Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 43

Request for a review of a neutral point of view related issue
I have posted a report on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, it may be viewed here. Yambaram (talk) 17:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC) I looked at the addition that this user made by checking their user contributions for that board around the time of this posting; I see that this request seems withdrawn.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   19:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Peter Sellers article regarding the use of word "Jewish" of a character
There is a RfC regarding the use of the word "Jewish" to describe a conman character in several 1980 Barclay's Bank commercials.

Discussion at Talk:Peter Sellers. --Oakshade (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

3rd party eyes needed at No Gun Ri Massacre
There seems to be a problem developing (reoccuring) with views regarding the accidental killing the refugees at No Gun Ri during the Korean User. From what I can see User Cjhanley appears to have reliable print sources on his side but I am not familiar with the details of the article and not involved in either article or Talk page. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Some of Cjhanley's sources appear to be reliable, and others have serious documented deficiencies. I welcome a set of fresh disinterested eyes. WeldNeck (talk) 18:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You know very well, WeldNeck, that the issues, which were raised by me, involve your sudden deluge of POV untruths, and deletions of factual material, aimed at whitewashing the U.S. military's killing of refugees at No Gun Ri, and in the process wrecking a solid, well-established article. Please see the summary here. Charles J. Hanley 12:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC) Cjhanley (talk • contribs)


 * You are tilting at windmills Mr Hanley. I could think of nothing better than another set of eyes on the article to help mediate this. But dont think for a moment that you wp:own this article, because you dont. WeldNeck (talk) 14:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Benjamin Franklin Institute of Technology
This article appears to have been written by the subject of the article. For instance, "90% of BFIT graduates find a job or continue their education" (in bold letters) and "Our Graduates...".

"Our"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.98.172 (talk) 14:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Some text was copy/pasted. Fixed now. Ditto other potential NPOV issues. Still needs citations but no longer NPOV issue. --Rhododendrites (talk) 22:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Babur and Ali-Shir Nava'i
User Lysozym has been aggressively reverting my edits on Babur to keep the following version:

I've been proposing the following version (which I have modified several times taking into consideration other editors' comments):

As you can see, Lysozym has been pushing for a one-sided account of Babur's life. His justification is that the Encyclopedia of Islam and Encyclopædia Iranica are the only reliable sources on this subject. Lyzosym's version clearly puts a Persian hue on Babur and his empire. While some sources support this, others such as Encyclopædia Britannica hold that Babur's empire was Turkic in nature. The issue has been discussed at some length on the article's talk page. I've done my best to correct and modify my edits taking into consideration other editors' comments.

I believe that as long as there are opposing views on a matter, we cannot say that one of them is right and the other is wrong, especially when there are huge amounts of literate supporting both sides. Lyzosym has called me a "nationalist" and a "nothing but a POV pusher", so I decided to hear what other editors think on the matter.

Lysozym has also been revering my edits on Ali-Shir Nava'i. See this edit for example. I don't think the version suggested by him is neutral. Lysozym thinks the article should clearly state that Nava'i was an ethnic Uighur when there are opposing views about this. Nataev talk 10:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Can you point to good secondary sources (not encyclopedias) that attest to the Turkic nature of the Mughal empire? That would help determine how much weight the different views should receive. Better yet, some kind of really solid literature review in an authoritative book on the subject.  The Blue Canoe  03:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I forgot to mention that Lysozym has been deleting material from the body of the article as well. His version is the following:


 * I've been proposing the following version (which cites additional sources to support what I wrote):


 * Still, I will find more secondary sources to support what I wrote. Nataev talk


 * I've cited Dilip Hiro who writes: "Babur regarded himself a Timuri Turk." Also, I've written that according to Hiro (and others) Babur considered Uzbeks as his enemies. I think this proves that I'm not trying to push my personal point of view. Nataev talk 12:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The version I am restoring is a consensus version that was written a few years ago by User:Sikandarji who is an academic expert on South Asian history (unfortunately, he is not active anymore). It is based on the authoritative academic reference works Encyclopaedia Iranica and Encyclopaedia of Islam (please note that Nataev is not only refusing these academic sources, he is even deleting them from the intro, trying to mislead the readers by stating that there is some kind of academic dispute on this issue; well, there is none - there is the overwhelimg majority of scholars on one side, and unreliable (mostly nationalistically motivated) sources on the other side, like the ones preferred by Nataev). User:Nataev, on the other hand, obviously does not know/does not understand/does not want to understand WP:RS. The sources he is citing are not reliable according to WP:RS. The improtance of WP:RS has been explained to him by at least 3 different users. But he either does not undestand or does not want to understand. He also does not understand that a generalist encyclopedia like Britannica is vastly inferior to highly specialized academic reference works such as Encyclopaedia Iranica. His claim that Babur was an Uzbek is not only his own POV based on unreliable sources, it is also 100% wrong. This claim is being rejected not only by all reliable and respected experts, but also by Babur himself in his autobiography (Baburnama). A link to a relevant (translated) passage has been given in the respective talkpage. Wikipedia is not about the quantity of sources, but about the quality of sources. And ALL reliable academic sources agree that: Babur's contribution to "Turkic culture" (whatever that may be) was his biography, written in Chagatai language, his mother-tongue. Besides that, there is no other contribution (if Nataev thinks otherwise, he should present a proof). Here, I would like to point out the excellent German article on the Mughals (de:Mogulreich) where the question of identity and language is highlightened and supported with many scholarly sources. There is absolutely no doubt that the Mughal Empire - founded by Babur - was essentially Persian in terms of courtly culture, language, literature. Nataev is a notorious POV pusher. Not only in the Babur article (as I have described), but also in the article Ali Shir Nava'i. Here, too, he wants to "Uzbekize" a man who had nothing to do with Uzbeks. Nava'i was - evidently! - an Uyghur. All academic sources agree on this point. The only one who does not accept this is Nataev. --Lysozym (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Babur was a Turkicized Mongol (meaning that he was a Mongol in origin, but his tribe was linguistically Turkicized)
 * Babur was fighting the Uzbek invasion of his native land
 * Babur was defeated by the Uzbeks and had to flee further south
 * Babur invaded India with the help of local tribes (and much support from Safavid Persia) and founded the Mughal Empire
 * Babur was culturally highly Persianized; the Persianization of the Mughal Empire foung its climax during the reign of Humayun and Akbar the Great when Persian not only became the sole official language of the Empire, but also of the Mughal family itself
 * And Nava'i's Uzbekization is interesting - part of a Soviet renaming of a language. Hopefully I've made that clear in the article and I think the talk age (can't recall without changing). He's definitely not an Uzbek, even if politicians called him one many decades ago. Dougweller (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Dilip Hiro is a journalist, not a historian, therefore he is not a reliable source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree. And Nataev calling another user a sock doesn't suggest good faith editing. Dougweller (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems like you all disagree with me. Then let's just keep the current version of the lead section. I'm happy that the paragraph about Babur's legacy has been left as it is. Maybe the fact that Soviets approached Babur as an Uzbek isn't important enough to be mentioned in the intro. Still, we do need to say something about it in the body of the article. I'm OK with the current version. Dougweller, I didn't call anyone a sock. Why do you say that? Lysozym, don't cross the border. "Nataev is a notorious POV pusher" − it's ironic to hear this from a user who had an account called Tajik. I haven't yet become notorious. You seem to think you're the only expert on these topics. "He also does not understand that a generalist encyclopedia like Britannica is vastly inferior to highly specialized academic reference works such as Encyclopaedia Iranica." — this is just your opinion. Nataev talk 03:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misunderstood, you haven't called him a sock. However, we should judge editors by their actions, not their usernames, particularly of an old account. It is true that in most cases we should avoid using generalist encyclopedias. Dougweller (talk) 05:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * OK! Nataev talk 06:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The legacy section is still not OK. It is not "a claim by some" that Babur's Empire was Persianate in its essence. Babur did not invent the Persianate culture of India, it was already there, once introduced by the Ghaznavids and Ghurids. But Babur's Empire took that Persianization to a whole new level. The very existence of Mughal literature and literary culture, almost exclusively Persian until the 19th century, is the living proof. Leaving that aside, there was no competition between "Turkic" or "Persian" influence. The "Turks", in this case Turkicized Mongols, were already Persianized and Islamized to a high degree. What differed was the language. While Babur himself was still very much "Turkic" and "Mongol" in terms of identity and language, the Turkic influence became almost non-existent after Humayun's 10 years of exile in Persia. When he returned to India, he brought with him many Persian artists, writers, historians, etc. The ballance between "Iranis" (Persians and Persianized Turks like Bayram Khan) and "Turanis" (Central Asian Turks and Mongols, and Central Asian Persians) shifted toward the Iranis.
 * Nataev is trying to mislead the readers by claiming that there is some kind of academic dispute on this issue. To underline his claim, he cites to sources as "proof": the Encyclopaedia Britannica and the World Book Encyclopedia. In fact, none of these two actually support his claim. None of these two state that Babur "mostly contributed to the growth of the Turkic culture". I have asked Nataev to cite the relevant paragraph, so far, he is refusing to do so. Stating that Babur was Turkic or Mongol is no proof for Nataev's claim that "mostly contributed to the growth of the Turkic culture". Babur was a Turkicized Mongol, that's fact. But the Empire he founded was essentially Persian in terms of culture and language. The overwhelming Persian influence is still evident in northern India and Pakistan. In fact, Pakistan's national anthem, the Qaumi Taranah, is entirely in Persian. Only a single word - "ka" - makes its lyrics Urdu. Beside that word, all other words and the grammar are Persian. The Urdu language, which became the family language of the Mughals by the end of the 18th century, is another living proof for the essentially Persianate character of the Mughal Empire. --Lysozym (talk) 11:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Britannica says "Bābur came from the Barlas tribe of Mongol origin, but isolated members of the tribe considered themselves Turks in language and customs through long residence in Turkish regions. Hence, Bābur, though called a Mughal, drew most of his support from Turks, and the empire he founded was Turkish in character." I've changed the sentence in the legacy section to "However, other sources hold that Babur's empire was Turkic in nature." I'll provide more sources later on. Lyzosym, you're trying really hard to Persianize Babur and his empire. Now this is called POV editing. Nataev talk 03:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * See User:Kansas Bear's answer on Talk:Babur. Britannica is a tertiary source. Secondary sources (as per WP:SOURCE) contradict your claims. The fact that you stubbornly rely on tertiary sources and writings of some journalists proves that it is in fact you who is a POV pusher. --Lysozym (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

