Union
User:Saruman38
 * Saruman insists that this conspiracy theory is not a conspiracy theory, and that the conspiracy theorists who make a fuss about it are not conspiracy theorists; he defiantly posts to my talk page that he's going to keep vandalizing the article to remove the sourced information he doesn't agree with:"stop sending me comments that I do not read. I will keep editing the North American Union article whether you like it or not". -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  17:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

List of Iranian news agencies
Hi all, There is a slight disagreement over at List of Iranian news agencies. I feel that some items should not be added to the list because they're not Iranian and not news agencies, giving the impression that they're just an excuse to link to something controversial. The other editor, of course, disagrees and feels that they're valid additions. Other suggestions would be welcomed. bobrayner (talk) 01:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Modelzone

 * This U.K. retailer has recently gone into bankruptcy. An account named User:Modelzone has been edit-warring to restore the "official version" of the bankruptcy and aftermath; since the account has been blocked as an obvious role account, I think some editor not associated with that block should look at the current version to make sure that the account is NPOV-compliant. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  17:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure if this is the place as never posted here before, but the edits being undone by Modelzone appear to have been lifted directly from the Daily Telegraph here and thus he was removing a Copyvio as well. Given the users name, there would seem a clear conflict of interest though. Current article appears okay at first glance. - Cheers, JCJ of Burwell (Talk) 09:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Toluca Lake, Los Angeles
Should the following paragraph be kept or deleted from the lede section of the above article? "According to an analysis of the 2000 census data by the Los Angeles Times, the Los Angeles section of Toluca Lake is an affluent, 71.9% white, domestically stable, older-aged, low-density neighborhood of the city." The discussion is at Talk:Toluca_Lake,_Los_Angeles. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

2013 St. Louis Cardinals season
I feel that the article 2013 St. Louis Cardinals season is not written from a NPOV. For example, the sections "Spring Training" and "Regular Season" just contain small milestones and notes about the team, a section that is NOT on the season pages of other MLB franchises. Not only that, but the sections seem rather biased and many praise the achievements of the Cardinals. I feel this section is unnecessary and not neutral. I'd like to hear what others think. Mpejkrm (talk) 20:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Gun control RFC
There is an RFC that may be of interest to this group at Talk:Gun_control. Subject of the RFC is "Is the use of gun restriction legislation or other confiscations by totalitarian governments (Nazi, Communist etc) accurately described as "Gun Control". Are such instances appropriate for inclusion in the Gun Control article. (Details at RFC in article)" Gaijin42 (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This RFC could use additional input. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Reebok_insider_trading_case
Reebok_insider_trading_case could use some additional eyes. I closed a recent move request there, which shifted the title from being a biography to being about a criminal case. In the ensuing article cleanup efforts, two of the protagonists from the move request are making various accusations of POV pushing. Would welcome additional eyes on this, as it's not obvious what is the most neutral, correct, and complete set of info to include in the article.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no question about the facts of the case, which were covered by hundreds of articles from all the best sources which tell a consistent story, so anybody willing to read the sources should jump in. The basic facts: the insider trading ring traded in 26 stocks illegally, based on 1) merger information, 2) information stolen from prepublication copies of Business Week, and 3) information leaked from a bribed grand juror.  Six people pleaded guilty, including the leaders Eugene Plotkin and David Pajcin (DP cooperated with the FBI).
 * The article has suffered from extensive problems from sockpuppets, see Sockpuppet investigations/Jackadvisor/Archive which included removing about 75% of the article followed immediately by an AfD attempt (see Articles for deletion/Eugene Plotkin, especially the talk page) by obvious sockpuppets. This was followed by another attempt to remove information Talk:Reebok_insider_trading_case and then by a manipulative attempt to remove info via an OTRS request Talk:Reebok_insider_trading_case which was dropped by the OTRS volunteer when he discovered that all the material was cited from top quality sources.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 09:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Some background regarding Smallbones and this article is in order. Smallbones originally created a biased BLP about Plotkin and consistently rolled back changes by other editors. The article had an issue with sockpuppets in February of 2012, which was promptly resolved. More than six months later, Smallbones began to roll back legitimate changes that tried to to bring the article in line with NPOV and add links. He was referred to ANI. Other editors restored the majority of the legitimate changes. Smallbones then fought the consensus view that the article did not meet BLP1E and should be about the crime rather than one of six individuals involved in that crime. He repeatedly made attacks against editors who disagreed with him and requested a spurious SPI when the vote for a new title went against his preferences. When this did not work, he went back to pushing POV via article edits. If you read the article's talk page, I think Smallbones' agenda is made very clear. He specifically dislikes Plotkin (whether due to COI or just his POV - on the talk page he says that people like Plotkin should be "hoisted by their own petard") and wants to use the article as a springboard to push that view. Factchecker25 (talk) 12:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * As Obi-Wan Kenobi says, the article needs additional eyes, though frankly I doubt it is ever going to be sorted out as long as the two protagonists above are permitted to carry on with the sort of nonsense we see above. Both seem more concerned with continuing their long-running feud than in actually producing any sort of objective article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

As I said there are no doubts about the facts of the case. Please read any of the multitude of reliable sources and jump right in editing. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 15:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the current revision of the article by Factchecker is perfectly good: []. The way I read the sources, Pajcin was a rogue Croatian trader who got some help from his friends and family. His aunt and girlfriend let him use their accounts. His Croatian buddies made trades using his info. His high school friend (Smith) gave him grand jury info. His work friend (Plotkin) helped him meet a Merrill banker (Shpigelman) who gave him mergers info and also helped him recruit two warehouse guys (Schuster, Renteria) who gave him Business Week info. In the end, the only info that made any real money was the one Reebok tip from the Merrill guy. Pajcin was arrested and then rolled over on all his buddies and accomplices. Everybody got jail time. The government got the money. As far as insider trading scandals, this is pretty minor. The media coverage was a little all over the place, and it looks like they were mostly reprinting government press releases. The current article cuts to the chase and, to me, looks neutral, accurate, and encyclopedic. Jaytwist (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Shaheed (1965 film)
This article is mostly a plot summary for a movie about Indian socialist freedom fighter Bhagat Singh. The article is extremely biased against the British Empire and attempts to present Singh in a heroic light. The first part that was added earlier is alright although it could be better. The second part though is a problem. It presents inflammatory information such as claiming the bomb Singh and his associates blew up in Parliament was to show that "Bhagat is awakening", the U.K. government maltreated prisoners, a speech that Singh made is "wonderful", many killed or executed freedom fighters are "martyr's" for what they did, and it features a quote that Singh and the other people executed with him supposedly said before being executed. True or not, this is way beyond the bounds of encyclopedic journalism. As well, the page is poorly written. The main user that posted this was IP Address 117.197.25.224 on November 18, 2011 who has never contributed before or since. It is unfeasible to write this on the article talk page because I am sure people won't read it as no one has complained before or even used it except to post templates and copyright notices on a picture used. --Thebirdlover (talk) 03:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The wording contains grammatical errors and could be more encyclopedic. As a summary of the movie, which is allowed, it is to be expected that it presents a pro-independence view.  Incidentally, I do not think that many people today support the imperialist position.  TFD (talk) 07:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Cleaned it up, fixing grammar and removing asides that have no bearing on the factual retelling of the plot. Factchecker25 (talk) 13:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It's OK to include the bias in the summary if that's how the film in fact portrays events. I've just written a plot summary for the Nazi movie White Slaves (film) which is undoubtedly "extremely biassed", but I was just trying to convey the way the story is presented in the film. If the version of events given in the film is seriously distorted it might be aprropriate to add a section on historical inaccuracies if it can be properly sourced. Paul B (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Evolutionary psychology
There is some disagreement over the section "Evolutionary psychology defense" which was added by User:Memills. The section consists of a list of books that allegedly contain rebuttals to the criticisms described in the section "Evolutionary psychology". It is not explained how the critics are wrong and which criticisms are misunderstandings. Instead, it is stated that critics misunderstand evolutionary psychology, period. This was discussed on the article talk page:. I argued that the section "Evolutionary psychology defense" violates WP:STRUCTURE and WP:NPOV because the subsections of the "Reception" section already include specific rebuttals and adding a final blanket rebuttal creates a biased criticism-specific rebuttal-general rebuttal structure. Two other users, Logic prevails and 121.72.116.250, seemed to agree that the section creates a pro-EP bias.

Btw, the article Criticism of evolutionary psychology has the same problem with excessive "rebuttals":. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 00:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, thats a lost cause I gave up long ago. I've made the same arguments at length at the talkpage. MEMills owns that article and has turned it into a EP apologia blog. The Criticism article is a POV fork that was split out beccause he wouldn't allow any of it in the article. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The community needs to step up and enforce the NPOV policy. MEMills must learn that he isn't teaching evolutionary psychology to a class of freshmen eager to learn how to "rebut" creationists (i.e., defined as everyone who criticizes evolutionary psychology) and other real or imagined enemies. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 01:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I previously opened a request for comments by neutral 3rd parties (see: WP:3). I was hoping that would help to resolve the editing disagreements between myself and Sonicyouth86 (talk). However, rather than first attempt to work it out there, Sonicyouth86 brings it here. Ok.

First, note the tone of Sonicyouth86 -- highly contentious and confrontive. I ask that Sonicyouth please tone down the rhetoric and ad homenims (as I have already requested repeatedly) -- it is not helpful.

User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· is not unbiased. He has previously shown a self-admitted, strong antipathy toward the field of evolutionary psychology. There is a larger academic debate between the conflicting theoretical paradigms of cultural anthropology and evolutionary psychology in which he is actively involved.