First off, Dilip Hiro is a journalist and a writer. This is what the source that was cited by Kansas Bear says. Engaging in contextomy is not good. Second, I cited Hiro's translation of Babur's own words. Third, I've cited Stephen F. Dale who is "an Islamic historian who specializes in and teaches courses on the history of the eastern Islamic world, specifically India, Afghanistan, Iran and Central Asia." He also supports what I wrote in the article. I'll cite more secondary sources later on. Unfortunately I'm rather busy these days. Nataev talk 05:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Dilip Hiro is not a reliable source. As for Stephen Dale: you are cherry-picking whatever part you need. Here is a good review of his book. As for your claim that the Mughal Empire was "Turkic in character": you are still wrong and you have no reliable source to support it. The Mughal Empire was neither Turkic in language nor in identity. Can you name a single Turkic poet or writer of the Mughal court? Can you show a single Turkic inscription on Mughal buildings and architecture?! 500 years ago, "Turkic" and "Mongol" were more or less synonyms and often meant a nomadic way of life. While Babur himself was still pretty much a "Turk" - he spoke Chaghatay and he was a nomad; Criticizing Dale, Siddharth Saxena states: Stephen Dale also misses out on one significant point that even though Babur sawhimself or at least wanted to express his thoughts of being the perfect ruler, in other words a civilised (Persianised) ruler of a sedentary population, his memoirs areessentially the diary of a nomad. For the majority of his life Babur was a nomadicTimurid prince who had been ousted from his homeland (Andijan, Ferghana, andSamarkand) and forced to escape into Herat, and then Afghanistan where much time wasspent raiding and subduing rebellion and his rule was only secure after Shaibani Khandied and the Uzbeks left Kabul alone. It is important to point out that Babur wrote mostof the Vaqa`i when he was in Hindustan. The story of his trials and travails took formalshape after he finally found success in conquering Kabul and Hindustan. The author doesnot dwell on this aspect and in that leaves himself open to criticism despite his assertionsof a generous self-serving bias found in Babur’s writings. - his Empire was that of a Persian-speaking (and later Urdu-speaking), highly cultivated and sedentary dynasty, heavily mixed with Indian and Persian noble families. That is what you fail to understand (or what you do not want to understand). --Lysozym (talk) 19:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Preston Brooks
A new editor persists in changing the current, generally NPOV view version to one that whitewashes Brooks actions.  Edward321 (talk) 01:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia, originally Wiki-PR
See also: Talk:Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia

I am extremely concerned about what appears to me as an incredibly biased and frankly hit piece on a particular company. Indeed, I find even the article rename moving to its current title is more or less adding to that extreme bias but the article content itself is most definitely not up to Wikipedia standards.

I'll admit that this company is somebody who has stirred up a whole lot of trouble with Wikipedia and is causing heartburn to admins and ordinary editors alike, with no less than a half dozen discussions found elsewhere, formal policy statements coming from the WMF, and even discussion on Jimbo's talk page about what this company is doing. For this reason, I'm not even remotely sure that a neutral article could potentially even be written on Wikipedia at the moment as most editors who are likely going to be involved will almost right at the start have an incredibly strong bias going in. None the less, I think we as editors on Wikipedia ought to at least try to write up something that is reasonable.

At this point, even my tagging of the article as having POV issues is getting reverted with what I perceive to be blatant article ownership. I would at least like to get some additional eyeballs onto this article from outside or see if it might just be better to bag this whole article and throw it into the deletion dust bin. --Robert Horning (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Procedural question: If we discuss this in two places there is a danger of two consensuses forming, which may be diametrically opposed. Is the usual procedure to use this as a notification and thrash it out at the article talk page, or to move the discussion venue to this noticeboard?
 * The reason I ask is that there is a whole slew of material there, and we would need to include that here (etc, etc, etc). Either venue is fine, but I think we will all agree that one discussion on this is essential. Fiddle   Faddle  18:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * See the example of Peter Sellers (above), which with a brief posting attracted some outside opinion to the talkpage in question. However, in cases where the talkpage in question is a basket-case, sometimes the noticeboard becomes the *new* talkpage, see the example Rupert Sheldrake (also above).  Your talkpage is not messy; suggest you leave this posting just like it is, but post one-sentence "bumps" every few days if you are not getting closer to consensus over on the talkpage.  HTH.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * If the reliable sources available for an article are monolithic in their viewpoint, then that is the sole viewpoint that will be displayed by the article. That necessarily follows from the neutral point of view. If you want to argue that the article is non-neutral, you'll have to point out: A) Editorializing on the part of the article editors; B) the use of unreliable sources; C) the use of sources which present insignificant viewpoints; D) the failure to use reliable sources that present different but significant viewpoints; or E) editors simply making things up. Based on this post and what I see on the article's talk page, you are not complaining about neutrality but fairness. Well, Wikipedia isn't fair. "Bad" facts don't get balanced by "nice" facts. Pros do not get balanced by cons. If every reliable source to write about a subject does so in the negative, then so will Wikipedia. Refusing to do that would be non-neutral. It is not our job to avoid hurting a person's feeling or a company's bottom line when everything written already lines up with NPOV and other policies. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Working on it. :-) &nbps; The problem is not really WP:NPOV generally, so much as WP:UNDUE specifically.  The source of Vice.com does not strike me as at all reliable for this grade of accusation, and although DailyDot talks a good editorial-game, the freelancer who wrote the actual article does not grok checkuser.  But the main trouble is WP:COATRACK, namely, pretending that this is the only thing the company (and founders/owners/mgmt thereof -- as a small biz there are WP:BLP concerns) has ever done, pretending that they have actually done "it" specifically (cf my checkuser concerns about defining "it"), but most importantly, acting like this is the Only Evil Company Evah to dare take money from clients for the purpose of polishing their internet brands.  Even the sources cited in the article all say this WikiPR thing is neither new nor uncommon.  WP:RECENCY slant methinks.
 * Anyways, I'm not seeing attack-page oh-nohz, since the editors have been careful to cite sources, but there is definitely a wee bit of quote-cherrypicking from the reliable sources, a bit of stretching the WP:RS rules to include something borderline in a semi-BLP article which I think is a bad idea, and in general failing to provide the larger mainstream context, not just wiki-navel-gazing. The article will still end up showing wikiPR in a bad light, because I don't think they've *gotten* positive press.  But that's different from taking the serious accusations of a freelance-journalist at face value ("I emailed a couple dozen of WikiPR's 12k clients and *four* admitted that they paid WikiPR for unspecified services").  Where's the quote from Jimbo which says that paid editing is just fine, as long as restricted to the talkpage?  The main sock was Morning277, editing since 2008; the company was only founded in 2010; there is obviously conflation of multiple organizations here.  Anyhoo, please visit the article talkpage, it's pretty short, and the article is just a couple hundred words. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 05:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Because you said it was a coatrack, and that page says "Articles about one thing shouldn't mostly focus on another thing", please allow me to be confused about what the other thing is other than the title of the article. Could you clarify? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ) while signing a reply, thx 11:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Title is part of the NPOV issue. It *should* be called_and_about "Wiki-PR", the company founded in 2010, and the small group of BLPs associated therewith.  There will be a short paragraph about the company; then a short paragraph about their Notability slash Notoriety, but softened by the larger context (other non-wikipedia-specialist PR firms... which also pay people to edit wikipedia... some quotes about the Bright Line Rule which says paid editing of talkpage-space is encouraged ... that sort of thing).  However, my assertion is that as part of WP:COATRACK, in this case, editors have extended various noticeboard battles about *other* PR firms (and the topic of paid editing in general), such that there is a laser-focus in the current article on the Morning277-sockpuppet-case... which, as the dates mentioned above clearly show, *cannot* be merely about Wiki-PR, the company-slash-eeps-thereof.  If we want an article on "accounts accused of being linked to terrorism morning277" then we have one, but it's in noticeboard-space, not mainspace.  I'm still working on my rephrasing-suggestions, but does that clarify where I see the coats-of-the-morality-of-paid-editing-in-general, being piled on the Wiki-PR coatrack?  74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you are basing your argument off of the detailed intricacies of your Wikipedia knowledge and not the reliable sources that have published on the topic. We only use reliable sources. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ) while signing a reply, thx 16:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, my knowledge of the five bazillion pages of WP:PG is not really detailed enough, and I've only read some of the sources cited top-to-bottom, but this article strikes me as a small-biz-with-a-controversy, and that falls into WP:BLP territory. We have to tread very carefully, and make very damn sure our sources are saying exactly what we portray them as saying, and avoid lies of omission (e.g. not give the reader the mistaken impression that WikiPR is the *only* PR firm to ever dare pay editors.)  There is plenty of caveat-territory in the DailyDot article, eh?  But only the Bad Stuff makes it into the mainspace article here... and I'm not too sure the DailyDot freelancer-and-editorial-staff fully understands that every webserver in the universe records the user-agent strings in a textfile, or groks that checkuser is actually *nothing* like CSI: Miami.  That worries me.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Re: the comment above - I disagree strongly re: the reliability of the VICE article. Obviously I have a bias since I was involved in it, but the author is someone who is regularly published in numerous reputable publications (The Guardian, The New Statesman, etc.) None of the claims the vice article are used for are extraordinary, although it should be disclaimed that Viacom was only a claimed client and wasn't a confirmed one. Priceline's spokesman directly confirmed they used Wiki-PR, as did CTU.  Most of the other claims the article is used for are straight fact.  Without reason to disbelieve its veracity, it is certainly a RS - reputable author, editorial oversight, not even any particularly exceptional claims, etc. (Viacom is actually a client which I'm sure will come out on-wiki eventually, but right now it would be OR to list them as anything other than a client Wiki-PR claimed to have.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm still looking at this, but if the *author* of the article in Vice is regularly published in *other* reliable sources, and has some relevant expertise, then I'm happy to accept their Vice article at face value. But I want specific inline cites directly *on* the names of the companies wikipedia is accusing of sockpuppetry under Morning277, such as priceline.  Oh... wikipedia is not so accusing them?  MAKE THAT VERY FRIGGIN CLEAR in the article then.  Please.  :-)       p.s.  Do you disagree the article should be about Wiki-PR the company founded in 2010, with the top half non-controversial corp-data, and the bottom half specific to the controversy?
 * p.p.s. While I am pretty unhappy at the way the article subject is being handled (think it is WikiNews stuff for the most part as yet), I'm not unhappy with the folks like you and Dennis Brown that are keeping wikipedia free of socking.  Thanks so much for that hard work.  Still, as you well know, Morning277 was in 2008, and wikiPr was in 2010, and saying they have a "network" of admins *could* just mean they have posted on talkpages of admins before... NOT that admins are on their payroll and accepting bribes to directly edit mainspace for ca$h.  We must be very precise in our language, and watch the connotations of that language. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Feylis
There has been several edits to the feyli page. Not only has the page been vandalized but also edited to a create a Pro-iranian and Anti kurdish narrative, by creating a tendentious etmylogical and ethnological narrative and deliberately removing any of the articles orginal references to Kurds. The article itself had earlier established a consensus supporting the exposition that proposes a kurdish orgin of feylis, confirmed by feyli wikipedia readers themselves. Which can be viewed in the history of the talk page. However edits have been made these past months disregarding this and previously non-existent sections have been added that purport a luri orgin of feylis. Which is not only factually incorrect and contradiciting to contemporary research on feylis and self-identification of kurdishness amongst feylis in civil society.