I stand by the contributions I have made -- they have been made in the interest of accuracy and fairness, as I believe a review will show. I encourage a review of the interchange between myself and Sonicyouth86. (However, a heads up: it is long, drawn out, and highly repetitious.) Memills (talk) 02:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I dont need to be unbiased, I just need to follow the NPOV policy. Thats what I do and you don't. If I believed you were willing to do that I wouldn't mind engaging in a constructive dialogue with you, but all evidence points to the contrary, namely that you are only interested in using wikipedia as a platform from which to preach the true gospel of Evolutionary Psychology.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... note the tone. What's with the tone...
 * I could point out that "you wish to preach the true gospel" of Cultural Anthropology & social constructionism.  In my experience, you have repeatedly attempted to censor / suppress accurate, notable and properly sourced information about evolutionary psychology (this was bought up several times on the Talk pages).  (Oh... the grief you used to give to poor Leadwind who was simply adding information gleaned from textbooks! WP archaeologists of the future will have a historical field-day reviewing that stuff...)
 * Also, note that I have never hung out on the "opposing paradigm" pages, say Cultural Anthropology or social constructionism pages, and there attempt to suppress accurate information,  add only criticism, and accuse those there of NPOV.  Could be fun... but not too constructive. Memills (talk) 03:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Memills is to all intents and purposes a WP:SPA editor on the subject of Evolutionary Psychology and Men's Rights Movement, two topics which appear to be linked philosophically and empirically. I have encountered him on the MRM pages, and have been appalled by the totally unapologetic misuse of sources. Having a POV is one thing, and pushing a point of view is bad enough, but falsifying sources to that end is inexcusable. See this for an example. I am strongly considering a request for arbitration about this editor as the misuse of sources strongly reminds me of the the Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance in which an editor was sanctioned for chronic misuse of sources to push a particular point of view. I am unfamiliar with the specific academic and sourcing issues regarding evolutionary psychology. User:Maunus and User:Sonicyouth86, it seems like you may have more expertise in this area. Are there similar patterns of edits which falsify the sources in this area? If so I would be glad to  work together to present a case to the Arbitration Committee about this editor.Slp1 (talk) 00:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Memills' use of sources tends to be creative, to put it mildly. I see a pattern of misrepresenting sources in order to invalidate criticisms of evolutionary psychology. You can see it in the EP article (e.g., he dismisses criticisms as straw man arguments although the source doesn't support such a description) and also in other articles (e.g., ). There is a persistent pattern of original research and NPOV violations from the editor. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The editor PHG worked on his own. By contrast as part of a non-approved educational project, Memills recently got his undergraduate class to create and recreate fork articles related to EP. Most of those articles were deleted. Memills admitted to being the responsible instructor. He had created at least 2 alternative accounts to oversee the project. (See the report at WP:ANI here.) That conflicted with his apparent ownership of the two articles evolutionary psychology and criticism of evolutionary psychology. Mathsci (talk) 01:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The project was run under the auspices of the Association for Psychological Science's APS Wikipedia Initiative.  Everyone, students and myself, were working in good faith to create main articles on what are now subtopics on the Evolutionary Psychology page.  It had been noted that that page is too long, and new sub-topic articles should be created to accommodate the content.   Unfortunately, my students ran into Mathsci, a colorful editor, who instead of assuming good faith, immediately assumed nefarious motives...   Memills (talk) 02:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The project did not have approval. The link to WP:ANI above refers to the discussion on the education noticeboard and also to this warning in February from the administrator Yunshui. On the talk page of that alternative account above the warning are a series of notifications about fork articles. The project was run inappropriately and almost all the articles produced were deleted. Two articles that seems to be undergraduate essays, supposedly written "in the voice of wikipedia" but in fact voicing what must be Memills' point of view, still survive (Evolutionary psychology of language and Evolutionary psychology of parenting). Since apparently Memills was giving advice to his class, the repeated re-creatiion of deleted articles was ultimately his responsibility. Memills has been blocked several times for making personal attacks. He has just been warned by an administrator on his talk page about his use of language. He should be more circumspect in what he writes. Mathsci (talk) 02:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, my -- "voicing what must be Memills' point of view"? Incredible. This was an academic assignment designed to create WP articles that conformed to WP policies using appropriate academic references.  I think what we are hearing is Mathsci's POV about evolutionary psychology, which as I recall, he has previously characterized as a "pseudo-science." Memills (talk) 18:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree that this project was also problematic in its execution. I was particularly disturbed by this post saying that he had given up on the student article project idea, only to drop using that account and resurrect it.Slp1 (talk) 13:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Let me suggest that an underlying motive, per the above, of these editors is a strong, very strong, antipathy toward certain topics. This has been demonstrated repeatedly.  This antipathy has led to incivility and edit warring with other editors with perspectives that differ from their own.  There has also been an unwillingness to compromise and attempt to resolve conflicts in good faith.   Slp1 in particular has relied on wikilawyering over discussion and compromise (the basics of AGF).  More substantively, her objective here seems to be to suppress /censor information to which she has a strong aversion. This is counter-productive, and it is contrary to the mission of WP.
 * Again, I stand by my contributions to WP, and, I welcome a review by neutral parties. Memills (talk) 01:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Really? You still stand by this kind of falsification of sources? That's very worrying indeed.Slp1 (talk) 13:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Looks like cherry picking.
 * Those references should not have been used. Quite frankly, I had not read the entire articles, which I normally do.
 * I could cherry pick you, too. You routinely delete sources that you have not read.  If they do not conform to your POV you apparently seek to find reasons to have that material removed (see below).
 * And, speaking of not reading the source material -- Sonicyouth86 continues to misrepresent Thornhill and Palmer when she has clearly not read the book (despite my repeated suggestions that she do so). Ironically, it is our disagreement about what Thornhill and Palmer actually wrote that led her to open this review -- a book she has yet to read!
 * A review of Slp1's edits on the MRM-related pages will show consistent POV-pushing -- most often by deleting material to suppress the inclusion of notable, relevant and properly sourced information. You rely on excessive wikilawyering to rationalize these deletions (e.g., claims of OR when it suits your POV -- see, for example, this).
 * Those who live in glass houses... Memills (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finally admitting that there were indeed problems with your sourcing in that edit.
 * As far as your accusations against me, as usual lots of claims and no evidence, except one citation which shows the deletion of very obvious original research/synthesis. I really don't know what else to say if you don't understand the problem with that material by now, as you were told by multiple editors at the time . It's also curious that you claim that I delete and suppress MRM viewpoints, when in fact by far the bulk of my edits on that article have been to add properly sourced material detailing the MRM's viewpoints.. Anyway this discussion is about the evolutionary psychology article so I suggest that you take any further complaints about my edits to WP:ANI or WP:AN.Slp1 (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * A read-thru of this exemplifies how creatively OR can be defined per one's POV. Also, the rejection of Benatar's book The Second Sexism as a usable reference source (via the gambit that he is not an MRM, nor writing about the MRM) is quite a POV stretch, as I argued.  Apart from that I must say do applaud your efforts that you list above wherein you do reference MRM activists or authors, rather than just feminist critics of the MRM.  However, I will leave this topic here, for, as you note, it is not related to evolutionary psychology. Memills (talk) 23:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Whatever it is, evolutionary psychology has no particular slant towards the rights of particular groups. I am not quite sure whether the WikiProject Men's Issues has any legitimacy and whether it should be linked to the article EP as happened here. The other WikiProjects linked on Talk:Evolutionary psychology are what would be expected; however, this addition seems very odd. Mathsci (talk) 08:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree -- EP is an academic discipline; the MRM is a political movement. I did not add the link, and I think it is inappropriate to link the two. Memills (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This book explains the linkage and why MRAs are interested in EP. I have no opinion about abut the Wikiproject issue.Slp1 (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * That book, Reassessing Gender and Achievement: Questioning Contemporary Key Debates, provides a pretty thin linkage between EP and the MRM from what I can see on Google Books. Memills (talk) 23:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I see several pages worth of prose dedicated to evolutionary psychology and its approach gender, contrasted with the individualization approach. The authors posit that MRM and EP both believe that there is an essential nature to men, that both believe if boys are raised with a majority of female influence in their lives then their maleness will be restricted in development (page 49.) On page 83 the book says the MRM perspective is the same as the EP perspective with regard to the learning style of boys being different than that of girls, because of biological differences which form a predisposition for gendered behavior. Binksternet (talk) 00:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * To the contrary, the MRM may generally view sex/gender differences as due to either sexually dimorphic psychological adaptations -- nature/nurture interactionism (as does EP), or, it may take a purely social constructionist approach (as does one of its most prominent proponents, Warren Farrell).  Also, one would be hard pressed to find EP literature that suggests "if boys are raised with a majority of female influence in their lives then their maleness will be restricted in development."  But, this discussion is getting a tad far-afield of the primary topic here... Memills (talk) 06:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Neutral editor Dailycare (talk) has responded to my request for a Third Opinion. The response is here. Dailycare (talk) apparently agrees with me that Sonicyouth86 has misrepresented what the reference sources actually say. Dailycare (talk) also proposed a compromise solution, which is fine by me. In addition, Leadwind provided a suggestion for compromise on one of the issues here.Memills (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This whole discussion is very odd. There should be a reliance on the usual kinds of reliable sources to edit this article, without any effort to promote a "rights movement" while doing the editing. We are here to build an encyclopedia as we meet one another on Wikipedia. I have some of the sources at hand--I suppose I should scan the article to see what it looks like now. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Can we get back to the subject? Is the "Evolutionary psychology defense" which lists books that allegedly contain rebuttals a violation of WP:STRUCTURE (and therefore WP:NPOV) because of the criticism-specific rebuttal-general rebuttal structure is creates? All criticisms in the article already have "rebuttals" and the section is one more "rebuttal" to unspecified and unmentioned criticisms. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 00:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Here is a suggestion. Take a look at the Feminism Reactions section.  It is subdivided into two sections: Pro-Feminism and Anti-Feminism. Perhaps a similar structure could be used here: Pro-EP and Anti-EP.
 * As I noted on the EP Talk Page, this is consistent with EP policy: from WP:CRIT " ...(a) section may be titled "Reception", "Response", "Reviews" or "Reactions". These sections include both negative and positive assessments. This approach usually conforms to the WP neutrality policy, because it avoids being "all negative" or "exclusively laudatory" about the topic." Memills (talk) 06:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Having stopped in on the page from time to time, I agree with the assessment that memills WP:OWNS the page. I don't expect this to change without much expensive drama. aprock (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * What is interesting about this discussion is the lack of input from neutral 3rd parties, with the exception of Dailycare, as noted above.
 * aprock (talk), and other ghosts from the EP Talk Page archives, with a clear antipathy for EP, magically re-appear. Since they apparently believe that EP is either wrong or evil (or both), they may believe they do WP readers a favor by preventing them from wasting their time learning about the discipline, and/or, learning about both the pro and con sides of the controversy surrounding it.  Seems to me that they would like to own the page, much like corporate sharks would like to own a 51% share in the stock of a competitor -- so they can shut it down.
 * But, WP isn't about censorship (WP:CENSOR); it is about the use of reliable, notable, and relevant sources. The vast majority of the EP article was written by a large number of contributing editors using such sources.
 * Since I know the discipline well, I will challenge an edit that misinterprets the original sources, as is the case here (as a neutral editor Dailycare has taken the time to check and verify). (Unlike Sonicyouth86, the initiator of this review, I have actually read the book in question.) That is not "ownership;" it is editing. Memills (talk) 04:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe you've just done an admirable job at illustrating both the WP:OWN and WP:DRAMA issues. I commend you on your efficiency.  Bravo, and over and out.  It's all yours, have at it. aprock (talk) 04:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi guys, I provided a third opinion relating to the content issue on the EP article. While Memills' read of the source there is in my opinion correct, I'm not accusing any other editor or editors of wilfully misrepresenting the source since a text can be read incorrectly for a number of innocent reasons. In terms of making concrete progress on the article, my advice would be to focus more on the article content and the sources and less on exchanging opinions about each other. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Returning to the section "Evolutionary psychology defense", which was removed by Dominus vobisdu and restored by Memills, it seems it might not match the sources. Segerstråle's book hardly discusses EP except to explain how it differs from sociobology. It is one of three sources mentioned without specific page numbers to support a sentence concocted by Memills. I have not checked the other two sources (they look as if they're about sociobiology), but the section reads like an essay, the statement of a personal point of view. The statements cannot be verified from the sources at present. The last lengthy quote from a very recent journal blog (11 July) seems WP:UNDUE. As written, this section looks like an attempt to have the last word in a he-said-she-said-he-said-she-said-he-said-she-said line of reasoning that runs through the article. The relation of the content to the sources is unclear. Mathsci (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * As I have noted several times, the books that are listed are general references that examine the debate from a pro-EP stance and include rebuttals to critics. They are not there to provide references for rebuttals to specific criticisms.  A similar list of books by critics is listed at the Criticism of evolutionary psychology page.
 * Re the "last word" issue -- my suggestion above would solve it: "Take a look at the Feminism Reactions section.  It is subdivided into two sections: Pro-Feminism and Anti-Feminism.  Perhaps a similar structure could be used here: Pro-EP and Anti-EP." Memills (talk) 19:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Concern: Hoyts

 * Addition of content
 * Removal of content
 * Addition of content
 * Removal of content

I'm sure how to go about this so I though I'd better ask for some help: I have some concerns about the article regarding Hoyts cinemas.

First, let me compare it to articles about other cinema companies in the US and UK; articles for Odeon and AMC, for example; they all clearly outline controversies that surround those companies, such as the lawsuits AMC has been subjected to because of it's ADA access issues. These articles clearly show both positive and negatives aspects of the companies which they are about. The Hoyts article, however, shows only positive things.

Recently, Hoyts was involved in a nation wide scandal when it was discovered that one of their complexes was infested with rodents; I made an edit to the article describing the situation and included two references, including one which linked to a statement by the company itself. Within days, the edit had been reverted and the references removed, by who I don't know.

It appears that someone, or maybe a group of someones, is or are trying to cover up controversial issues involving this company, as well as many other Australian companies. Can something be done about this? If so, what?

--Klltr (talk) 05:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, a couple of things. It's not really a good idea to talk about about "someone, or maybe a group of someones" without researching who that person might be. One person removed the section in question as part of a larger "Tidy up" and added a reference for another claim. The easiest way to approach this would probably have been to raise your concern with that editor directly and ask him/her why they made the edit they did and why they removed the content you added.
 * To encourage discussion here, I have linked to the article, the editor who made the edit and two diffs - your edit adding the content and his/hers removing it. Best place to start would be to have a chat to them about it. If there really is an NPOV problem, then by all means bring it here. But now that you're here and they know about this thread, they may well come and have a chat about it. Stalwart 111  07:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

How to refer to reoccurring controversies at dental clinic chain
Lately there has been more negative press about Small Smiles Dental Centers. Currently the lead mentions the 2010 settlement with the US federal government (At one time it had to pay a settlement to the federal government after accusations of Medicaid fraud, but the chain did not formally admit to wrongdoing), but since new allegations came out in 2013 I would like to mention them in detail in the lead (concerns of quality and doing unnecessary work), and that the accusations are reoccurring, as indicated by reliable sources.