You can see these edits here:

This is not only unreliable, but supports a deviating narrative. Feyli kurdish organizations and also scholars of kurds such as Mehrdad Izady with his well-respected book on kurds "The kurds: the concise handbook on kurds"

The kurds: A concise handbook on kurds

One source which the author of these edits cites ironically(belonging to a feyli kurdish political organization) during his edits(but deliberately omits the references of kurds and kurdishness of feylis) contradicts the above narrative and explicitely calls feyllis kurds.

according to the source which belongs to feyli kurdish organization:

""Who Are Faylee Kurds and where do they live? Faylee (Faylee, Faili, or Feli) Kurds are, as their name tells, an inseparable segment of the Kurdish population in Iraq and an integral part of the Kurdish nation, which is divided among many countries in the Middle East, mainly Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey. Faylee Kurds have themselves shown, over the years, and still show this fact and reality by words and deeds. They speak a dialect that belongs to the southern Kurdish dialect called Luri which is spoken in the southern areas of Kurdistan proper, particularly on both sides of the border areas between Iraq and Iran (1).

However, all Kurds speaking this dialect are not called Faylee (2). One can say that Kurds speaking this dialect and living in and around Baghdad as well as some cities and towns in eastern and southern Iraq are called Faylee. There are many and diverse explanations for why these Kurds are called “Faylee”; however there is no plausible, well documented and generally convincing or accepted one.

Faylee Kurds in Iraq have lived mainly in Baghdad (largely in the Kurdish Quarter (Agdelkrad, a Ghetto) and when they became better off economically they moved to more affluent areas, such as Etefiya, Jamila and Shari’ Falastin) and in lesser numbers in towns and cities near the borders with Iran from as north as south of the historically and demographically Kurdish city of Kirkuk to as far south as north of the southern city of Basra (3). On the Iranian side of the borders, Faylee Kurds (though not referred to by this name) live in the provinces of Kirmashan and Ilam and southward though not called Faylee Kurds. Since the mass expulsions from Iraq in the seventies and eighties there is a large number of Faylee Kurds in Tehran as well" (4)"

Faylee kurds democratic union.

Feyli kurdish organizations, organized in civil society call themselves kurdish:

faylee kurds general council

fayle kurds democratic union

The author did not establish a consensus before going a head to make these changes. Also several of his cited resources are unverifiable. And cannot be factually examined.

My recommendation is that the recent edits are reverted by admins and the page locked until the issue of neutrality is resolved

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.150.236.238 (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

{{علی ساکی لرستانی:NPOVN-notice|Feyli page|thread=edits of feyli page}} --5.150.236.238 (talk) 16:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
I wonder if there is a more impartial way of writing this lede. First, we took a great deal of time to address some of my concerns and a great deal of discussion has passed but after looking a little further I still have to ask if the lede is impartial enough for a Wikipedia article. There is currently a debate about whether to include the use of the linked term "Americans" instead of "citizen". I also wondered about the link for "right to bear arms".

It has taken a great deal of time to hammer out the introduction for the lede but I still have to wonder if we have some POV forking going on. I think we should be linking the phrase "right to bear arms" to the article: Right to keep and bear arms which was begun on 15:34, 30 April 2003‎ and not to, what looks like a POV fork to a new article: Right to keep and bear arms in the United States which was begun 18:51, 20 September 2013. Now that the term American has been placed into the article with no clear consensus, it has been linked to Americans ( begun 13:44, 15 October 2008‎ ) which seems to be a POV fork of American (word) which was begun 01:23, 11 September 2001‎. I wander if this is too U.S. centric and not encyclopedic value? It's almost political, pamphlet like glittering phrases.

Is an RFC to get more eyes on this the best move or a Village pump discussion, or the Dispute Resolution Notice Board? Or am I just over thinking this?--Mark Miller (talk) 10:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It is not clear that the amendment means Americans when it refers to the people. See this Stanford Law Review article which outlines the dispute.  The whole approach has been wrong, using primary sources treating majority opinions as authoritative, rather than relying on secondary sources and following weight.  Even then, I do not think the article accurately describes the majority opinion.
 * I do not see any way forward. Most of the editors are strongly committed to specific interpretations of the amendment, but do not represent them accurately.  Dissenting editors who have appeared seem mostly to be equally committed to an alternative view.  Editors who have experience in legal issues tend to avoid it.
 * TFD (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * User:Scalhotrod created Right to keep and bear arms in the United States and he states his intent as being a WP:Summary style split to reduce the US section of Right to keep and bear arms. WP:AGF compels us to take that on face value and bring up any specific concerns with that editor. A link to that article could never be a WP:POV fork, although it might be a poor choice of articles in your opinion. I think it is reasonable since the Second Amendment article is talking about the US right, but I can respect other people having a different view. Please detail your concerns for the other editors. Likewise your comment about the link to Americans: the link itself cannot possibly be a POV fork; it may not be the best link and WP:AGF compels us to discuss the details and assume the other editors also have reasonable views but will listen fairly. Celestra (talk) 01:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * As mentioned it's not a content fork, I created the article (by moving the majority, but not all, of the content) because its size and complexity gave the U.S. stance on the subject undue attention in THAT ARTICLE. The rest of the countries listed had simple summaries and links to separate articles and then there was the section for the U.S. which was huge.


 * Whatever the reason for its creation, it is a fork. There is nothing that should be or not be in one article that should or should not be in the other.  The correct solution is to merge the two.  TFD (talk) 02:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree those articles are forks and need to be merged into the main articles. The neutrality of the article is challenged for specific points and it would seem that a formal RFC would be the next best step forward.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It is certainly a content fork, like any summary-style split. A content fork is not a bad thing when used to move a large, overly-detailed section out of a broadly scoped article, especially in this case, in which each nation has a section and the section on the US has grown out of balance with the rest of the article. The section of the broader article is then replaced by a neutral summary of a reasonable size. The guideline says: "On the other hand, as an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked article for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage." Do you have a specific concern about this particular split?
 * Mark, there are at least two requests on the talk page asking for you to expand on your concerns, so it isn't clear to me why you are leaving that discussion. The previous discussion on rewriting the lead earlier this year took over a month, but resulted in some improvement. The discussion you initiated has already caused some improvement and there is still some room for further improvement, IMO. You bring up the issue around which articles make good targets here, but you should present that thought to the other editors. They are much more reasonable than you may think. I, for one, would support changing the link for "Americans" to another article, or simply remove it, if it improves the readers understanding about the subject of the article. Celestra (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I would also chime in, and say that the split articles seem fine to me. Is the reason to re-merge the content back into the international-scope RightToBearArms article simply because more people have that one watchlisted?  Does not seem worthwhile.  However, rather than linking from second-amendment-article to the RTBAITUS subsidiary-article, methinks it would be better to link to the RTBA#United_States main article with a URL-fragment taking them to the appropriate subsection, from which -- if they wish -- the reader can click for the detailed subsidiary-article.
 * p.s. As for your *other* question, about whether it should say "the people" or instead "citizens" or alternatively "individual Americans" or even perhaps "members of the state militias" ... there I cannot help you.  :-)       Okay, maybe I *can* help you, if you need somebody to explain the different factions, and why they care so much.  But as for helping make it neutral, there is little that can be done, except describe the conflict -- wikipedia editors should not push a particular POV, and try thereby to *decide* the conflict in reliable sources.
 * So I guess I will go out on a limb, and say that the intro-section *cannot* say one thing only. It should quote the text of the amendment ("the people") and then quote various exceedingly Notable people quoted in very Reliable Sources that state their interpretations, whether that be "individual Americans" / "citizens" / "members of the state militia aka natguard" / "whatever other Notable Major Viewpoints".  That will bloat up the first sentence, but with controversial topics where sources conflict, that seems to be pretty much unavoidable.  HTH.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 05:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Airlines for America
Intermittentgsrdener has blanked an entire section from the article in question. It's the Criticism Section. Myself and other users believe it belongs there. Others, in part or entirety don't think it should be there. But those people who have the slightest problem with it - usually pro-business types with histories of bias editing (ref: Intermittentgsrdener) - completely strike the section REGARDLESS of there being several calls to use the Talk:Airlines for America page to discus edits on this section. The only time they'll even so much as leave a comment on the Talk page is AFTER they've had the page locked once they've transposed it to their vision of how the article should read. Hubris! I'm getting pretty sick of this. I'm looking for restructuring from this committee to keep the Criticisms section in the article. --50.128.155.168 (talk) 04:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Remember, this NPOVN page here is competing with the very dubious but effective and instant action of reverting an edit without discussing it with interested parties and then having the page protected by a sympathetic admin. So far, the NPOVN page is losing.--50.128.155.168 (talk) 07:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

2nd request for comment on an NPOV-related issue in the lead of Stormfront (website)
I'm posting this here to publicize my RfC which can be found here: The RfC is about including the owner's description of the website in the lead of the article, but without giving undue weight to what other reliable sources say. In the previous RfC, which apparently was giving too much undue weight, 6 voted against and 5 were in support of including the owner's description, but changing the sentence so that it does not give too much undue weight to other sources.--Kobayashi245 (talk) 15:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Ramtha's School of Enlightenment
Hi there. I'm currently in the middle of discussions with Jimbo Wales about a proposed draft I have written. We seem to be disagreeing on the neutrality of my proposed draft, so I thought that this would be a good place to look for editors to help.

If there are any editors here who can read the draft and weigh in on the discussion that would be great. The draft is for the Ramtha's School of Enlightenment article, that link goes to the current version. My draft is here on my user page.

It seems that Jimbo and I both feel that the other is pushing a particular POV. I'm particularly concerned about the sourcing and biased language in the current version, which is why I suggest you read it as well. Jimbo is concerned about my POV because I have been hired by Ramtha's School of Enlightenment to write and suggest this new draft.