Should I say in the lead "During its history the dental chain has faced accusations of providing unnecessary dental care, improper restraint techniques, and quality of its work"? The improper restraint refers to the use of papoose boards in dentistry for non-emergency patients. The "unnecessary" refers to accusations that the chain is doing dental work that is not necessary.

Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There seem to be a few sources that mention this, the 2010 case may be too insignificant on its own to be mentioned in the lead, so if it was replaced with the text you propose then neutrality might be closer. In fact, just saying in the lead that "During its history the dental chain has faced accusations of providing unnecessary dental care" could be even more preferable. The article body discusses these issues in length so a mention in the lead seems OK. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! The 2010 case did receive a bit of media coverage, and it followed the initial 2008 reports. But I'll use the advice to tweak the lead. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I noted a living person having his house price cited - which is of minimal relevance to this article, and raises BLP issues. I rather think the article would be far stronger with a lot of word=pruning, but didn't do so at this time myself.  Will someone prune the "foliage" which makes the article unreadable. please? Collect (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The house price was being used by the journalist to say that the dentists became wealthy off of the practice, hence Vogrin's conclusion that the clinics "have done well". - That particular article that it is cited from does not mention the controversies. Regarding information about a person's housing, I checked the WP:BLP policy. BLP says not to misuse public records such as "that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." and it also cautions "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." - However the information about the house price isn't from the public records, but from the newspaper itself. Also BLP says not to include personal details such as the actual address but the paragraph only stated the neighborhood.
 * The source says: "The clinics have done well. Michael DeRose bought a home last year in [...]"
 * The DeRose family is a prominent business family in Pueblo, CO and the local university stadium is named after two of the members, Eddie DeRose and his wife, Neta (source which is about the family surviving a plane crash). I was able to start an article on one member, Dan DeRose, who started a marketing company and advocated placing advertisements in public schools. I found in the Denver Post article "THE RACE FOR CONTRIBUTIONS." (February 25, 2004, Denver and West p. B04) that "One prominent extended Pueblo family, the DeRoses, and their associates at DD Marketing contributed $16000, or almost a quarter of his funds" - Considering this information, does this mean that the members of the family involved in business can be considered "public figures"?
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No - it does not make them "public figures" in the legal sense, nor does it make them individually "notable" per WP:GNG, nor does it mean we can abrogate WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 21:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * One of them is individually notable, though it's not the one who had the house purchase discussed. While BLP is not completely abrogated, there are fewer BLP concerns when talking about a public figure, versus a private one. BLP says "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." - In regards to allegations/incidents, the house price wasn't treated as "negative" information about the person. The practice with public figures differs from BLP where there are fewer instances information, and there is the caution "exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources." and that "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care;". The reason why I would like to clarify this matter is because this information originates from a newspaper reliable source and it's being used by a journalist to assert something about the business (that it was financially lucrative). To help me get a handle on the matter: who is a "public figure" what must this person do? WhisperToMe (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * To help with this matter, I found the essay Who is a low profile individual. And so one of the traits of a "high profile individual" was "Has voluntarily participated in self-publicity activities, such as press conferences, promotional appearances, book signings, and the like; and/or has participated in an attention-seeking manner in publicity for some other concern, such as a cause, election campaign or commercial endorsee." and it also states "Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable." - In regards to Michael DeRose, in this article he engaged in an interview in one of his clinics and then he offered a tour of the business. His interview material was used in the article. The article states "The DeRoses have built something of a dental dynasty, having a financial stake in clinics in eight states: Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Indiana, South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia and Kansas." - So it also was a very large business WhisperToMe (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Another consideration for the legal definition: This article by Wired stated in 2005 that a Florida judge ruled that because a woman had been the subject of "substantial" internet debate she was now a public figure. This may seem like an extreme example (and I don't know if this has been appealed), and also I understand that Wikipedia can and does maintain higher standards than the law in regards to many aspects, but in addition to the Small Smiles controversies in 2004 (when the DeRose family controlled the chain) Michael DeRose found himself in controversy over the operations of a dental clinic chain in North Carolina that he co-owned with another dentist, and he and his co-owner settled with the US government over the government's accusations of fraud, and so as part of the settlement they agreed to not contest allegations from seven former patients in the years 2001-2003 that they were given "excessive treatment", but the two did not admit any wrongdoing. Such a development would certainly lead to internet debate, and under the Florida precedent would make him a public figure WhisperToMe (talk) 01:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Then propose the change you desire at WP:GNG to read "if a person has signed a consent decree of any sort with regard to a business, they are notable" or the like.  I think you will find it not easy to get consensus for such a change.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I didn't explain this: In my view of the evidence above, a person who is a "public figure" under at least Florida law (where the main Wikimedia servers are) doesn't have to be Wikipedia:GNG notable. My goal is to preserve the sentence sourced from the phrase "The clinics have done well. Michael DeRose bought a home last year in [...]" - I don't think I have enough sourced material on Michael DeRose himself like I do on Dan DeRose (but I could do a catalog of what reliable sources say about Michael DeRose to see how much more is needed before a standalone article) but the material about Michael DeRose is in the articles Smile Starters (for his activities in North Carolina) and Small Smiles Dental Centers (for his activities in Colorado). While I understand the desire to avoid defamation, Michael DeRose has received plenty of media coverage for public activities involving his business and he willingly gave an interview promoting his company, so I believe Wikipedia should treat him as a "public figure" even if there is not enough material to write an article on him as a person. Therefore, we can follow the guideline to "only include sourced material" and the entire paragraph about "the clinics have done well", the facts and the journalist's conclusion that the home value represents the business's prosperity, is sourced entirely from the Colorado Springs newspaper. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If it's alright, I'll see how much sourced info there is on Michael DeRose and see if it is possible to write a standalone article on him. I may put a draft in my userspace, and let other Wikipedians look at it. Of course it will only be sourced from secondary sources WhisperToMe (talk) 03:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Michael Ezra
is zealously removing this information, sourced to Ugandan newspapers, about Ezra's various brushes with the law. Interestingly, the user has been editing that article -- and only that article -- for the past three years, and refuses to clarify the nature of his relationship to Ezra. Third opinions, please? Jpatokal (talk) 08:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Bump. Pretty pretty please? Jpatokal (talk) 01:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The ugnet source seems to be some kind of email archive or message board. To qualify as a reliable secondary source, there would need to be editorial control over the content which doesn't seem to be the case as far as I can see right now. --Dailycare (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, the ugnet source appears to be a copy of a newspaper article published in the New Vision newspaper on Sunday, 11th April, 2004. Jpatokal (talk) 12:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's best if we invite into this discussion. I've put a notice on his talk page.  Leujohn  ( talk, stalk me? ) 17:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Danny Nightingale (soldier)
An editor, User:Twobells, has taken to editing the article Danny Nightingale (soldier) to present a POV that there is some sort of official conspiracy being conducted against the recently convicted soldier. This diff and accompanying addition here is the first example. In it the editor commits WP:SYNTH to "prove" Nightingale's allegations of a conspiracy simply because his prosecution continued even after some Mp's questioned it. The key phrase is "a position given credence", an analysis not contained in any of the sources, and not repeated in the media anywhere. I explained this, and how it was a synthesis, to Twobells here.

Eventually, Twobells found an op-ed by Frederick Forsyth which he claims provides the precise analysis requested. He introduced it to the article here with the text: "However, author and journalist Frederick Forsyth considers that undue pressure was placed on Nightingale for reasons unknown, he states that Nightingale was facing 'pretty relentless official persecution'." Reading Forsyth's op-ed reveals no such wording about the sinister "reasons unknown" etc; Forsyth simply states that he finds the whole affair "extremely odd" and offers no explanations, makes no allegations, says nothing of substance. I have again attempted to add balance and have altered this to: "Author Frederick Forsyth, writing in the Daily Express, has called the prosecution of Nightingale "extremely odd" and "a pretty relentless official persecution."" Forsyth simply does not offer any more of use than that!

To maintain balance, I added this to the article: "Nightingale and his supporters claimed that his trial had become "political" and that the authorities were pursuing a vendetta towards Nightingale because he had challenged the military prosecutors. Steven Morris, a journalist for London's The Guardian newspaper, wrote that Nightingale's supporters believed that the prosecution was an attempt by the army and the Ministry of Defence "to slap down the SAS" because it had become "too powerful and autonomous."[8]" Twobell's reverted this text here claiming it was "not neutral far too pov"!

Here Twobells added the phrase: "Blackett went on further to criticise both the public and government for supporting the decorated soldier." Which is blatantly false and not supported by the sources; the judge's exact words were "I trust that those who have been so critical of the Service Prosecuting Authority and the Court Martial process – particularly those who made unfounded and uniformed remarks under the cloak of Parliamentary privilege – now realise how inappropriate and wrong their criticisms were." No mention of "supporting" Nightingale and no mention of the public: Twobells is simply attempting to distort the judge's remarks to imply something he did not say. Determined to press this Judge vs Humble Joe Public angle, Twobells later altered my addition of the direct quotation here...

With this edit twobells says that "Nightingale was unable to make any comment follwing the trial due to threats of further prosecution", ref'd to a video of Mrs Nightingale talking to the press afterwards, clearly a POV edit designed to draw sympathy. I altered it to "Nightingale was banned by the SAS from making further comments to the media. His family said they had no regrets over pursuing the retrial and would "seek legal advice before considering an appeal." This accurately reflected the reported comments here in The Times. Twobells subsequently changed this to more POV: "Meanwhile Nightingale and his family insist they will continue fighting for the truth to come out; however, Nightingale himself was unable to make any comment due to threats of further prosecution if he spoke out".

Clearly, Twobells is a "supporter" of Nightingale and wishes to present Nightingale's case in the best light, from a pro-Nightingale POV. I am neither for nor against Nightingale, and in general my edits - if there is a pattern at all - would show I have an interest in raising awareness of miscarriages of justice. I'm certainly not trying to push a POV on this article. But countering the POV is leaving me vulnerable to charges of edit warring. I raised this on Twobell's talk page - his response was that I was guilty of "one of the worst examples of pov writing I've ever seen on wikipedia" and "an arrogance I have yet to see worse here." The guy is clearly not open to discussing this. Keri (talk)
 * Oh, and I am also a suspected employee of the Army Legal Services Branch for countering Twobells' POV. Keri (talk) 14:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Rich, really rich, my editing was an attempt to return the article to neutrality, User talk:Keri basically took the prosecution's position and promoted their argument, the defence's position is that pressure from within the Army attempted to make Nightingale a scapegoat for political reasons. The media is full of copy describing what they, politicians and the public believe to be the relentless and ruthless pressure put on the soldier and his family suggesting it to be highly unusual, my edits merely reflected that. Twobells (talk) 13:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Eventually? it took me two minutes to find one of many articles asking why the SAS soldier was hounded by the ALR. Describing wording such as 'reasons unknown' as 'sinister' is both childish and a transparent attempt to demonise a fellow editor. User Kiri suggests that a world famous author and journalist 'says nothing of substance', again reflecting for all to see how non-neutral this editor is in a desperate attempt to dismiss any other than the prosecutions line. As editors we cannot simply cut and paste, rather we lay out the position of the cite authors the best way we can while trying to retain neutrality. Twobells (talk) 13:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * We are not idiots, it is quite clear for all to see that this was rather your attempt to camouflage was is essentially a point of view, official Army line. Twobells (talk) 13:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Many articles refer to Blackett's attack as a remonstration to both the public, members of parliament and government ministers support of Nightingale. User Kiri is taking the position of the judge and wants no argument.Twobells (talk) 13:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * These are the FACTS of a very important British media story there was no attempt to 'draw' anything, the reader has to understand WHY Nightingale could not speak out, it needs to be put into perspective, the reality is that the soldier would be further prosecuted if he tried to explain and defend his position. The media demanded to know why such a decorated soldier was being prosecuted especially after recovering from brain damage from a charity run, the press further questioned why the prosecution continued to seek to prosecute Danny Nightingale even after he won his appeal. Nightingale was NOT prevented by the 'SAS' from speaking out rather it was the ALS Army Legal Services on orders from senior command. The fact that a man accused of serious wrongdoing was threatened with further charges is extremely relevant and needs reporting in a neutral manner. The timeline had moved on, the family has decided to continue to fight the case the wording of which and associated links of which were deleted. Twobells (talk) 13:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Again this editor seems to want to promote a fellow editor in the worst possible light with some sort of nefarious agenda, my understanding was to always assume good faith; however, it seemed impossible when this particular editor was rolling out the prosecutions line. User Kiri describes themselves a neutral and I hope that to be true, however in the case of these edits the reader can only assume otherwise. As for myself I only wished to maintain a neutral position on WIkipedia; however, when I visited the page for the first time I found I had to get involved to try and return the article to some semblance of neutrality. In reference to wondering whether the editor was from the ALS what else can one think when on visiting the page for the first time you are presented what is essentially the prosecutions case presented as fact?
 * In closing I do not appreciate any editor coming onto MY user page and filling if full of foul language particularly as I had already politely asked you to refrain from doing so on the articles talk page. Twobells (talk) 13:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I note that since I first raised this issue a 3rd editor (User:Cjmooney9) has removed a section of text including the Forsyth reference, citing grounds that the defence claim of a wider agenda "doesn't deserve credence." A 4th editor has also undone this edit by Twobells - which slipped my attention first time around - where Twobells had again altered a direct quotation to presumably make some kind of ironic point. Keri (talk) 08:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Creation Museum
Has had the following material repeatedly inserted into the lead:
 * ''The Creation Museum has been criticized as promoting fallacy over fact and attempting to advance the tenets of a particular religious view while rejecting, overlooking and misconstruing authentic science. The museum has received criticism from the scientific community, educators, Christian groups acquainted with the scientific method, and in the press.[1][2][3][4]


 * Its exhibits reject universal common descent and biological evolution, and assert that the Earth and all of its life forms were created 6,000 years ago over a six-day period. In contrast to the scientific consensus, exhibits promote creationist claims including the proposition that humans and dinosaurs once coexisted, and that dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark.[5][6] Scientific evidence supports the conclusions that the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old, and that the dinosaurs became extinct 65.5 million years before human beings arose.

All of the criticism is fully covered in the body of the article - making up well over half of the entire article as well as 80% of the lead.

I suggest that while the museum is clearly non-scientific, that NPOV requires still that we usebalance in the article, and that the lead is quite unbalanced as presented: I proposed:


 * The Creation Museum has been criticized as rejecting scientific fact.[1][2][3][4] Its exhibits reject universal common descent and biological evolution, and assert that the Earth and all of its life forms were created 6,000 years ago over a six-day period.[5]

As being in full compliance with WP:LEAD, WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT but was reverted. Opinions thereon are welcome. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I recommend changing "fact" in the proposed lead into "consensus" as "fact" has a certain weight to it that all that contradicts the said "fact" must be false. Apart from that, I can't think of a better way to word it. In the interest of full disclosure, I believe in creationist theory. Cheers! Leujohn  ( talk, stalk me? ) 17:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Sammy Yatim problem
I've noticed that Google News is leading (at least in Canada) with coverage of the Sammy Yatim shooting. Nothing wrong with that, but it's become customary for them to link to a relevant Wiki article for hot stories. This time, they've gone with List of cases of police brutality in Canada, and people are already taking the bait.

I'm sure we can see the issue with judging a man before he's had his day in court (no matter how bad the video evidence looks). But do we then tell the Googling world "Sorry, Wikipedia has no information."? Or do we create an article about the shooting, word it more neutrally, and hope Google deems it more relevant? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a neutral article is required, but it will not hold up against the Wikipedia editors unless the story receives wider coverage. 5,000 likes on a related Facebook page and some coverage from national media is still not enough. Once the police make a report and explain their side of the story, or unjust cause is found, it will be difficult to make an opinion-neutral article. Altonbr (talk) 04:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "Some coverage" is a bit of an understatement, but I'm not arguing. An article specifically about this case would attract even more problems. Best to wait on that, to see how the lasting significance part goes. But is there a better place to mention him than in a police brutality article? Not sure how Google works this, but if it just autoscans Wikipedia for keywords, we might help point it to a more appropriate article. Can't think of one off the top of my head, but I'll look. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Google seems to hsve fixed the problem. Still leading with the story, but with no Wikipedia link at all. I hadn't even considered that simple solution. Figured there was an obligation to link something this way. Guess not. Good job, Google! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

please keep wikipedia news/articles up with the current events regardless of it being be somehow biased (true neutral does not exist) I think is more important to be current with little information of an event than ignoring the issue and look plain insensitive/uninformed, it is a upside that the nature of wikipedia is to be updated with more current information when that information becomes available. I'm sorry to post this in here but I didn't know where to address with this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.144.144.236 (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, but what current information says this is a case of brutality, instead of a case being investigated? Until a court or inquiry determines misconduct, we're in no position to join the accusers or the accused. If you're so concerned with keeping the encyclopedia current, start an article about the whole event, with all the actual current information. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Better yet, bring it to Wikinews. That's more where current events matter, per WP:NOTNEWS. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Use of Court judgement?
In the section titled “Purity of the Teaching” of the Transcendental Meditation movement there is a paragraph regarding Robin Carlson, which ends with the statement that in 1983 Robin Carlson filed a $43 million law suit against MIU alleging interference in conducting his seminars. No further details are given, but the 1986 decision Vincent P. McCARTHY v. The IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY (a case dealing mainly with Carlson’s attorney), details how the case ended and reaffirms the original court’s right to enter the judgment. In the recap, it said that the court entered a consent judgment and order of permanent injunction that dismissed Carlson's petition and enjoined him from interfering with MIU's activities.

Does the sentence as currently written, describing the filing of a lawsuit for tens of millions of dollars with no mention of the outcome, leave the reader with the impression that there was is implied guilt on the part of the defendant MIU? If so, would it be correct to add a sentence from the judgment regarding the resolution of the suit, to reestablish NPOV? Thanks for your input.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

There is also a second option: As this is mainly about a failed lawsuit with only a marginal relation to the subject matter of the chapter “Purity of the Maharishi's teaching" should that paragraph be there at all? --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 03:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Court judgements are primary sources and should only be used to clarify something that has been already mentioned by an actual secondary source. I routinely delete discussions of court proceedings if the only sources are the proceedings themselves. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with Someguy1221. Analysis is often required to read court documents correctly and what is contained in them but not reported in secondary sources is not significant enough for inclusion.  TFD (talk) 06:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The issue though, is NOPV. The paragraph as it stands simply shows that a lawsuit was filed against the defendant for a huge amount of money, creating the impression that there was guilt on the part of the defendant, when in fact the suit was resolved in a way that was unfavorable to the plaintiff. I am not arguing for the inclusion of a legal argument, this is a judgement agreed to by both parties that is very straightforward and requires no interpretation; it quite clearly says that the plaintiff was enjoined from interfering with defendant's activities, could not enter defendant's premises without prior written permission, could not distribute literature or communicate with people on MIU premises,cold not use any of defendant's marks, hold offices in the same country, or interfere with defendant's activities anywhere in the world. This is extremely specific. However, it also seems to me the lawsuit has little to do with the article section, so discussion of the suit could simply be removed, but as it stands, I do not see how the paragraph can deemed as having a NPOV. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 04:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * If we all agree that the case was closed favoring the defendant, we could add "in which the case closed in favor of the defendant" or something like that at the end of the sentence, with a citation to a transcript of the case. Leujohn ( talk, stalk me? ) 17:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The case and transcript are primary sources. If the case was summarily dismissed, and it never really got secondary source coverage, there is good precedent for not including it at all. Thousands of cases get dismissed every day, and do not merit mention in Wikipedia articles. Collect (talk) 13:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There are two issues here... relevance and neutrality. First relevance... not every event in a person's life is relevant enough to be mentioned in an article.  For a specific event to be considered relevant, you need to have a secondary source note that the event took place (or is taking place).  So, unless there are secondary sources that mention the lawsuit, I question whether it is relevant enough to mention in our article. As to neutrality... If the lawsuit is mentioned... its outcome needs to be mentioned as well.  Otherwise it would give the reader a false impression.  Blueboar (talk) 15:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

NPOV check requested
I just put a NPOV check request tag on Brett Kimberlin but I'm not sure whether it'll get noticed by a bot or it'll just remain there until a user deletes it so I will place a check request here.

Here is the background: Brett Kimberlin is a political blogger/Twitterer who has had heated conflicts with a few conservative bloggers since, about, 2009. For some of the individuals involved, there have been competing harassment lawsuits filed against each other and each "side" has its vocal supporters. In fact, for the individuals personally involved in this dispute, finding evidence of the "evilness" of their opponent is about all they spend their time on. As far as I've seen and read, there is plenty of misconduct going around on all sides of this political disagreement.

That said, Kimberlin committed a serious crime in the 1970s, that is factually true. But the bulk of this article (which I'm not sure even meets Wikipedia Notability standards), is focused on these 30+ year old activities, not the current state of affairs. While I try to assume good faith, I can't help but think that the sole purpose of this article is to create bad press for a party involved in an ongoing lawsuit, so that anyone Googling his name will come across an entry with that focuses on all of his past misdeeds.

I see issues with WP:NPOV, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:POINT WP:COI and WP:CALM. I should note that while I'm familiar with many of the individuals in the dispute (mainly through following the back-and-forth insults on Twitter), I was surprised that there was even a Wikipedia article on Kimberlin and I've never corresponded with any of the parties personally or written about this political in-fighting. I came across the article, was surprised it was so biased and am just following it up with a request for a review by an impartial editor. Thanks! 69.125.134.86 (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This case seems to have a WP:BLP aspect to it, the Biographies of living persons noticeboard would be a good place to list this if you feel he's unfairly portrayed in the article. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I would tend to agree with 69's portrayal of Kimberlin's antagonists. In the past week, we have had an editor, User:TMLutas, repeatedly attempt to add negative material to the article sourced solely to Robert Stacy McCain's weblog. (Robert Stacey McCain is, shall we say, not a fan of Kimberlin.) Removal of the material resulted in my being called a "Kimberlin defender", charges that I am pursuing a vendetta, that I am bullying, that I am part of a "Team K"... &mdash; goethean 19:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I can understand that one may add negative material but the latest edits I've saw myself has been about the fact that he is married? I haven't checked anything else other than that.  I can take a second look.  However it isn't just about the bombing that he's involved with.  He did come to notoriety again when he claimed the accusation about Dan Quayle including the many malicious lawsuits against popular figures like Orrin Hatch.  The blog about Brett Kimberlin Day & the media reporting on SWATing which they name him specifically is also notorious.  So we're talking about multiple events that involves this one person.  ViriiK (talk) 23:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Read the comments from the last week on the talk page. Lots of rumors being bandied about. My stance is to remove anything sourced solely to Robert Stacy McCain's weblog, as he is a sworn enemy of Kimberlin, and I don't find McCain to be reliable on any matter whatsoever. &mdash; goethean 23:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have an issue with that. Meanwhile, if those offending material are removed depending on what they are, then the questions about NPOV should be answered?  ViriiK (talk) 23:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that 69 is contending that the article focuses too much on Kimberlin's old convictions rather than things that he is doing in the past few years, maybe implying a coatrack violation. He hasn't yet, however, proposed any content or sources, and neither has anyone else (other than the previously poorly sourced proposal already discussed). &mdash; goethean 17:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems rather bland. Is there one part that is particularly troubling? Capitalismojo (talk) 01:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Just popped in because of my mention in the noticeboard. I've repeatedly said I've got no trouble adding any sourcing that other editors feel comfortable with and personally switched out McCain as sourcing when asked. Here's the relevant part of my latest comment on talk "Goethean reverted a mainstream press account? diff and article link? When did the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette start being a controversial source? " TMLutas (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't add new information to the WP:LEAD. &mdash; goethean 14:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have a problem with the position of information, you move it. Instead you revert. You're raising false issues here. TMLutas (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * And I love how you use an edit summary to threaten people. &mdash; goethean 14:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * One of the documents to back up the whole marriage thing was Tetyana Kimberlin's peace order. Read the edit summary more carefully. I wasn't threatening a judicial action. I was saying that killing off the Fort Wayne Gazette link (see above) left me only with the more inflammatory peace order application as a source and I was trying to avoid that because using that seemed to be unfair if it was avoidable. Besides, I'm not in Maryland and wouldn't have access to Maryland's judicial system. Every state I've lived in but Maryland calls these types of things something other than peace orders so far as I can remember. I'm not a lawyer. TMLutas (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the larger WP:COATRACK, Kimberlin's previous actions are certainly the main source of his notability. Him being married is certainly not controvercial - but the source being cited to WP:V his marriage is unreliable, and most importantly in the same blog post cited makes massive BLP violating accusations. I am not a fan of kimberlin, and am personally inclined to believe almost every negative rumor about him - but attack blogs are not reliable sources for wikipedia. I have no objection to the journal gazette source to back the information. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Subsequent to the original blog post, I've offered other sources. Keep up, would you? The relevant source to discuss at present is the current proposed one which would be the 2007 Fort Wayne Journal Gazette article, again see above for link. Nobody is insisting the blog post remain as sourcing. It's a red herring. As far as Kimberlin's notability goes, once he's notable, there's no reason not to do a complete article on him, which would include his Ukraine business connections, his music career, his health store in Indiana, and so on. That's not coatracking as the subject remains the life of Brett Kimberlin. TMLutas (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that I needed to be the source of new information for this article. All I did was ask for a NPOV check. I don't think it matters whether we are talking about recent edits or older ones, I wanted the article, as a whole, to be reviewed. Like I tried to say (above), I'm neither friend nor foe of Kimberlin but McCain (and a few others) and he are antagonists, both in the political blog world and in court.