The discussion with Jimbo is here on the article's discussion page. Calstarry (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Attention urgently needed-Attack on No Gun Ri Massacre
Things grow worse. The WP community has responded disappointingly slowly to an appeal for help in fending off an attack on the well-established, authoritative and important article about the U.S. Army’s killing of refugees at No Gun Ri in 1950. An earlier appeal bore a link to a bill of particulars about the depredations by one "WeldNeck," a U.S. Army partisan who has made an incredible 79 edits deleting crucial facts and stuffing the article with untruths and irrelevant smokescreens in order to whitewash the events. But NOW a username-less attacker from the U.S. Army Intelligence Center at Fort Huachuca, a “contributor” who has been repeatedly and repeatedly cited for vandalism and recklessness at many pages, has begun hacking away at the facts of the No Gun Ri Massacre. Surely some speedy action can be taken to protect this article and deal with these obvious POV intervenors. Who will help? Thank you. Charles J. Hanley 22:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC) Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

No one is going to help you as long as you continue to canvas and spam noticeboards. WeldNeck (talk) 00:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment on NPOV-related issue on Stormfront (website) talk page
I'm posting this here to publicize my RfC which can be found here: The dispute is that I believe the lead of the article is lacking neutrality by omitting two RS, one of which is used in another article (Jared Taylor) in exactly the same manner as I am proposing.--Kobayashi245 (talk) 20:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

religious views of Albert Einstein
The lede of the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein is reverting between-

''Albert Einstein's religious views have been studied extensively. He called himself an agnostic, while disassociating himself from the label atheist, preferring, he said, "an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."[1]''

and

''Albert Einstein's religious views have been studied extensively. He said he believed in the "pantheistic" God of Baruch Spinoza, but not in a personal god, a belief he criticized. He also called himself an agnostic, while disassociating himself from the label atheist, preferring, he said, "an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."[1]''

Einstein said once in a single letter that he was pantheist. People with pantheist pushing agenda are keen on keeping this in the lede, even though it's such a minor part of his religious views. 149.254.56.143 (talk) 21:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC) What do you recommend? I'm happy for that comment to be in the body, and to be more prominent than it currently is in the body. But it feels "too strong" to be in the lede. 149.254.56.143 (talk) 21:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please be clear that your edit without attempt at consensus was reverted and you are now engaging in edit warring. In any case...


 * The source is not a "letter". It was his own published material (republished on his 50th birthday also) calling his own conception of God "pantheistic" (as opposed to theistic). Scholars often go much further and simply describe him as a "pantheist" (which is not stated in the lede). "Pantheistic" is one of only a small handful of labels he ascribed to his own beliefs and probably the most specific label. It specifies what Einstein means when he uses the word "God" - a crucial understanding of Einstein's belief and use of the word God. NaturaNaturans (talk) 22:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I *entirely* agree with the comments presented by NaturaNaturans above - the comments represent my understanding of the issue at the moment as well - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * NaturaNaturans makes the accusation of edit-warring; ignoring the wikipedia recommendation of BRD.  NaturaNaturans is clearly here to push the POV of "pantheism", and inserts this claim into very many articles.  Here the claim is too strong for the lede, having a single weak reference.  If "many scholars" call Einstein a pantheist it will be trivially easy to find reliable sources, in which case it can stay in the lede. I welcome an independent view point.  149.254.56.220 (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Civility, BRD, and edit warring are problems, but those are topics for other noticeboards. Putting those aside for the time being, I'm having trouble understanding the argument against saying he was a pantheist (and, if it's determined he was, then it certainly belongs in the lede of such an article). It doesn't sound like the integrity or reliability of the source is in question. The problem, if I'm reading correctly, is that Einstein only mentions his pantheism once and it isn't written about in a significant number of secondary sources? With that premise, it seems like the only reason it wouldn't be included would be if there are other sources saying he contradicted himself, changed his mind, or meant something different.
 * In other words, if the reliability of his pantheism quote isn't in question, and as long as the quote, as a primary source, is only used to make "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge" (i.e. without editor analysis/interpretation -- see WP:PSTS), there would have to be a pretty compelling case, using other sources, against its inclusion. --Rhododendrites (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Jim DeMint
I am of the opinion that someone from the Heritage Foundation is requesting that non-neutral text at Talk:Jim DeMint be considered for inclusion into the encyclopedia. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ) while signing a reply, thx 07:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What's the non-NPOV addition that they're proposing? I glanced at the talk page and there is indeed someone claiming to work at the Heritage Foundation (not necessarily a COI) but they were just proposing some fairly mundane early-life bio details.  But, I just skimmed it so I might have missed something. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I looked at it as well and agree with Loonymonkey. Seems quite tame. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Bizarre GAN review
Hi, all. My GA nomination of Banjica concentration camp was just failed by User:PocklingtonDan due to this editor's claim that the article in question "focuses too much on the Jewish victims of the camp." Furthermore, the editor claims that some statements aren't sourced (on the contrary, every single statement in the article is sourced) and misrepresents some of what is said in the article in order to justify not promoting it. Kindly, if someone other than PocklingtonDan could please look at the article and the GA review. At present, it doesn't look like the user's review comments are talking about the same article as the one I nominated. I'm still not sure if this is some sort of troll attempt (note, the user's been on Wikipedia since '06) but it all seems very strange, almost like a GA review from the Twilight Zone. Can someone please check it out, the user appears to have some sort of anti-Jewish bias judging from the comments (statements that sources have a pro-Jewish "slant or agenda", etc). Overall, I don't know what to think of this and if anyone can give any input on this I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks, 23 editor (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see any signs you tried to discuss this with the editor. You might try that first to see if you can alleviate some of their concerns. Understandable that you don't like that the article failed, but you may be able to work with them to get it to a pass. Ravensfire ( talk ) 21:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I've contacted them, but for some reason I think their problem isn't with the content of the article but with performing GA reviews in general. I'll re-nominate it, hopefully with another editor reviewing it. 23 editor (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * They could be new to the GA process. Some of their comments I think could benefit from some discussion (firing range) but there were others that I did somewhat agree with (calling out the number of Jewish detained and no other breakdown is rather odd.  Adding more groups to the breakdown would be informative).  Take what you can from the review, hopefully you'll get some discussion going with the editor and end up with a better article at the end of the day.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 21:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It looks more like questionable behavior by . See related discussion at WT:Good_article_nominations. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Its only because of that I am notified that this discussion is going on. I failed your article's GA review on grounds of neutrality, and I still maintain that this was the correct decision. The sources in your article state that around 3% of the inmates were Jewish. Yet you focus on Jewish inmates throughout the article, and the makeup of the remaining 28,000 inmates is given far less treatment. The word "Jew" appears 21 times. The word "anti-fascist" appears 4 times. Yet 97% of the inmates were non-Jews (primarily fascists) according to your own sources. Your article is therefore showing multiple problems - lack of neutral point of view, synthesis -  its just fundamentally flawed. You must follow the sources. I explained this quite clearly in your GA review. I have been a wikipedia editor since 2006, I work primarily on articles relating to ancient Rome and ancient history, I am not anti-Semitic and my edit history shows this. Frankly, it is outrageous that you accuse me of anti-Semitism. I simply refuse to treat this topic any differently than any other. I will not pussyfoot around it due to the subject's perceived sensitivity. The situation is simple - the sources do not support your focus of the article on Jewish suffering. 97% of inmates were non-Jewish, and they must be the focus of the article. Simple. I see that  for one seems to appreciate what I was driving at. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * My discussion linked to by is in what way sign of "questionable behaviour"? I raised a point of order for discussion, *after* the GA review, that I feared that  was rushing too many articles through for GA nomination, and failing to bring each of them up to a good standard. This is a genuine concern (he had 6-7 articles for GA review in a week, and none of them were ready for GA in my opinion) -PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I should also note that I responded to the editor and advised them that I would happily re-review the article for them within 24-48 hours should they choose to re-submit it after addressing my concerns. I really don't see there is any issue here - PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I point out that this is the neutral point of view noticeboard. Discussion of your questioned behavior in doing several rapid-fire quick-fails is more appropriately done at the GA venue linked to. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * , if you didn't want to discuss it here, I would suggest that you probably shouldn't have brought it up. There was no mention of "questionable behaviour" (itself a character slander) before *you* mentioned it. I'm not going to let you essentially trash-talk my character on this page and not respond to it in-place, that would hardly be fair. You continue to expand discussion of it here by now claiming that I made "rapid-fire quick-fails". I did nothing of the sort, I made several article fails (3) over the course of several days, and each GA review I did took me several hours (as my edit history shows) and was very fully fleshed out and commented on, compared to the vast majority of GAs. Just because my several hours of review was done in one sitting rather than spread over the course of several days or weeks does not make it any less in-depth or rigorous, or imply that it is a rush job as your wording may suggest. Again, if you don't want to discuss this here, don't bring it up. If you want us not to discuss this here, feel free to remove my and your comments on this matter from this page. But if you leave your off-topic comments in-place, I am perfectly justified in responding to them in-place. Perhaps you would like to revert your comment stream on this matter, so that the thread here can get back on-topic without you leading us off into the bush... -PocklingtonDan (talk) 22:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I am amazed at how quickly you go from 0 to 60 in perceived injury. Like, someone wonders if you might have an anti-Jewish bias, and you turn that into an "outrageous" (!!!!) accusation of anti-Semitism. So when you accuse me of trash-talk and character slander because, in the course of a discussion touching on your behavior, I pointed out another discussion where your behavior was questioned — well, I am inclined to greatly discount your baseless fulminations, even to ignoring them. Alternately, I will remind you that your accusation of a personal attack, where none exists, is in itself a violation of WP:NPA. And I strongly advise you to consider that the criterion of slander is false statement, not hyper-sensitivity on your part. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I just watch this page but if you all want the opinion of an uninvolved editor, I have to say that 's review is well-thought out, extensive in the explanation of the few issues there are with the content, and quite balanced. GA involves other experienced editors because they have a better grasp on how to balance an article (among other things) and I'd agree that the article is quite good, but still a bit POV-y around the edges with the emphasis on the Jewish aspect. Kudos to both of you, always AGF, and here's hoping that the issues can be resolved so GA is attained, and eventually even get it to FA. So there § FreeRangeFrog  croak 23:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Kirsan Ilyumzhinov article, president of FIDE
This concerns Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, the current FIDE president and running again for president.

There are numerous statements in this page which are unsupported, ludicrous, some other times frankly biased toward giving a favorable view of this person.

I was very tempted to outright edit out some of this content as per the NPOV policy, but decided against as none of the discussions on the talk page seem to notice.

Can someone familiar with NPOV (I am not) read through the article and decide? Thanks and regards DragonFly31 (talk) 16:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Samira Said
Absolutely reeks with promotional purple prose apparently taken from press releases (and/or romance novels). Accusations have been made of COI, and I wouldn't be surprised; but it could just be a shameless bunch of fans with no sense of proportion. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  22:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Ben Carson
I have a general question about neutrality of biographic Wikipedia articles, although the question is also specifically relevant to the Ben Carson article. Suppose there is third-party criticism of the subject, plus third-party defense of the subject, plus defense of the subject by himself (or herself). Can our inclusion of the self-defense balance out the third-party criticism, so that we can exclude the third-party defense?