I don't know the particulars of who is suing whom and for what, I just know that there are these two opposing camps, each with their own supporters, and the feud (fought in blog posts and Twitter) is very vicious, very personal and has been going on for 2-4 years now.

Frankly, I was surprised not to an edit war going on but it seems like the anti-Kimberlin folks have been more active than the pro-Kimberlin ones.

I'm not asking for facts to be removed, I just think that, as it reads, the primary focus of this article is on crimes that were committed 40+ years ago. It seems unbalanced. It might be the most notable thing that has happened in his life, but I also know that since this living person is involved in court cases, individuals involved in them will Google his name and this is what they'll see. I'm not advocating censorship, just that I think the tone of the article sounds like it was written by someone who either is in opposition to Kimberlin, being sued by him, is one of their supporters or, in general, has an axe to grind.

I posted about it here because I thought there was a formal "review process" done by a volunteer team of uninvolved editors. That doesn't seem to be the case. So, I will post about this on the BLP board and see what folks there think. I do appreciate everyone weighing in, both those who think drastic changes need to be made and those who think it's fine as it is. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 18:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

1948 Arab-Israeli War
I will appreciate your advice, concerning what can be done if User:Pluto2012 has deleted a section (based on a false POV claim) instead of re writing it.

according to the rule: do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. he should not have deleted it.

The issue was discussed in the article talkpage. in my opinion, Pluto should un-delete this section. If he thinks it is biased, he may add other well supported opinion.

What is your opinion?

(note: the problem was posted on other noticeboards to no avail) Ykantor (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * If you have raised this on other noticeboards, and not gotten the answer you want, what makes you think you will get a different answer here? WP:FORUMSHOPPING is unlikely to get you what you want.  Several editors have explained why the section is problematic.  I would suggest listening to their concerns, and re-write the section yourself... in a way that shows you take those concerns seriously and are trying to resolve them.


 * Thank you for replying. I have not received at other noticeboard any answer / opinion at all. So It does not suit the term WP:FORUMSHOPPING, which is for an editor who got a reply but want to get a different one. (I have realized that I have not initially mentioned that in previous noticeboards, the issue was not treated.)
 * Anyway, what is your opinion concerning this rule: [[Wikipedia:NPoV#Achieving_neutrality |

do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone.]] he should not have deleted it? or you justify him?
 * Since User:Pluto2012 is routinely deleting most of my contributions, it is difficult to justify spending days to re-write the section, which will be deleted anyway. Moreover, The deleted section is 100% correct, in my opinion and well supported (potentially).  User:Pluto2012 keep his claims (about the supposedly biased content)to himself, and does not agree to expose any of them. So there is no option for me to re-write is as a supposedly "balanced" section.
 * yours "Several editors have explained why the section is problematic". Those explanation are relevant to the British policy within Palestine, but not relevant to this deleted British Diplomacy section (which is mostly out of Palestine).
 * I do not want to argue with you. I hope for a constructive solution, and I accept that I might be wrong. However, there was no mentioning of any specific problem / error / bias with the removed section content. Ykantor (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If a section is biased, then it is sometimes better to delete, because the reader may leave the article being less informed about the topic than before he read it. The policy states a general not an absolute rule.  The section states as a fact, "Britain...supported the Arabs [in the 1948 war]".  If that is false or merely an opinion then the section should be removed.  Similarly the statement that the British believed most Jews were Communists.  TFD (talk) 19:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The section is not biased, although there could be some minor points:
 * yours  "Britain...supported the Arabs [in the 1948 war]". There should be 1 more word: "diplomacy", as in the section title. With this added word, the sentence is accurate.
 * yours "British believed most Jews were Communists". It can be modified to suit the citations :"British believed that the Jewish state would eventually become communist" . one more source:
 * Ernest Bevin wrote one of his rare personal letters, in which he discussed Soviet motives. Among other things, it reveals that he shared the belief, not uncommon in British official circles, that the Jewish state would eventually become communist:" source: Ends of British Imperialism: The Scramble for Empire, Suez, and Decolonization, 2006, By William Roger Louis ,p.443.
 * That is a constructive path. You highlighted some specific points, and I easily modified it. The problem is that User:Pluto2012 does not want to mention specific points. He just keep saying that the section is biased.
 * BTW I have not written even one word in this removed section ( except of adding citations). Ykantor (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * My outsiders opinion (having read the discussion at the talk page) is that Pluto did not remove the section solely on the grounds that it seems biased. He removed it because it was either inaccurate or gave UNDUE weight to only one view of a complex issue.  Several other editors seem to agree with him on this (I don't know enough about the topic to judge).
 * My advice... don't wikilawyer over whether he (or anyone else) has the right to remove the material... be proactive rather than reactive. Since you are the one who wants the article to say something about the British role in the war, type up your own re-write (one that at least attempts to address other people's concerns) and post it on the talk page.  Invite others to work on it with you... until (together) you come up with something everyone finds acceptable. That would be much more productive (and far less stressful) than spending time complaining that someone didn't follow a relatively petty policy procedure. Blueboar (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, I accept your advice and will insert a draft in the article talk page. However, in my opinion, it is a sort of Sisyphean task  since User:Pluto2012 is anyway routinely deleting most of my contributions.
 * yours "He removed it because it was either inaccurate or gave UNDUE weight to only one view of a complex issue". I have searched again in the talk page and the results are:
 * he said:having so long a section about this fringe idea is WP:Undue. These are not fringe ideas, and are very well supported by RS historians. Moreover, concerning British Diplomacy, there is no other view at all. BTW it could have been concised easily, if it would not have been removed.
 * The supposed inaccuracies ( mentioned by User:Pluto2012 and his friends) are relevant to another issue- the British policy inside Palestine. Ykantor (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

King of Canada
Page:

There is a dispute on whether the article on John Buchan, who was appointed Governor-General of Canada in 1935, should say he was appointed by George V on the advice of the Canadian Prime Minister or by George V, "king of Canada", on the advice of the Canadian Prime Minister. The sources merely use the title "King".

The first Canadian Royal Style and Titles Act of 1953 provides the official title of Queen of "the United Kingdom, Canada [etc.]", and there is some usage of the term "Queen of Canada." Before that the official title was the one used under the British Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927, which makes no specific mention of Canada. However the most commonly used term is "The Queen."

There is a discussion at Talk:John Buchan.

TFD (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * TFD should not have biased this request for input with the 1953 Royal Style and Titles Act, since that forms part of his argument against using the simple phrase "king of Canada", when "king of Canada" is not being presented in the article as a title (with a capital "K"), rather it is being used merely a description of what George V was (a way commonly used for monarchs in general). -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  20:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * On this photo of a statue of the king, located in Canada, the inscription clearly reads: "George VI king of Canada". Credibility gap (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, Buchan was appointed governor general by George V (who was still king of Canada). -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  22:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have corrected that. TFD (talk) 08:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * No idea why the statue, which was erected in 1963, uses that term. The point is that it was not the most usual title, and prior to 1953, was not ever used AFAIK in any official manner.  TFD (talk) 08:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It likely uses the term because that's exactly what George VI was: king of Canada. I cannot comprehend why you're so adamantly focused on the need for official/legal uses of the term, as though those would be the only way use of the term could be validated; the whole title thing is a straw man. It is simply common language to describe a country's king or queen as "king" or "queen of [Country]". I provided contemporaneous examples of the term being used in just such a way in reference to George V. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  15:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This all seems a bit stupid given that in the same situation within the UK proper, nobody would have felt the need to spell out that George V was king in Wales, Scotland, or Northern Ireland. Mangoe (talk) 19:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not the same thing; those are all part of one country; Canada and the UK are and were then independent of each other. There's reasoning for including it given at the now ongoing RfC at Talk:John Buchan, 1st Baron Tweedsmuir. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  02:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * At least the BBC uses "queen of Canada" of the current sovereign (Source 1, Source 2, Source 3) so saying G6 was "king of Canada" is likely entirely okay. On the other hand, if there really is a dispute about this, why not say "king George VI"? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This kind of research is helpful, but I would suggest that the term "king of Canada" is non-neutral because it gives undue weight to a phrase that is rarely used, and also because it makes a misleading implication about the Canadian view of the monarchy, and the actual situation regarding the who holds ultimate governmental authority in the country. George V was king of Canada in a narrow legal sense only. The phrase is jarring because it is at odds with generally accepted usage and with the real political situation as reflected in the news and in scholarly coverage. EMP (talk 17:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Dailycare, I suggest the BBC is more likely to refer to her as the "Queen of the United Kingdom", or simply "The Queen" In fact they do not refer to her as "Queen of Canada" in your sources, but are quoting the modern Canadian oath of allegiance and two speeches by royals.  The title "Queen of Canada" is not incorrect, just unusual, and certainly rarely used in 1935.  It I similar to insisting on referring to Barack Obama as the commander in chief or head of state, instead of president.  TFD (talk) 01:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Extentding your own argument, editors should be barred from ever describing Obama on Wikipedia as the "commander-in-chief" or "head of state", even in contexts where doing so is perfectly accurate, apt, and grammatically correct. Right here is a violation of your rule: Structure of the United States Armed Forces. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

William M. Branham
There has been ongoing discussion at Talk:William_M._Branham regarding the proper approach to attaining NPOV with respect to the article in its current state. Other relevant discussion related to the NPOV issue are also on the talk page (e.g. see Talk:William M. Branham

Because I viewed it as non-NPOV, I added a number of external links about a year ago as an attempt to add a little balance to the article. Unfortunately, I did not have time then to go to the significant effort of a complete rewrite of the article.

As a result of Reliable sources/Noticeboard, all of the external links that were negative to Branham's claims were removed (edit by Rev107)at 03:09, November 18, 2012). At the same time, all of the external links to websites of supporters of Branhamism were retained.  Needless to say, when I returned a year later to look at the article, it was still clearly NPOV but now all of the external links were of Branhamite origin.

I am prepared to undertake a complete rewrite of the article based on properly sourced acceptable reference materials (i.e. not self-published websites of any variety) but, I am afraid, based on my few attempts to edit the article, that I am in for a massive edit war, which I would prefer to avoid.