My view is that NPOV requires us to include significant third-party defense as well as third-party criticism, and the mere fact that we include the subject's own self-defense does not diminish the need to include third-party defense too.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * My view is that we should use the best available independent third-party sources and follow where they lead, rather than trying to artificially "balance" criticism and defense. In the specific case in question, where Carson made controversial remarks, I would favor covering the reaction to those comments using independent, third-party news sources. If we open the door to cable-news talking heads and partisan sources (out of a desire to editorially "defend" Carson), then it becomes very hard to draw the line (for instance, why include Fox News' take but not MSNBC's?) It's better to ditch the partisan sources and cable-news opinion altogether and use higher-quality independent sources - which is how the article is currently written. MastCell Talk 23:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, there was a related discussion several months ago at the BLP noticeboard.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In reply to MastCell's comment, please note that he substantialy edited the pertinent part of the article, after my initial comment above, but before his comment above. So, there is something of a moving target here.  Moreover, MastCell's insinuation that anyone is now seeking to use bad sources related to "talking heads" is false; the third-party defense of Carson that he has sought to exclude from the Wikipedia article is contained in a non-talking-head source that is already footnoted in the Wikipedia article.  It was included before his recent edits, as well as after, so I gather he has no objection to the source.  Generally speaking, if anyone wants to wade into this discussion, it would likely be best just to address the abstract question; I only mentioned the Carson article as background, and the question can be answered independently of the Carson article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Edinburgh
I have raised a discussion at Talk:Edinburgh as I have a difference of opinion with another editor over what should be in the lead, and would rather seek consensus than get in an arm-wrestle about it. all input welcomed. Placed this note here as I feel lead is too promotional. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Murray_Rothbard
If anyone wants to read the article and/or the talk section and comment, feel free. Let's keep comments at the article talk page. Thanks. User:Carolmooredc talk  16:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Ten Lost Tribes
The Ten Lost Tribes article has come to have a non-neutral tone, which is not uncommon with religious topics. Instead of neutral descriptions of both the religious and secular viewpoints, it has become decidedly one-sided with POV edits such as "fanciful accounts", removing sourced content with the edit summary "utterly false", changing section headings to "lore" with the ES "the tribes exist as fiction only, not in reality", and so on. Block quotes espousing one view are included in the lead section, but a consensus at Talk:Ten Lost Tribes shows the community feels the quotes violate WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE in the lead. More eyes looking at this article would be helpful in helping it become more neutral. Bahooka (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It has been pointed out to Bahooka on several occassions (including in edit summaries and on the article talk page) that the academic viewpoint is the mainstream viewpoint,and that Tudor Parfitt is the scholar summarizing the mainstream viewpoint.
 * Bahooka has insisted on pushing a religious POV on this article to promote his religious views over the mainstream academic view, with his latest attempt being to insert "Religious" for "Apocryphal" at the beginning of a sentence describing the appearance of early accounts of lost tribes. Please refer to the Talk page discussions as well as the edit summaries.
 * The religious POV has been afforded a voice, and the article still has problems with the use of primary religious sources in an improper manner, thus the WP:OR and "Religious text primary" tags.
 * For the sake of convenience, here is a relevant post from the Talk page"First of all, please read the quotes from Parfitt in the 'Japan' section"
 * "Tudor Parfitt writes that 'the spread of the fantasy of Israelite origin... forms a consistent feature of the Western colonial enterprise'"
 * "'It is in fact in Japan that we can trace the most remarkable evolution in the Pacific of an imagined Judaic past."

"The point of introducing the term fanciful' in that sentence is because the stories are all far-fetched fabrications based on fantasitical misinterpretation or extrapolation of biblical tales.""Using only the term 'Accounts' makes it seem like the subject of the sentence is based on actual historical events instead of fictional fabrications based on biblical stories that are somewhere between myths and pseudo-history."-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 21:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I've just added a refcite to the article for a book published by Oxford U in support of the term "aprocryphal", as well as several others on the Talk page. That should suffice to demonstrate which POV is the neutral the NPOV here.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 15:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hoping some uninvolved editors will review this (and I don't want to lose thread yet to auto archive.) Bahooka (talk) 14:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * My only comment is that it's usually questionable to have just one author represent the mainstream viewpoint in the lead or elsewhere and it can lead to unnecessary conflict. Find more examples. User:Carolmooredc Face-surprise.svg  16:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I have begun incorporating the work of the only other bona fide scholar that has written on this somewhat fringe topic in recent years: Zvi Ben-Dor Benite of NYU. His book includes a lot of exegetical passages as well as discussion of Greek and Roman texts and influences, so is actually very useful in exposing the dubious "religious" POV (i.e., attempts to instantiate a historical reality to the myth(s)) that has been covertly introduced into the article by use of correspondingly dubious sourcing or misappropriation, with one editor going so far as to include a refcite (without page numbers and buried with two other refcites) to Benite's book for a statement that didn't reflect what he wrote in his book . Most of the sources used in the article are (unreliable) websites promoting tourism and the like.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 16:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that includes all views on a topic. This is a religious topic for many, so the religious viewpoint is not fringe.  WP is not a place to "expose the dubious 'religious' POV" of a particular topic. See Verifiability, not truth.  Bahooka (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * First, it seems that you fail to appreciate the meaning of dubious and the use of quotation marks to demarcate "religious"; therefore, you fail to understand the policy that you suggest I should read. The problem with the article and the "religious" POV pushers is that they are trying to push a POV that they believe (know) to be WP:Truth without supporting their WP:OR fabrications with statements from reliable sources.
 * The religious context of the theories and lore about lost tribes is obviously relevant to the article, but falsifications posted in an attempt to support pseudo historical tales (myths) that have been refuted as such by modern scholarship is unacceptable on Wikipedia.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 16:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:John_Calvin#Request_for_comment:_PoV_section
The subsection titled: "Securing the Reformation" in the article on John Calvin needs NPOV comments here. Please keep comments on the Talk page.Markewilliams (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Mark Costello (Oklahoma politician)
A persistent IP editor is making repeated changes at Mark Costello (Oklahoma politician) that may not comply with WP:NPOV and WP:V. Additional editors' opinions would be appreciated. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, there was no "may not" about it. All you can really do is keep an eye on it and revert. Might be annoying, but you're in the right. No easy way to deal with a dynamic IP except let them get bored. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
This article is a POV disaster zone. Among the issues are:


 * 1) Links to heavily biased (and often lying) articles which add no information to the article, like "The GOP's Insane Obamacare Boycott."
 * 2) Weasel words, and otherwise heavily POV language (e.g. using unattributed opinion editorials to declare attributed claims "myths").
 * 3) Misattributed and misrepresented claims represented as fact (e.g. links to FactCheck.org articles which make unsupported claims about what has been said or reported by other sources).
 * 4) Reversions of edits including the fact that the PPACA individual mandate was upheld as constitutional only as a tax.
 * 5) And many other serious issues (e.g. opinionated, one-sided depiction of the cause of the government shutdown), where all fixes are being blanket-reverted.

Several users, including Prototime and Dr. Fleischman are reverting all attempts to resolve these issues. The talk page contains more details. TBSchemer (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Seems to me that you need to try to resolve any issues on the article's Talk page before coming here. Have you? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The issues are unresolvable. The above-mentioned users are ganging up to protect POV language and sources they like, and refusing to let anyone change it. TBSchemer (talk) 02:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately those who want to defend government programs and trash those who oppose them seem to have a strong presence on Wikipedia, despite the fact it is mostly younger 20 something guys who dominate wikipedia who will end up paying for much of that big government. But now that organized special interests have gotten smart enough not to use Anon IPs that track back to their offices, it's harder to prove anything. Good luck! User:Carolmooredc Face-surprise.svg  04:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Showing multiple PoVs in lists
Lists have limited room and scope for long explanations. The question that arises is: For a "List of revolutions" (example) that includes items with each cited to reliable and scholarly sources who designate them as "revolutions", must we note within the list for individual cases where another authority has said that that s/he does not consider that event to truly be a revolution, or is it adequate that the wikilinked full articles on each listed "revolution" deal with any dissenting viewpoints? If we cannot trust readers to go to the full article to read about any differences among scholars, may we simply note that differing views exist and leave each explanation for the full article on that uprising to describe, or must we give a longer explanation in the note for each item on the list page? As readers generally use lists of wikilinked articles as tables of contents to get to the full articles, so I'm seeking uninvolved input as to what level of detail/granularity must be on the list pages themselves. Thank you. &bull; Astynax talk 03:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I would only create a list article for a clearly defined set, for example, a list of states in the U.S., a list of planets, a list of elements. Otherwise the list is inherently POV.  In some cases however you can source a list, for example, the "Top ten revolutions from the CNN documentary "Top 10 Revolutions of all Time.""  In that case there is no OR or POV in the article because it accurately reflects what CNN said without endorsing it.  TFD (talk) 09:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So, lists must be cited to a single source? I'm unsure how that would work, as that seems to give undue weight and reinforce PoV (i.e., for CNN's PoV in your example), rather than eliminating PoV. What if CNN included the Tate-LaBianca murders and similar events in their list of "Top ten revolutions" and a significant number of scholars disagree with CNN's characterization of revolutions; should that not be noted? Even for planets, there are still varying criteria used between astrophysicists and a significant number still disagree with the IAU perspective that Pluto should be classed as a "dwarf planet" instead of a planet. Is our List of Roman emperors inherently PoV because it is sourced to multiple reliable sources and includes some (such as Geta and Gordian II) whom many scholars do not regard as full emperors, while omitting others (such as Tetricus) whom other scholars regard and list as emperors? &bull; Astynax talk 18:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The list is POV but the article need not be. For example, the Communist Manifesto is a POV book, but an article explaining what it says need not be.  You could also use a source that says, most scholars consider the following to be the most important revolutions.  After the list, you could explain how they determined that.
 * If editors develop their own list, then it is really what they consider most important or their original research.
 * Of course there can be disputes over finite lists. That is easily resolved for example by listing the 8 planets and for 9 saying that it was considered a planet and is usually called one but was reclassified by astronomers.
 * Note also that a student may be asked to list the planets, an astronomy book may have a chapter about each one. But a student would not be asked to list the ten most important revolutions without providing an explanation of how he picked the list.
 * TFD (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There is definitely a need for articles that provide a list... perhaps especially where some of the member of the list are disputed. I disagree that lists have limited room for long explanations:  just say "American Revolution[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] (disputed[8][9])".  Finally, while I agree with TFD that editors should *not* create their own lists of planets/politicians/hairstyles/revolutions... but if we have a Reliably Sourced statement that somebody has called some particular historical event a revolution-with-a-capital-R (as opposed to the lowercase metaphors like "fashion revolutions" or even the banal "smartphone revolution"), barring churnalism and COI and SPIP difficulties, that historical event belongs in the List of Revolutions.
 * If you have a lot of trouble, with respected historians staying silent, and journalists tossing around the revolution-this-and-revolution-that jargon, then perhaps it makes sense to create a table-format list, with a column for the primary name, alternative names, historians that say 'revolution' (disputed in parens), then finally journalists and others that say 'revolution' (disputed in parens). "American Revolution, aka War Of Independence, [1][2][3][4] (disputed [8]), [5][6][7] (disputed[9])."   Ideally, though, I would prefer to read the Comparison of Revolutions, where the table also lists the KIA, the MIA, the peak KIA/year, the peak MIA/year, and other details reflecting the real-world impact; nobody was killed, but one journalist calls it a "Revolution"?  No readers will be confused.  Millions died, ten historians call it a revolution, fifty journalists likewise, two journalists say nope?  Again, no readers will be confused.  Hope this helps.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