I started to outline my concerns at Reliable sources/Noticeboard but am not sure that it is the correct place to discuss this issue, as the heart of my concern is whether the article is currently NPOV (which I think it is not).

If this should properly be dealt somewhere else, I am happy to have this moved (I am not an expert at things Wikipedian).

Here are some of my concerns:

1. It is clear that Wikipedia should not be used for original research. Presumably that means that an editor should not analyze William M. Branham's published sermons and then make statements in the Wikipedia article based on that analysis. I understand that an editor is supposed to use acceptable reference sources that summarize or comment on the religious leader's published materials but am I right to assume that one should not synthesize self-published sayings into anything either pro, con or even neutral? Isn't that the place of independent reference sources?

2. If an editor can use self-published materials of a religious group that make wild supernatural claims for its leader, why can't one at least post external links to self-published materials on a research website that aims to debunk the supernatural claim using historical research? Personally, I would think that both types of websites should not be used as references and, at best, should be restricted to the external links section.

3. Wikipedia should presumably not be used as an apologetic for a religious group (it is my view that the current article is used in such a fashion) but rather should represent a neutral overview derived from acceptable reference sources, particularly when they are readily available.

4. Rev107 seems to be confusing the article on William M. Branham with the article on Branhamism. A self-published source from a Branhamite website might be valid as a reference for the article on Branhamism but not for the article on Branham himself. The William M. Branham article currently contains self-published references to Branhamite church websites and Branhamite organizations which should only rightly appear, if anywhere, in the article discussing the movement.

In my opinion, the article on William M. Branham does not currently adhere to the NPOV policy. However, before I start a rewrite, I do need some guidance on the article as it currently sits. Taxee (talk) 04:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * All claims by William Branham have been presented using Wikipedia voice (not "Angels spoke to him", but "He claimed angels spoke to him"). There has been no attempt to say that these claims are true or false. The complaints by the above editor are typically that there should be evidence provided to show that angels could not have spoken to WB based on the original "research" provided by self-published disaffected church members. There have also been attempts to show that WB's doctrinal teaching is wrong. Again, the article only states what WB taught, not that it is true or false. Rev107 (talk) 06:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * But is a neutral voice sufficient if the article itself is not balanced? Neutrality is supposed to assign weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence.  The prominent view of William Branham outside of Branhamism (which would clearly be the majority view) is not  adequately reflected in the article in its present form.  That is my concern.  Taxee (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The article contains a section called "Critisism" and comments by other editors on the Talk page have recommended this be used for general criticism, not detailed challenges to every claim made by WB.. Neutrality does not mean that every claim made by WB is challenged - it means that claims made by WB are presented in a neutral voice. The article has been unnecessarily expanded by attempts to refute minor details. Rev107 (talk) 05:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I would have thought that a Wikipedia article is not the place for minor details. Why is Branham's encounter with an astrologer important enough to take up an entire paragraph? Why is it important that the Library of Congress has Branham's photo in a filing cabinet?  A recent attempt to remove two self-published sources was reverted by Rev107 - 17:58, August 7, 2013.  Again, why are self-published references by supporters of Branhamism acceptable but those containing research questioning his claims are not?  I would have thought that all self-published references were equally unacceptable (other than Branham's own writings or sermons to the extent that they do not make exceptional self-serving claims).  Taxee (talk) 05:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The encounter with the astrologer was introduced by a critic to challenge WB's dob. I think the whole paragraph could be removed.
 * Weaver calls the photo "perhaps the most famous picture of the healing revival" (xxii) so a link to the actual photo and the accompanying explanation are justified..
 * The self published pro-Branham sites are used as references for what WB's followers believe. These sources are recognized by both Weaver & Harrell as reliable sources of information about what WB's followers believe.  Rev107 (talk) 06:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Could you please provide me the page numbers where both Weaver & Harrell reference the website your referenced? Also, why would you consider a website as "reliable" when the publisher of that website, Voice of God Recordings, also publishes a website that states - Did you know that:


 * 1. The earth is square?
 * 2. In the mid-twentieth century, eighty-seven percent of all alcoholic beverages consumed in the U.S. came from Louisville, KY?
 * 3. The people that built the pyramids had nuclear power?
 * 4. If you could travel at the speed of light, it would take billions of years to get from Earth to Mars? Taxee (talk) 05:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I really don't have time to get into the whole Wikilawyering routine. Based on this noticeboard discussion, ALL external links containing research that is critical of William Branham's historical claims have been removed.  That is NPOV?  Seriously?  No page numbers to the Voice of God Recordings references were provided.  I have reviewed the reference materials and while some family members may have been interviewed, does that mean that all of their websites are acceptable self-published materials?  In fact, of all of the external links that Rev107 considers acceptable, only the links to Branham's writings and P. Green's book are referenced in any independent references.  His "acceptable" references contain links to Branhamite church website and Branhamite apologetic websites. Taxee (talk) 21:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that the proper approach to this article is clearly laid out in the NRM Workgroup’s Manual of Style


 * The problem with the current William M. Branham article is that it is based to a large extent on primary sources. As such, both Rev107 and Taxee are incorrect in their approaches.   What they are effectively doing is using primary sources for explicit or implicit advocacy for or against Branhamism, which the workgroup states is improper unless they cite a reliably published secondary source using the same primary source in the same manner.


 * The workgroup specifically states that in the NRM field, primary sources include:


 * 1. Writings or other media published by an NRM;
 * 2. Writings or media recordings of a movement's founder;
 * 3. Self-published writings of members and ex-members;
 * 4. Websites of members, ex-members and critics.


 * This would mean that to properly fit within the workgroup guidelines the article should be substantially rewritten to comply with the workgroup’s manual of style. Matt7:15 (talk) 04:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Matt7:15


 * Thanks for posting the link to the NRM Workgroup’s Manual of Style. If I had known about it, I would not have posted this issue to this noticeboard.  I am going to try to adopt the  approach that they have laid out and see if that will work.  If we have a clear set of guidelines I am hoping we should be able to resolve most disputes, if not directly with rev107 then at least with the help of the workgroup editors. Taxee (talk) 00:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Graff Diamonds
An editor who probably represents the company seems to have turned this article into a quasi-advertisement. I neither enjoy fixing such things, nor am I good at it, so I'm posting here asking for help in fixing it up (for lack of a better place to post). Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added an advert template in the article. Users interested in this sort of thing should be notified. Leujohn  ( talk, stalk me? ) 06:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

== Chennai Express ==

Talk:Chennai Express is currently being subjected to an incredible barrage of whining by fans of the film's star who insist that the standard Wikipedia source of box office gross information, BoxOfficeIndia, is wrong wrong wrong and Wikipedia is full of haters of their beloved star! I don't know if the problem is socks or meatpuppets or just fans and am not sure whom I should notify about it. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  19:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Never mind; this is at Dispute resolution noticeboard already. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  19:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Nadim Kobeissi
After a recent controversy, this article has completely lost its neutrality. Please check the edit history and the talk page for the discussion and circumstances regarding this complaint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.241.213.18 (talk) 16:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've read the article, and most of the text seem acceptably neutral to me. The relevant discussion on its talk page also seems to have died down. If no one else has any further input on the matter, I believe we can mark this as resolved. Leujohn  ( talk, stalk me? ) 17:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

POV issues at Volodymyr Viatrovych


Article about a Ukranian writer created by User:GlaubePL, who has identified as Polish. Mr. Viatrovych has apparently written stuff that is disliked by people in Poland, and the article was, in its previous state essentially an attack page with serious WP:UNDUE issues. The content in question was removed repeatedly by at least two IPs, until it was reported to OTRS as a BLP violation (which is what I treated it as). Beyond the weight issues, which are solved by entirely removing the material, I have no desire or intention of engaging in a content dispute (since I am not involved per se), so I'd appreciate it if other editors could do a basic POV check to help GlaubePL's understanding of the NPOV policy and how this material might be better presented. He has offered to create a revised version of the "Critique" section removed from the article, which in my opinion is still problematic. Also notifying User:Sieben Zwerge, an SPA that has only edited this article and its talk page. § FreeRangeFrog croak 16:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * All editions and informations in the article are based on the academic per-viewed literature from professional historians, not only from Poland but also from Ukraine, Germany, Sweden and Canada. This is not "attack page" but scholarly criticism. It is a pity that you see it from so much narrow nationalistic perspective.GlaubePL (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no positive criticism of Viatrovych in academic publications. He is a far right author with tendencies of Holocaust denial (he denies the participation of Ukrainian nationalists). Once he is quite influential in the Ukraine and in the Ukrainian diaspora and he published enough to meet the relevance criteria of WP he should have an article also on the English WP. Scholars from several countries (I won't repeat what GlaubePL wrote) are dealing with him not so much as a historian, but as a subject of research. They analyse his methods and his agenda in a context of widespread nationalism and anti-Semitism in the Ukraine. Deleting this from the article means deleting the core. There hardly is something else to say about Viatrovych then criticising him for violation of academic standards. Would you ask for a balanced article on Ernst Zündel, as well? Leonid Zashkilniak said in a discussion: "Vyatrovych’s books are, for now, probably among the most valuable resources, alongside earlier studies on Polish-Ukrainian relations, including the document database prepared by the Institute of National Remembrance." Grzegorz Motyka's answer was: "As far as documents published by Volodymyr Vyatrovych are concerned, I would like to refer you to a review by Andrzej Leon Sowa, soon to be published in the journal Pamięć i Sprawiedliwość [Memory and Justice]. Sowa superbly demonstrates that the published documents often contradict what Vyatrovych himself claims in his commentary. The fundamental flaw of the book is that Vyatrovych tries to deny that the massacres of the Poles had an organised character. The author makes little effort to hide his main objective: to deny the Bandera movement’s responsibility for the anti-Polish operation. Considering what historians have established during 20 years, such a view does not deserve to be discussed at all. Several sources indubitably confirm the responsibility of the Bandera movement, but in many cases Vyatrovych simply ignores them." quote on pages 309-310 Sieben Zwerge (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not related to this dispute; (but in case you might go wrong) "the Ukraine" is not the (English) common name of Ukraine since December 1991. So please do not use "the Ukraine" in Wikipedia articles (talkpages are alright I guess) for consistency within Wikipedia. —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  19:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If the weight of a new version is still a problem, I have prepared a shorter one: GlaubePL (talk) 21:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It is generally a better option if you could add accurately sourced information supporting your viewpoint into the article. If your view is at least a significant minority, finding sources should not be difficult. Leujohn  ( talk, stalk me? ) 05:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The article in a new version has references to 9 or 10 academic sources... (the old one had many too...) They are not "significant majority minority" but probably vast majority (if not all) of reliable sources publishing on Volodymyr Viatrovych.GlaubePL (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not mind that Mr. Viatrovych receives criticism on Wikipedia but in the 1 August version of the article the sentence appeared: "V. Viatrovych uses double standards in regards to testimonies of witnesses. He completely rejects memoirs of Polish witnesses to OUN and UPA crimes as allegedly biased". That is not a WP:NPOV sentence... If the sentence would have been "Viatrovych has been accused of using double standards in regards to testimonies of witnesses. He is also accused of completely rejecting memoirs of Polish witnesses to OUN and UPA crimes as allegedly biased". It would look a lot more NPOV.

Furthermore the 1 August version looked like a personal essay, that style of writing is not allowed in Wikipedia. I think that the page was not intended to be an attack page... but the right tone was not found. —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  20:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * + for me the "Critique section of the 1 August version" was too long... I soon lost attention (and I am actually interested in the subject...). Usability considerations concerning the size of an article have been determined to include attention span. Spelling out all the critique in full details (including the names of people I never heard of (I have read stuff of the mentioned John-Paul Himka and Per A. Rudling)) did not help the articles readability, in my perception. —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  21:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your remarks, Yulia Romero. The second version proposed by me presents only opinions and it is a little shorter. The shortest is the third version:  and it reports only opinions too. They both still enlist all the critics because they are experts of the field as well as Himka or Rudling.GlaubePL (talk) 05:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks too. I prefer the third version. It's good to go. —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  15:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Anders Breivik a "terrorist" or not according to WP:Label?
A dispute at Workers' Youth League (Norway) needs your input. I argue that the label "terrorist" is too value-laded and contentious to be used. The other guy disagrees (see edit summaries).