"Prussian royal family" box in various articles about living people
There is no such place as Prussia any more and all royal titles in Germany were abolished in 1919. Nevertheless there are quite a few English WP articles with a box "Prussian royal family", see for instance Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia, which lists living members of a non-existent royal family in a non-existent place. The box calls this person "HI&RH The Prince", that is an abbreviation for "His Imperial and Royal Highness" and that is false, he is not, all such titles have been abolished for nearly a hundred years. Some foolish people may still call him that, but that is a mere caprice with no more validity than if I were to call my cat that, and more to the point for WP, it is not sourced. This box links to a list of other "Royal Highnesses" who are no such thing, it is misleading and deceptive and none of it is sourced. If you look at the article on this man on the German WP, there is no such box of phoney Royal Highnesses, that is because in Germany they are very well aware that such things do not exist in their country any more. There are a lot of similar boxes with "Royal Highnesses" who are not any such thing any more from former German monarchies such as Bavaria, Hanover, so on and so on, but this one seems particularly silly as there is not even such a place as Prussia any more, never mind Kings and Queens and Princes of it. I removed the box from two articles and it was put straight back in again, I have tagged the articles for accuracy and neutrality, I would welcome advice and comments. Thanks, Smeat75 (talk) 04:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello again Smeat75... are the people which call Georg the "Prince of Prussia" getting published in wikiReliable Sources? These seem WP:RS to my glance.  (Maybe?)   Fortunately or unfortunately, there is no requirement that the sources be "reliable" in the sense of being logical, factual, or representative of objective reality.  Certainly, the article should absolutely positively reflect the mainstream political-view, which is that A) Prussia is no longer an internationally-recognized country de jure except as a historical entity, B) the landmass which formerly was de jure Prussian territory currently both de jure and de facto belongs to *other* countries which *do* actually get international recognition, C)  the current countries running the show on former Prussian territory have no recognized royal families, and finally D) Prussian royal-bloodlines are no longer (( is this really true? )) recognized by historians and/or heraldry experts as valid.  Here, not sure if this is an academic peer-reviewed research paper, or just a blog, specifically says "Pretender". Maybe also.  Pic.  Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 05:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "Pretender" would be OK, that is the correct term, or "House of Hohenzollern" but not "royal family" and not with those "HRH" and "HI&RH" prefixes, it is just plain false, all such titles were abolished nearly 100 years ago.The German WP article on the person English WP calls Franz, Duke of Bavaria but they call Franz von Bayern says with reference to his "royal title" ""Der Titel „Herzog von Bayern, Franken und in Schwaben, Pfalzgraf bei Rhein“[5] wird noch traditionell verwendet, entspricht jedoch nicht dem amtlichen Namen. Das dem Namen vorangestellte Prädikat „Königliche Hoheit (K.H.)“ bzw. „Seine Königliche Hoheit (S.K.H.)“ wird ebenfalls noch im gesellschaftlichen Umfeld verwendet, ist jedoch ebenso eine reine Höflichkeitsform ohne rechtliche Relevanz" which more or less means "people call him "Your Royal Highness" to his face sometimes just to be nice, but it doesn't mean anything" and that is the situation with all former German royal and noble titles, they were abolished, they do not exist, it is exactly the same as if I said "I think it would be nice if people called me 'Your Royal Highness Mickey the Mouse'"' and some people were silly enough to do that, WP should not be misleading readers into thinking that these abolished royal titles have any validity at all, they do not.Smeat75 (talk) 05:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Clarification - calling him "Prince of Prussia" is not what I am objecting to, it is that box with "Prussian royal family" that has to go. In Germany when the royal titles were abolished, they were and are still are allowed to legally change their names to "Joe Princeofsomewherethatdoesn'tevenexistanymore". So "Prince of Prussia" is actually his legal last name, but it does not carry a prefix such as "HI&RH" or "HRH", those were abolished, and there is no such thing as a "Prussian royal family" today.Smeat75 (talk) 05:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Surely this is a BLP issue? Dougweller (talk) 06:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks, I will raise it there.Smeat75 (talk) 06:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Done already. And these article titles should be their names and not suggest they are actually royalty, eg "Georg Friedrich Ferdinand Prinz von Preußen" not "Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia". Dougweller (talk) 06:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

VOSS Solutions needs rewrite

 * Related discussions:
 * User_talk:Ronz
 * Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_68 - the creator of the article
 * Talk:Grammarly Grammarly NPOVN - an article created by the same editor that has been cleaned up
 * Talk:Grammarly Grammarly NPOVN - an article created by the same editor that has been cleaned up

Basically, this article was created by a paid editor who has little or no understanding of what are proper sources and what deserves mention in encyclopedia articles. I've trimmed back the article a bit, but it's only a start. Could someone look it over, help improve it, make suggestions on how to best address problems like this given that there are many more from the same paid editor needing the same type of help. --Ronz (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Section Blanking Reason NPOV
Talk:Cholangiocarcinoma section Notable victims section is the talk section that refers to this dispute about the Cholangiocarcinoma article. A little bit of history about this article: It became a FA in 2008 with the version edited by user:MastCell being the FA that was used. Sometime after that various editors added the Notable Victims section to the article. Looking at article views, there was a spike in views on November 19, 2013. And at that time another name was added to the Notable Victims section. As it turned out, that person Peter Wintonick had died from the disease on November 18, 2013.-Which is what I probably accounts for the increase in article readers. A few days later another name was added. After that, User:Yobol blanked the entire Notable Victims section. I reversed the section blanking. User:Ronz came by and undid my reversal stating that there was a WP:NPOV (again) problem with my edit. I looked closely at the list, and deleted one name due to lack of information, and I also deleted the word, "legendary", which had been applied recently to the two newer entries, along-with the entry to the legendary Walter Payton, in an effort to apply NPOV to the list. Somehow I became mixed-up with this group of editors while I was trying to learn more information about why seaweed is added to cream. I met up with this trio of prolific editors-(over 72,000 by Ronz) on the article Raw milk, which I did not realize was a contentious topic and of interest to various factions. The edits from Ronz which have been personally aimed at my edits in several topics, have varying degrees of comprehensibility from very helpful to does not make any sense. The assertions of NPOV on my part--being one that is incomprehensible to me at this point. There is more that I could say about editing behaviors of Ronz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive747#User:Ronz_behaviour and Yobol who have both been publicly criticized in the past by the founders of WP http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/09/02/on-the-moral-bankruptcy-of-wikipedias-anonymous-administration ,but for the purposes of this question I'll stick to the question of neutrality on the Talk:Cholangiocarcinoma article. Thank-you for any comments.24.0.133.234 (talk) 18:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I would like to note that Yobol is not mentioned in that blog post, except in the comments. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank-you for taking the time to read this and to examine the link and to add your notice24.0.133.234 (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Daily Mail
Currently has a discussion over how much to expand the "lawsuits section" with one editor opining that it is incumbent on Wikipedia to expose the "modus operandi" of that newspaper. I admit that my own opinion is that this is a matter of determining proper weight on a topic, and that it is not up to us to make sure that readers know how horrid the newspaper might be. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Neither this noticeboard request nor the underlying RfC is phrased in a neutral manner. Both seem to be phrased as an attempt to discredit your opponent's viewpoint right off the bat. If you're interested in serious outside input, please make an effort to rephrase these in a more neutral fashion. MastCell Talk 18:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The notice uses the precise and exact language used by the other editor -- that you find it "not neutral" implies that you find his position "not neutral" -- Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You've quoted two words from your opponent's post, and provided your own framing for them. That makes it very hard to evaluate whether you've accurately represented his viewpoint, or taken the words out of context. Your own viewpoint is presented in terms so vague as to be meaningless. Yes, you believe in neutrality and due weight, as we all do, but your post gives us no insight into the actual content under dispute, nor have you provided any links to relevant discussions. Your initial post is not constructed in such a way as to facilitate serious outside input. I've also taken the liberty of notifying the other editor in the dispute that you've posted here, in the hope that he can clarify his viewpoint. MastCell Talk 22:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Gawrsh! I quoted a bit more than "two words"  (to give "the Mail's modus operandi full justice"_  and I suggest that before making aspersions on any editor, that you check out what the quote was.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Suggest an uninvolved admin close this and the RfC pending a more neutral framing of what seems to be a whole basket of problems at the article. I agree with MastCell that this and the RfC are unlikely to lead to progress, because of how they are framed. I would go further and say we are well into POINT territory here. --John (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Drmies suggested I reword the RfC which I have done. Seeking to arbitrarily close a valid RfC is "not done" as far as I can tell.   Cheers and have a nice holiday. Collect (talk) 23:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The effect of listing libel awards is that the paper appears to be unconcerned about accuracy. That is implicit original research.  If the paper is acting unprofessionally, then the neutral approach would be to establish that through secondary sources that make that point, and explain how they compare with other papers.  Unless that is provided, it is hard to justify the inclusion of these cases.  TFD (talk) 04:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Especially since the "list" proffered includes one where a psychic was accused of not being a true psychic (which was hard to "prove" by court standards, even if many would consider a psychic on stage who repeats words uttered by "unrelated workers" a few minutes to be of interest, and might produce a different result in the courts of other nations, and one suit was about photos which were sold by a person who did not have right to them. Collect (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Swami Nithyananda
user name Acnaren has been consistently pushing POV, deleting referenced sources, engaging in revert wars on the article. The current article of nithyananda reads


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swami_Nithyananda&diff=584296268&oldid=584292834

The term godman is being deleted, But it is to be noted that other articles like Asaram Bapu use the same term, And there are many veteran editors who found nothing wrong with using the term. Also please note that the reference provided to national daily newspaper has been deleted and replaced with a self-published source.

The user seems to be using wikipedia as a promotional basis for nithyananda. All of the promotional text is unreferenced. He puts "Clean up needed" tags on referenced material. The article has already been cleaned up of most POV by Sean.Hoyland, But the POV pushing seems to continue unabated. Request Acnaren to discuss any further edits before making changes. The entire biography provides no references, But i have not raised a dispute about it so that the article can be neutral.

Lokayata91 (talk) 04:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * On the godman vs guru issue, as I said on my talk page 'I doubt that "godman" is a term familiar to most readers'. It can be sourced of course, but I would expect that it can only be sourced from Indian newspapers because it's a local colloquialism...'local' being misused by me to describe a gigantic country with 1 billion+ people. For example, the non-local source cited next to the term in the lead of the article does not use it. It uses 'guru' instead. I don't think it matters very much which term is used, both terms can be linked to Wikipedia articles and both terms can be sourced, possibly to different extents. Someone could survey a large-ish sample of sources to see which term is used most for this person, but it hardly seems worth it. The article could say something like 'variously described as x[refs], y[refs] and z[refs]'.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Since surveys are impossible, i vote in favor of using both godman and guru in the article. Swami Nithyananda is a godman, guru, Mahamandelswar and founder of nithyananda dhyanapeetam! But the use of words like "spiritual guardian" and "Spiritual mystic" is promotional text, right?