Note that
 * 1) Anders Behring Breivik calls him in the immediate lead a "perpetrator" and not once in the entire article a "terrorist".
 * 2) per long-standing consensus (or rather majority view) neither the article on Osama bin Laden nor on Al Qaida uses the qualifier "terrorist" in the immediate lead, but rather "militant", even though this individual killed 3000+ persons and the organization he led is responsible for hundreds of attacks, killing many thousand persons. Isn't it then a double standard to single out Breivik who was responsible for the deaths of 'only' dozen persons as a "terrorist"? WP:Label makes only sense if we consistently follow through the same standard of evaluation regardless of the political views of the "terrorist", otherwise the policy is clearly detrimental to WP's neutrality policy.  Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Per WP:Label: "...best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject". I assume that Gun Powder Ma will not dispute that (a) Breivik has been widely described as a terrorist in reliable sources, and (b) convicted of terrorism. As for Bin Laden etc, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The description of Breivik as a terrorist is entirely in line with policy, and I can see no legitimate reason whatsoever not to do so, in the context of a section of the article describing the mass murder by Breivik of 69 individuals at a youth camp run by the Workers' Youth League. Perhaps Gun Powder Ma could explain why we should not describe terrorism as such? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * There are literally tons of reliable sources which describe Osama and Al Qaida as terrorists. Why should we be inconsistent with the application of WP:Label? Besides, since the article on Anders Behring Breivik follows faithfully WP:Label, there is really no reason why it should be any different in other articles. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * If you want to argue about the content of other articles, start another thread. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, our article on the September 11 attacks describes them as "terrorist attacks" in the lede. Likewise, the lede for our 7 July 2005 London bombings article refers to "four Islamist home-grown terrorists". Would 'WP's neutrality policy' require that we remove the word 'terrorist' from those articles? I surely hope not... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it matters that much whether we do or don't use "terrorist" to describe Anders Breivik on any random occasion that his name crops up in Wikipedia. But the suggestion that it is a label which is "contentious" is something I find puzzling. He's in prison convicted of terrorism. Has any serious argument ever been made that he does not qualify as a terrorist? Formerip (talk) 15:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned the word from other articles where it was used prematurely, and agree it's often thrown around recklessly. But in this case, it's about as clear as it gets. He was charged with terrorism, found guilty by trial and sentenced for it. He didn't dispute (or recognize) the decision. That carries more weight than a billion news sources. If we can't call someone like that a terrorist, I don't see how we could anyone. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Since WP:LABEL is a guideline, there are exceptions for example one could speak of the "9/11 terrorist attacks," because the "9/11 attacks which have been described as terrorist", would imply that there was doubt. I think in this case one could call the massacre a terrorist attack but should not call Breivik a terrorist.  Also, since the context in which the attack is described leaves no doubt that it was a terrorist attack, using the word "terrorist" seems redundant.  Incidentally, WP:LABEL says the term is "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." (my italics).  TFD (talk) 18:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no doubt at all about 9/11. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So if all the world's media have said something, how many publications do we attribute the claim to? Or do we only call someone a terrorist if it has been said in sources no more than once or twice? Formerip (talk) 19:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "in this case one could call the massacre a terrorist attack but should not call Breivik a terrorist." TP's logic is a mystery to me. It was a "terrorist attack", but the person who did it was not a "terrorist"??? This would only make sense if "terrorist" were a profession. One could say "it's architecture, but the man who designed it isn't an architect", if you thought it was reasonable to restrict the word "architect" to people with professional qualifications. But a terrorist is like a murderer. Anyone who commists a murder is a murderer. You don't need to be qualified. A terrorist is just a person who commits acts of terrorism. I see no reason why Breivik should not be described as such. Paul B (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If one's neighbor in the woods, who was not a qualified architect, designed and built a cabin, one would not say, "My neighbor, who is an architect, designed and built his own cabin." We do not generally refer to political leaders who support terrorist actions in other countries, as have leaders of most major countries, as terrorists.  We generally do not refer to everyone who has a criminal conviction as a criminal.  TFD (talk) 20:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * But we sometimes do. Is it your contention that there is a good reason to put Breivik in the category where we do not? Formerip (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am just following the guideline. If you disagree with it then that should be discussed there.  The whole point of guidelines is that issues like this can settled globally rather than through hundreds of different discussions.  I do not see any reason to make an exception here as there does not seem to be anything that makes it unusual.  We have a lot of articles that mention terrorism, and they rarely call people terrorists.  The main article about Breivik does not call him a terrorist and it was discussed at Talk:Anders Behring Breivik/Archive 7.  TFD (talk) 05:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:Label says "...best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject." Breivik has been widely described as a terrorist. He has been convicted of terrorism. The description is in accord with the guideline. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:LABEL then says, "in which case use in-text attribution." An example of "in-text attribution" is "Alice Jones said in her 2008 book, The Sun is Really Big...".  In this case you could say something like, "Brievik, who so-and-so said was a terrorist."  You need to either change the guideline or explain why this case should be an exception.  TFD (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Beyond clear that he should be described as a terrorist. If anything bin Laden actually has a better defense for not getting the label, since there is no evidence he directly performed any terrorist acts, but was only involved in their planning etc. In any case, gazzilions of reliable sources describe them both as such, in addition to Brevik's conviction which should end all question. That said, that he qualifies for the label does not mean the label is mandatory in all contexts, and the appropriateness or not of the label would need to be decided by consensus - but argument to the contrary can certainly not rely on its inapplicability. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Very clear and obvious case of someone getting to be called "a terrorist".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Terrorist is a devalued word. Far too many point scoring politicians and media outlets daily misuse the words terrorist and terrorism for them to have any real value to us in creating a serious, quality encyclopaedia. We should simply describe what a person did, and leave up to our readers to choose a simple and simplistic one word descriptor if they so choose. HiLo48 (talk) 05:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A lot of people misuse a lot of words. "Random", "literally", "bug", "epic", "etcetera". They only lose their value when other people entirely stop using them properly, and the dark side wins. We must remain vigilant. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * OBL has supporters, so to label him a terrorist would be to state the view of one side in a war. The standard dictionary definition of "terrorist" applies to Breivik, and as numerous reliable sources support that label, it is reasonable to describe him as such in the few words available in the article. Johnuniq (talk) 06:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact that someone has supporters does not prevent them from being a terrorist. Most terrorists do. Get your ouija board and Arabic dictionary out. I doubt OBL would deny being a terrorist. Formerip (talk) 14:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

For info, I've proposed a change to the manual of style guidance. Formerip (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Konrad Lorenz
I need some extra opinions to the article on Konrad Lorenz where an editor is removing sourced material regarding Lorenz' work during WW2, and reinserting what he claims to be "historical truth" which is nonetheless unsourced and in contradiction to the sources used in the article. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems you are right and the editor (who, in his user page, opines that original research is okay) is wrong., , for example all source (at least parts of) the previous version and contradict the other editor version.--  cyclopia  speak!  14:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Shooting of Trayvon Martin
Long time controversial article had achieved some good balance and neutrality imo. Now some editors are coming in and significantly upsetting that balance imo. All negative information about Zimmerman is being whitewashed out of the article. And all positive information about Martin is being removed as well. A few of the recent topics to be issues that are getting rammed through
 * removed : Police reports describing Zimmerman as white (With a fight to remove any description other than "Hispanic")
 * removed : That in the 5 calls to 911 Zimmerman made, all were to report black suspects. (We had not commented on the motivation for this, but merely the well-reported fact) (With statements such as "Zimmerman has proved to not be racist or have racist motivation for these calls added in talk)
 * removed : description of martin as an A & B student by one of his teachers (accompanied by BLP violating commentary in the talk page imo)
 * Attempt to add  : Allegations of Martins drug use, beyond his documented use of THC, but to include LEAN/DXM
 * Attempt to add : allegations that Martin was a drug dealer
 * Attempt to add additional details about Martins alleged burglary history

I believe this article could use additional eyes to make sure it is being dealt with in a WP:NPOV manner. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Concerned Women for America
At Concerned Women for America, I've made an attempt to address a longstanding advert tag by removing copious amounts of material sourced only to CWFA's self-published promotional material. User:Intermittentgardener has repeatedly reverted while steadfastly refusing to explain any problems that he or she found with my edits. Talkpage discussion can be found here. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I would like to note that I have only been reverting the wholesale deletion of content. While Wikipedia does discourage the use of primary sources, that should not be an excuse to delete anything and everything without discretion or judgement. Also, I have engaged on the talk page. Roscelese refuses to talk any specifics about the content; She just wants to delete. Finally, if you look at her user page and talk page you will see that she clearly has a POV that she is pushing and routinely engages in conflict with editors she perceives as conservative. Intermittentgardener (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You're shifting the burden. If you find anything and can back it up with reliable independent secondary sources, discuss on talk and get consensus to include. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Isn't the burden of proof rightfully on someone who wants to delete longstanding text that constitutes the vast majority of an article?Intermittentgardener (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Most definitely not. The burden rests solely on those adding or restoring material. The size of the deletiion and whether it was longstanding or not has no bearing on this, and is not a justification for restoring that can be defended by our policies and guidelines. The article in question was jam packed with material based on unduly self-serving self-discription and blatant self-promotion. That this much arrant BS evaded detection and deletion for so long does not indicate that it conforms to our policies. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * While the sourcing is far from ideal, I don't see the content as "arrant BS." While not artfully written, everything in the article seems like an accurate summation of Concerned Women for America's views and activities. Regardless of what you think about them, what they said is what they said and what they did is what they did. Also, you should not that lots of content with good secondary sources was removed indiscriminately.Intermittentgardener (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Such as? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's reasonable to have some self-description of CWA's aims, but that self-description should be brief. The majority of the article needs to reflect independent, reliable sources rather than the organization's website content. MastCell Talk 19:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Self-description with advocacy groups such as this is a huge problem as it is often designed to misrepresent the actual aims and activities of the organization. Ideally, we should rely totally on reliable independent secondary sources, with primary sources used sparingly to illustrate and supplement what those sources have to say, at most. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with MastCell that some self description is needed. As long as its worded correctly and people know that its what the group says its trying to do, in their voice, not ours, that's important for the article and actually necessary. --Malerooster (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no policy basis for providing the group with a free soapbox. See the unduly serving section of WP:SPS. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * CWA is notably mainly because of its views and influence. Stating what their views are and what they do to influence politics is not a "soapbox." Intermittentgardener (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Then you should be able to attest that notability, those views, and that influence using reliable secondary sources. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also not the personal sandbox of editors who spend most of their time removing material that opposes their POV. Imagine the uproar if an editor spent their entire day deleting the pages of liberal organizations on Wikipedia that have similar content. That sword cuts both ways. A much better path is to have an open discourse with the other editors of the article rather than making unilateral edits and wholesale changes without seeking consensus, which is a violation of WP:CON and WP:CIV. If an editor of an article has neutral content that accomplishes the same goals then they should work to improve the article by providing that content, but if their purpose is to simply delete material because they have a personal issue with the organization then that would be an example of POV editing. Lordvolton (talk) 05:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Your argument about generalities fails to convince me.
 * Getting specific, I agree with MastCell that a little bit of self-definition is okay for CWA. A very little bit. I agree with Dominus Vobisdu that the burden is on Intermittentgardener to find support for the inclusion of text, no matter how long that text has been in the article. I applaud the aim of Roscelese to clean the article up to the point that the advert tag can be removed. Binksternet (talk) 01:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Gospel of the Ebionites
Folks. We are having a problem converging on a solution and need some outside input. The specific section under discussion is Gospel of the Ebionites. You can link to the talk page discussion section through the tag. The sentence at issue is in the second paragraph and reads as follows: The specific issue is the source that follows it:

The NPOV question concerns how to weight the quotation in this note. Should it be (1) summarized in the main text, (2) left as a note, as it is currently, or (3) reduced to a citation? We have tried WP:DRN and two WP:3Os, but we are seemingly at an impasse. Can you weigh in here (no pun intended)? Thanks. Ignocrates (talk) 23:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Btw, the other party to the disagreement, User:John Carter, has been informed. Ignocrates (talk) 23:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I would go with option 1. The information quoted in full in maintext provides an important balance. The other 2 options both minimise the argument to the general reader, who may not be able to properly explore cites. It is a fascinating mainstream argument which deserves to be in mainspace in its own right. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 00:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it is not a "mainstream argument", other than in the Anchor Bible Dictionary. Look for a prominent mention of this work in the main text of a reliable secondary source in this field in the last 20 years and you will still be looking. I did a thorough search, and I couldn't find any (btw, there are 40 reliable sources in the article). That is the problem I have with this note going "maintext". Ignocrates (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well keep as is for the moment. It may well reflect an issue with a POV re mainstream sources in the past 20 years, rather than the Boismard theory in itself. I will have a look too. Got me interested now. Let us keep as is at the moment, pending any possible future "discoveries" in S/S material that may be hiding out there. Irondome (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have found Boismard cited explicitly in 3 works apart from the one you mention. Google scholar. Just search under Boismard gospel of the Ebionites. They seem to be discussing his idea in some depth, and one does not seem complementary, but he is cited all right. This excludes the Anchor reference. That would seem to strengthen the argument for mainspace inclusion. The contexts of the cites will have to be explored however. Irondome (talk) 01:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ignocrates, you make a number of remarkable unsupported statements once again. Nishidani has already indicated that the source is included in a number of relevant sources, as per the talk page. You also seem to indicate that, somehow, simply because you haven't been able to find it, that it has, somehow, fallen out of favor, despite your also apparently finding nothing which indicates explicitly that it has fallen out of favor. I believe most people would find that conclusion, apparently based on no evidence, problematic. Also, I believe that this link rather clearly refutes your allegation that the source has not been substantially discussed in the last twenty years. Finally, you seem to rather seriously overlook the fact, already mentioned on the article talk page, that the 2005 Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, which is, from what I've seen, one of the more highly regarded reference works of recent years, in an admittedly very short article of only one paragraph, includes Boismard in its bibliography of only six sources, and also the Anchor Bible Dictionary as a source. I believe the facts which have been presented on the article talk page disagree with your assertion that it has received little attention in the past twenty years, and I believe honestly they are sufficient to indicate that the material shuld be discussed, probably in roughly the same weight and poisitioning as per the ABD. John Carter (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't have time to investigate this properly, but I'll make a brief comment. It sounds to me like it belongs in the main text, though perhaps very briefly. On the other hand, where is the source for the sentence "Its relationship to a hypothetical original Hebrew Gospel of Matthew remains a subject of scholarly debate."? The present tense "remains" implies that still in 2013 there is debate on the subject, but all I see mentioned is a reference in a 1992 article to a theory proposed in 1966. Something more recent is required before "remains a subject of scholarly debate" is acceptable. If that can't be found, it should be reworded as a reference to a theory proposed in 1966. Zerotalk 02:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I originally had this worded "remains a speculation", i.e. the debate is over, but John Carter thought that was too under-weighed so I changed it. Ignocrates (talk) 04:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The counter-view is in the very next note (they are paired) as follows:

Gregory's quotation represents the majority view. Ignocrates (talk) 03:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So you have found more recent citations. I am slightly puzzled here. You said you had found none. I assume you have checked my tip. Even if Boismard is criticised, his additions in recent works deserves to have his view briefly outlined in mainspace. Also it solidifies the argument that his theory is still current and engaging scholars at this time. Cheers Irondome (talk) 03:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I confused you. Gregory is criticizing the conjecture of a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew in general terms and doesn't explicitly cite Boismard. He is basically saying that all such models are junk. This isn't new; I already had it in the article. Ignocrates (talk) 04:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I like the your middle ground approach, which is to keep this as an endnote, but I think the first option could also work. To me there are two main considerations: first, positions should be represented relative to their importance and prominence within that scholarly community. So if Boismard's is a dissenting opinion, as the note states, then it shouldn't be given too much weight next to mainstream views. If it is desirable to have a sizeable section discussing the debate around the relationship to the Gospel of Matthew, then by all means you can explain the different positions, including Boismard's. But if you were to hash out every academic debate in detail, you risk sacrificing readability for lay readers. Do you catch my meaning?  The Blue Canoe  02:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The three works I have found citing Boismard are all recent. One from 2008. Please see my above posting, and if anyone has time, (I dont for the next few days) please go to google scholar using the search term I quoted above. We might be able to profitably expand this. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 03:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I rechecked Google Scholar with "Boismard" & "Gospel of the Ebionites" as the search terms. I see Andrew Gregory's 2005 paper (same Gregory as 2008 above). He is discussing Boismard's proto-Luke model, which is off-topic here. I have Verheyden's (2003) book chapter in front of me. There is a brief mention in a footnote on p.192 of a Greek phrase similar to Acts which Boismard regarded as an interpolation. However, there is nothing about a Hebrew Matthew as an underlying source. I don't see the 2008 publication. Ignocrates (talk) 03:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No. Try "Boismard and the gospel of the ebionites" all one phrase. I think it chucks up some additional material. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 03:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I tried it with Google Books and pulled up Gilles Quispel's 2008 book Gnostica, Judaica, Catholica: Collected Essays of Gilles Quispel. He mentions Boismard in a footnote in the context of a putative proto-Luke source. Ignocrates (talk) 04:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

On a personal note, I have never been to this noticeboard before. I am delighted to see that all of you conduct yourselves in such a professional and scholarly manner. I like it! Ignocrates (talk) 03:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As it should always be, unless we are doing something badly wrong :) Cheers! Irondome (talk) 03:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * This whole thing seems to be a misunderstanding. The line in the article that has the note says: "Its relationship to a hypothetical original Hebrew Gospel of Matthew remains a subject of scholarly debate" then it has the note we're talking about, and also a note with a quote of Gregory 2008 that reads: "The reasons for believing that Matthew was composed in Greek are so compelling that the quest for a Hebrew original is best regarded as a dead end, no matter how romantic its pursuit might seem", saying that this is a counterpoint to Boismard's view.  Of course Gregory doesn't mention Boismard at all, nor should he.  And why is that?  Because Gregory is rightly talking about why the canonical Gospel of Matthew cannot be thought of as a translation of a hypothetical Hebrew gospel, but Boismard is just talking about a hypothetical Hebrew gospel and not saying that this is the original of the canonical Gospel of Matthew.  This is the same mistake we have been continually seeing on discussion pages here lately: Thinking that authors are referring to a Hebrew Vorlage of the canonical Gospel of Matthew when really they are just referring to a Hebrew/Aramaic text that is ascribed to Matthew (really, the mistake is just that dumb: one word "Matthew" occurs twice, so people are thinking that one text "Gospel of Matthew" is being referred to twice.) What Boismard is saying on this point is not hugely different from Edwards at "The Gospel of the Ebionites and the Gospel of Luke", New Testament Studies 48 (2002), p. 570.  It is a minority view of course (see Gregory, "Prior or Posterior? The Gospel of the Ebionites and the Gospel of Luke", New Testament Studies 53 (2005), pp. 344–346), but it is not the fringe view that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew (and then the Gospel of the Ebionites is based on this original).  The line should be rewritten to avoid confusion:  "Some scholars have claimed that it is possible that the Gospel of the Ebionites is partly or wholly sourced to a hypothetical gospel written in Hebrew or Aramaic, but this is a minority view."  And then cite Petersen 1992, Edwards 2002, and Gregory 2005, but not Gregory 2008.  -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 05:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I like your idea. However, if you read the quotation from ABD, Peterson is talking about a primitive tradition which "Boismard equates with the Hebrew (i.e. pre-Greek) recension of Matthew". How is that different from "the fringe view that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew (and then the Gospel of the Ebionites is based on this original)"? Possibly, I am misunderstanding because I have not read (can't read) Boismard's original article in French. Please clarify further if you have read the Boismard article. Thanks. Ignocrates (talk) 12:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a strange phrase, since "recension" usually refers to a revision or at least critical edition of a work rather than the original. Incidentally, Boismard's article would not be hard to obtain (just ask).  I can't read French either, but plenty of people around here can. Zerotalk 13:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, will someone please track down Boismard's original article in French and verify that Petersen correctly summarized the content? I'm concerned because Petersen didn't do that with the Justin Martyr content in the same encyclopedic article. Petersen states that Justin used a gospel harmony and cites Arthur Bellinzoni (incorrectly) as a reference. Bellinzoni concludes in his book that Justin obtained his harmonistic materials from a primitive Christian catechism. Petersen then provides a summary conclusion about Justin's gospel harmony which is his own OR but could be easily misunderstood as a summary of Bellinzoni's work. Thanks. Meanwhile, I will track down the Edwards (2002) and Gregory (2005) NTS papers. Ignocrates (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So Boismard says: "Si ce renseignement d'Épiphane est exact, Ébion. 2 pourrait representer une forme plus ou moins remaniée, de l'évangile primitif de Matthieu, lequel correspondrait donc au texte que nous avons appele Y (Éb. 2)" (p. 351) She just quoted Ephihanius' description of Ebionites.  I think this is quite like what Petersen says: Yes, you could read it as referring to the canonical Gospel of Matthew; but I think this would be just wrong (and maybe Petersen was wrong too, I don't know, but it doesn't really matter).  What makes me so sure? Look at what Boismard is saying: "If Epiphanius' information is correct", then maybe this discernible text Y of Ebionites really is of a Hebrew gospel.  But what are Epiphanius' claims?  He says: The Ebionites have this gospel, and they call it "according to Matthew", but it's really just this corrupt text.  So Epiphanius is clearly distinguishing the Ebionites' "Matthew" gospel, from the Canonical Gospel of Matthew.  And Boismard's argument is to say that Epiphanius could be right here.  Well, then clearly texte Y, which is part of what Epiphanius is quoting, (despite being called "l'évangile primitif de Matthieu") is not the Canonical Gospel of Matthew.


 * My interpretation of Boismard here is backed also by Jaap van Amersfoort, Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 60(1-4), 2008, pp. 85-104 (which is online), who says "That the Gospel of the Ebionites may contain an older tradition than the Canonical Gospels is defended, for instance, by M.-E. Boismard, who claimed to have discovered dependence on one of the source texts of St Mark's Gospel, namely Hebrew Matthew (Text Y)". What this is saying is clear: "Hebrew Matthew"/"Text Y" (which is Amersfoort's reference to Boismard's "l'évangile primitif de Matthieu"/"texte Y") is older than the Canonical Gospels. Well clearly then "l'évangile primitif de Matthieu" is not referring to the canonical Gospel of Matthew. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, that would seem to knock out Gregory (2008) as a source for a counter-balancing view. Do you know of a better source to balance out Boismard? Or should we just state his conjecture is a minority view and leave it at that? Ignocrates (talk) 22:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have reworded the disputed section of the article and added Boismard's conjecture to the main text. I think that covers it. Thank you guys. Ignocrates (talk) 02:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I've blown in too late to add anything useful here. Just as a sidenote, I've never been happy with the description of an antecedent 'Hebrew' gospel, unless we take that formulkation as equivalent to 'Gospel addressed to the Hebrews'. After all, Aramaic was used more extensively even among the religious of Palestine: Hebrew had dwindled to textual converse on the Tanakh; the Greek Gospels overwhelmingly conserve Aramaic words in their ostensible reportage; a large part of reconstructive criticism of a Quelle-text assumes traditions were in the Aramic vernacular; Hebraisti probably means in 'Aramaic' and last not least, a Greek audience or diaspora didn't make the distinction, as far as we know. But, then, we just follow secondary source usage. Well done, Ignocrates.Nishidani (talk) 12:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to echo Ignocrates's compliment of this noticeboard. I visit quite a few dispute resolution pages and I'm impressed that such knowledgeable editors responded in such a timely way to this request for clarification, even looking for additional sources to help clarify the situation. You all really provide a valuable resource for users to come with their questions! NewJerseyLiz Let's Talk 19:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That is very kind of you. I am sure all that took part in the chat appreciate your sentiments. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

RFC on international LGBT rights
Editors are invited to participate at Talk:LGBT rights under international law, a Request for Comments concerning material on countries' obligations under international law to protect LGBT rights. One of the main issues for discussion is whether the material in question is written from a neutral point of view. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)