Lokayata91 (talk) 05:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have genuinely never really understood what the word "spiritual" actually means in any context, but it doesn't seem to be the kind of word that should be used to describe someone without attribution in Wikipedia's neutral narrative voice.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Using "variously described as" looks so silly. You should then start every wikipedia BLP or any Biography for that matter with that phrase. I am changing that to say just "is". Btw Swami Nithyananda is not described as the Mahamandaleshwar of the Nirvani Akhada. Thats a title he has been given. Also if you see similar pages for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_sri_ravi_shankar and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaggi_Vasudev you can see the term spiritual leader has been used. Spirituality is a commonly understood word. I don't know why that is self serving? The term godman is defined as a derogatory term. Using that as an introduction is outright malicious. I am suggesting changing the first line to this based on the other two biographies: 'Swami Nithyananda also known as Paramahamsa nithyananda is a spiritual leader, yogi and guru. He is the Mahamandaleshwar of the Nirvani Akhada and founder of Nithyananda Dhyanapeetam, a spiritual movement headquartered in Bidadi near Bengaluru, India'  Acnaren (talk) 07:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Godman "outright malicious" ? It's a term used by many RS to describe the subject of the article, so dismissing it completely because you don't like it is not really an option available to you. Also, citing other Wikipedia articles as if they matter doesn't really help. The Swami Nithyananda article has to reflect the contents of reliable sources that discuss Swami Nithyananda according to our policies and guidelines. You can't tell what that should look like by looking at articles about other people, so no, you won't be changing the article to look like other articles because you don't have consensus or a policy based reason to do that.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 08:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yet another SPI accusation against me..! Dude, Using SPI against me will not make me go away.


 * Describing Nithyananda as Paramahamsa is against wikipedia policies as well. Who gave him the title paramahamsa? Where are the sources?

Lokayata91 (talk) 12:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Guidance on Badoo page Neutrality
Hi I'm asking for help evaluating the neutrality of the Badoo page. I have read the Neutral point of view/FAQ and associated articles. I chose to edit the page in an effort to gain experience as an editor and have made best efforts to do so and act only in good faith. I view the page as being negatively biased as so have attempted to make the page neutral. I fully acknowledge that some of my early attempts were clumsy, but again they were made in good faith. On the basis of feedback on my suggested edits I feel that I vastly improved the content and sources used in the article. Rather than engaging on the content in order reach consensus, I feel that I have received personal accusations of bias, churnalism or soapboxing, flat rejections with little explanation or have simply had suggestions ignored. I don't feel this is fair. It is clear from comments made by several editors that they have personal views on Badoo and its founder and this is making improving the page extremely difficult.

Given the most recent posting on the Talk page I decided to turn to the broader community for advice, guidance and instruction. I am here to learn how to become a better editor rather than directly accuse anyone of being obstructive however I feel it would be very helpful to have an 'outside' perspective on the page. Other editors involved in the debate include: Unforgettableid (talk), Adrian J. Hunter(talk), 88.177.158.231 (talk). Some comments made by these editors have led me to have concerns regarding neutrality including:


 * Revision as of 02:54, 25 November 2013 (edit) (undo) (thank)
 * Unforgettableid (talk | contribs)
 * (Lucspook, I'm undoing the 2nd of your 2 recent edits. There's no consensus for it. By citing questionable sources, you perhaps imply Badoo itself is useful. But I suspect those who dislike Badoo have refrained from voting. I've sent you [[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|alt=Stop icon]] This is your last warning. The next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. .)


 * I don't have time now for a detailed response, but I was opposed to your changes, just didn't have the time or energy to do anything about them then. Intervening edits were mostly either partial reverts of your edits (removing the more obvious puffery) or small fixes to wikilinks and the like. You keep comparing this article to Facebook, but Badoo has drawn vastly more criticism than Facebook, especially considering its lesser influence. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The Badoo staff is clever: first the whole "someone sent you a message", using a profile made of information illegally (and I know my consumer and privacy law) harvested on other social networks and then used on their website, and when you follow that link (I had to, because the concerned person recently started suffering from social isolation and could end up in depression) it creates a "profile" automatically. Hopefully, I only gave them fake info and a fake picture.
 * This is where it gets really funny: you "can" delete a profile, but for that you need your password. To get your password, you need to request it first. When you request it, after going in the account deletion menu, they immediately flag your account as "suspicious" and block your IP from the entire website.
 * I just tried it with junk email addresses and other Internet lines (= so different IPs) here, and am able to reproduce it. Same with proxies. It's not the cache nor the cookies (tried clearing the cache, using other browsers, other devices on the same fixed-IP line).
 * Sadly Andrey Andreev is a moscowian in London (= shoddy relations with the russian mobs and the russian oligarchy living in London), so if you ever try to sue him, you'll end up with death threats and tinted windows cars parking in your street until you drop the case. --88.177.158.231 (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I just tried it with junk email addresses and other Internet lines (= so different IPs) here, and am able to reproduce it. Same with proxies. It's not the cache nor the cookies (tried clearing the cache, using other browsers, other devices on the same fixed-IP line).
 * Sadly Andrey Andreev is a moscowian in London (= shoddy relations with the russian mobs and the russian oligarchy living in London), so if you ever try to sue him, you'll end up with death threats and tinted windows cars parking in your street until you drop the case. --88.177.158.231 (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sadly Andrey Andreev is a moscowian in London (= shoddy relations with the russian mobs and the russian oligarchy living in London), so if you ever try to sue him, you'll end up with death threats and tinted windows cars parking in your street until you drop the case. --88.177.158.231 (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is an example of a rejection that I don't really understand but I am in total fear of reverting or engaging further as I've been threatened with blocked from editing without further notice by Unforgettableid (talk).

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Badoo&diff=583181114&oldid=583155688

I am also proposing to replace these two criticism sections:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badoo#Deceptive_bulk_email
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badoo#Other_criticism

With this Reception section:


 * ===Reception===
 * Growth
 * Following Badoo’s launch, it grew rapidly gaining millions of monthly active users . In September 2011, The Economist published an article that explained how Badoo had a shot at becoming "one of Europe’s leading internet firms" and that Badoo seems to have discovered a large new market..
 * Badoo was officially launched in the USA on 23rd March 2012 with a campaign led by celebrity Nick Cannon. The launch was a three day project involving four fashion photograpers taking new online profile pictures for 1,000 New Yorkers. The 24 best pictures were chosen through a Facebook ‘likes’ campaign and used on billboards and taxi advertising to promote Badoo’s launch.
 * Badoo is claimed to be the world’s fourth-largest social network with users spread across 180 countries. According to a Badoo press release reported by London Loves Business, it is growing by 125,000 new users a day. According to the article, in both Spain and Brazil, roughly one in eight people who use the internet are Badoo members.
 * Spam & Fake Profiles
 * Some of Badoo's early growth has been attributed to spamming and scamming. There have been user complaints stating that they were signed up without their consent and that Badoo sent spam emails to their entire address book without permission, telling them their friend "has left you a message." . Blogger Daniel Stuckey complains that "The site sends messages to all email addresses it can find through your accounts, with minimal consent, promising that a message from you awaited them at the other end" . Rather than their friend leaving them an actual message Badoo sent a template email asking their contacts to join up as well.
 * Other reported complaints from 2011 accuse Badoo of scraping their profile data from other social networks or dating services and creating fake profiles without their consent . Badoo responded to the complaints by asking users to send their details, via the website feedback page, so they could look into the problems.  There have been no recorded complaints to the UK Data Protection Commissioner.
 * Reviews
 * Despite the high rating of Badoo's mobile applications, opinions of Badoo.com on TrustPilot, which are based on user reviews, rate the site as 'Very low', with a current score of 1.7 out of 10 . Complaints included fake profiles, and spamming of email accounts of signed-up users . However opinion differs and many bloggers enjoy and recommend using the site . In a peer-reviewed study conducted and published by Cambridge University in 2009, it was given the lowest score for privacy amongst the 45 social networking sites examined at that time.
 * Awards
 * Badoo has received or been nominated for numerous awards including:
 * Nominated for Best International Startup – Crunchies 2011.
 * Nominated for Best Social Network at the 5th Annual Mashable Awards 2011.
 * Nominated in the Social Networking & Collaboration category at the 2011. [footnote]
 * –[Daily Telegraph]]’s Start-Up 100 Awards.
 * Nominated as Highly Recommended for the The Europas Hero Award at the European Tech Startup Awards 2011.
 * One of the Top Most Innovative Companies 2012 by FastCompany.
 * Despite the high rating of Badoo's mobile applications, opinions of Badoo.com on TrustPilot, which are based on user reviews, rate the site as 'Very low', with a current score of 1.7 out of 10 . Complaints included fake profiles, and spamming of email accounts of signed-up users . However opinion differs and many bloggers enjoy and recommend using the site . In a peer-reviewed study conducted and published by Cambridge University in 2009, it was given the lowest score for privacy amongst the 45 social networking sites examined at that time.
 * Awards
 * Badoo has received or been nominated for numerous awards including:
 * Nominated for Best International Startup – Crunchies 2011.
 * Nominated for Best Social Network at the 5th Annual Mashable Awards 2011.
 * Nominated in the Social Networking & Collaboration category at the 2011. [footnote]
 * –[Daily Telegraph]]’s Start-Up 100 Awards.
 * Nominated as Highly Recommended for the The Europas Hero Award at the European Tech Startup Awards 2011.
 * One of the Top Most Innovative Companies 2012 by FastCompany.
 * Nominated as Highly Recommended for the The Europas Hero Award at the European Tech Startup Awards 2011.
 * One of the Top Most Innovative Companies 2012 by FastCompany.

There is plenty more on this page that I believe could be written in a better and more neutral manner but I haven't got that far just improving the above has been so difficult.

As I have stated I'm relatively new to editing, starting this summer and took on the Badoo page as a first project. I may have misunderstood how the editing process works and am turning to the community for guidance on neutrality. I love wikipedia and hope to continue to make a positive contribution but this has been a very rough ride!

Lucspook (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment
Due to no consensus on a previous discussion re: article naming involving WP:NPOV, there is a second discussion open about moving Australia national association football team to Australia men's national association football team. We are seeking outside input. Contributions to the discussion is much appreciated. Thank you. Hmlarson (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

RfC Notice: Liberty University inter-collegiate policy debate program
Interested editors are invited to respond to an RfC at Talk:Liberty University concerning the use of a blog article as a source for criticism of Liberty University's inter-collegiate policy debate program. Roccodrift (talk) 03:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Political parties & infoboxes during election campaigns
I'm not sure if there is an easy answer to this but I opened at discussion at Talk:Delhi legislative assembly elections,_2013 regarding the possibility of Wikipedia giving undue prominence to certain political parties during an election campaign. There are various criteria that could be used to select which parties appear in an infobox during the campaign but I have a gut feeling that it should be all or none: we're not supposed to take sides and, well, elections do sometimes produce unexpected outcomes. Would it not be best just to have a simple alphatbetically-ordered list of all the contesting parties in the box, at least until the results are announced? - Sitush (talk) 11:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the infobox should show none of the parties because it is too small to show three or more without crowding the page. The body of the article contains all the needed information. Binksternet (talk) 12:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The "all or nothing" principle looks good.
 * On articles about elections in other countries, I have met editors who only wanted to list "major" candidates &c - where they had written their own definition of "major". I'm not comfortable with editors picking and choosing like that. bobrayner (talk) 13:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd originally removed all mentions of parties and I also left a note on the talk page back in October. However, the box crept back in, reverted my renewed attempt to remove the stuff and the practice is apparently also evident on other Indian election articles. At least here we can perhaps establish a consensus for the future. I'd prefer no mention but if we must mention then it should be all of them, not some. I'm not even sure that showing a multitude of parties after the election is a good thing, mainly because it can cause the infobox to swamp the top of the article - but that more an aesthetic issue rather than a POV issue. - Sitush (talk) 13:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Why do we have to cram everything into an infobox anyway? bobrayner (talk) 13:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've no idea - dumbing down for the Facebook generation? - Sitush (talk) 11:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Cramming down is the main purpose of all infoboxes. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 04:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with Binksternet that showing none is a good fallback position... but mathematically speaking, in any first-past-the-post voting system, which are dominant in the UK and the USA, there are going to be two major parties (exactly two), at most points in history. The media will tend to cover those two major parties, and give short shrift to the "third party" folks... as the term itself suggests!  Australian elections are different, and I believe that India has a voting-system more like the Aussies than like the UK.
 * Point being, in some countries there will be a definitely-visible trend in the Reliable Sources to cram everything into three boxes, the OneSideMajorParty, the OtherSideMajorParty, and TheRestOfEm. Wikipedia editors should not be responsible for coming up with -- nor permitted per pillar two -- their own lists of which parties are "major" and deserve infoboxen status.  On the other hand, I don't want wikipedia editors imposing their all-or-none views on the Reliable Sources, either, and for exactly the same WP:NPOV reason.
 * Anyways, rather than make some particular consensus-driven specialty-rules for individual political races, or individual countries, I suggest sticking to pillar two, and thus sticking to what the WP:RS that cover the politics in question, actually do. In most political races in the USA or the UK, that will mean that two or three parties almost *always* get the bulk of the press, and therefore belong in the infoboxen; in rare races, where four or five folks are contenders, we put them all in there, see for instance the primary-campaigns of non-incumbent POTUS campaigns in the past decade.
 * By contrast, in countries with plurality voting, there will be a fuzzier rule, but still the same rule: if the bulk of the sources emphasize a subset of the parties as Major, then those parties go into the infoboxen, since that is what WP:DUE says.  If this is not possible, for layout-related-reasons, then it is possible to put *none* of the parties in the infoboxen, and instead just have a hyperlink to the article-subsection where we have a table or somesuch which explains the long list.  But editors should never be deciding who goes in the infoboxen, who is out, which parties are major, which are not.  We should follow the sources.  p.s.  User:Gerda_Arendt may has something to say here. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

How many scientists and critics?
WP:WEASEL warns us about "statements dressed with authority", and that are numerically vague. For example, we could provide sources supporting both these statements:
 * Scientists and critics have lent support to homeopathy.
 * Scientists and critics have labelled homeopathy pseudoscience.

Do we infer that "a few have", or "some", or "the majority? How do we best resolve this? --Iantresman (talk) 13:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Preferably find a WP:RS that uses some relevant term. Otherwise say "Some" have "Opinion A" and list some. "Others" have "Opinion B" and list some. If listing, I think it's more NPOV to list those who agree first, hopefully giving some indication of what the views in queston are; with critics and criticisms listed second. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ian, in order to resolve it, you need to get hundreds, not just the current paltry amount. Consider the vast field that is Science, broadly construed and consider the tiny handful you guys have gathered together.  --Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Presumably you mean hundreds of reliable sources, before we can just say "Scientists and critics have..."? I'm not sure what you mean by the "the tiny handful you guys have gathered together". You mean reliable sources? --Iantresman (talk) 10:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem that isn't acknowledging is that on a WP:FRINGE topic, the majority of authorities on a particular subject will simply ignore it .  Thus we have the situation where a small number of authorities have spoken against a particular view, and yet a small number of others have also spoken in favour of it.  The anti-viewpoints harshly condemn the fringer, and explain why it isn't correct.  Meanwhile, many of the supporters have their own separate issues with WP:FRINGE, (Brian Josephson, Deepak Chopra), and yet their support of the proposition (Rupert Sheldrake's "morphic resonance", rather than homeopathy, btw) is often weak, supporting a fringer's right to free speech or free inquiry rather than arguing that he's right.  In this case, it's quite clear from this, plus the lack peer reviewed articles on "morphic resonance" that these ideas are not considered worthwhile of scientific investigation.  Also WP:ARB/PS.  So WP:FRINGE applies.  Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps shockingly (to him), I agree almost 100% with Barney. Even more shockingly (to all including myself), there is not much more to say.  If we have several respected scientists that call a view pseudo (or equivalent term), and some relatively small number of scientists (especially if these are *not* as mainstream-respectable as the first group) who are either cautiously neutral like Sokal, or cautiously positive like Durr, then WP:FRINGE fully applies and we must presume that the Silent Majority Of Mainstream Scientists agrees with the nay-sayers.  Phrasing this is tricksy, but not impossible once all agree to the basic concept.
 * p.s. Barney, the only mistake you make is conflating when the anti-viewpoints condemn the *theory* and when they condemn the *BLP*.  There is no way to apply WP:FRINGE to statements about a BLP, such as their job-title, WP:FRINGE can only apply to statements about a scientific-or-pseudoscientific theory-or-hypothesis-or-concept.  p.p.s.  There *are* of course some papers that will condemn the idea ("morally offensive pseudoscience!"), and then *also* condemn the BLP ("ugly stupid pseudoscientist!").  WP:FRINGE only applies to the first, and in the second case only normal WP:RS and WP:UNDUE applies, plus a very strong WP:BLP.  Your fast-n-loose invented terminology of 'fringer' is insulting to Sheldrake; suggest you redact it and say 'person' per WP:BLPTALK, even if you have an RS.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Bias in climate sections of certain cities
I came across an article that mention about how a particular city has a better climate that other cities. For example in the Las Palmas article it states Las Palmas enjoys the best climate in the world according to a study carried out by Thomas Whitmore at Syracuse University. My question is whether this is neutral point of view or not. I think it is not a neutral point of view for many factors but I am not 100% sure.
 * 1) It is based on the opinions of one author. What defines a good climate is highly subjective and varies person
 * 2) sources may be unreliable and are just meant for promoting travel to that place (not a tourist brochure)

My question is that is this an example of a bias in the climate section? I posted it on the article's respective talk page but there has not been any replies yet. Any comments would be welcome. Ssbbplayer (talk) 03:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The quote is possibly valid, if it is a direct quotation, from a reliable source, in a peer-reviewed journal, published in the pertinent field (which is not climatology btw... I'm not sure there *is* a pertinent field here... anthropology maybe?).  That said, even if the quote passes the high bar... and in particular, the researcher must have specifically said "Las Palmas" and also "best climate in the world" without any qualifiers or hedging... it is NPOV as written.
 * First of all, it does not tell the readers who T.Whitmore actually is, but just alludes to blah-blah-university to give him authoritah. Second of all, the  marketroid keyword "enjoys" fails NPOV, even if it *was* in the direct quotation -- just because the Reliable Source is POV, doesn't mean we have a license to *quote* them in POV-pushing fashion.  Can you give us the context of the quotation, the title of the piece, and the title of the publication where the piece appeared, and the paragraph on either side?  But you may need to be at the Reliable Sources noticeboard, to ask something like "is this blog post by this chemistry grad-student a reliable source for this specific sentence".  :-)     Hope this helps. p.s. I was worried from the question-title that you were going to report some editor who was a global warming adversary-and-or-proponent, and was screwing with the long-term-temp-trend data, subtly corrupting wikipedia's dataset to reflect their climate-model-simulations.  Glad it was just a tourism thing! 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * If it was pertinent to some point that so-and-so said "... enjoys the best climate in the world", then the quote would be attributed to "so-and-so" and properly (we hope) cited. But as to who/what/where "enjoys the best climate" (and even what the best climate is), that is so personally subjective that I don't see it belongs in the encyclopedia at all. It is not a matter of bias or neutrality of viewpoints, but that the statement is utterly lacking an objective basis. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I cannot even find the article in the journal (try to search it). The references that quote it are from tourism sites so it seems this is POV pushing and obviously, tourism sites are often unreliable. It looks like that removing this statement is perfectly valid after all from what I have seen so far. I will remove the statement now. Thanks for your input on this. Ssbbplayer (talk) 17:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * This article in The Telegraph would be a better secondary source. The information itself I assume comes from Whitmore's Pleasant Weather Ratings book ISBN 978-0964578579 rather than a journal.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

South African farm attacks
I came across this article while patrolling for vandalism. I began to look at the claims and sources and they do not match up well. I have spent about an hour rewriting the lead based on the articles and what I could find, but the article still has plenty of non-neutral content. It is of a serious enough nature that I thought I should bring it here because I don't have the time right now to work on it. For example, the section on the committee report appears to have little to do with what they actually concluded. I am One of Many (talk) 06:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Jan Henryk Dąbrowski and the term "national hero"
Greetings. The Jan Henryk Dąbrowski article is currently a GAN, and I am the reviewer. This article describes Dąbrowski in the lead sentence as a "national hero". There is no doubt that Dąbrowski is seen as a hero to most Poles. (His name is inscribed in the Arc de Triomphe, and the Polish National Anthem is named after him.) But I also know that we must avoid peacock terms—"Hero" is not specifically mentioned in the list of peacock terms, but it sounds like one to me. The nominator and I have a friendly disagreement on whether it is acceptable to call him a "hero" in the text, so I thought I'd ask for outside opinions.

Some countries have official designations, such as National Hero of Armenia or Hero of Ukraine, but Poland does not, so the term "hero" is unofficial. It's easy to find RSes that call him a hero, but it's easy to find sources that call him clear peacock terms as well. Is it NPOV to call Dąbrowski a "hero"? (This should also apply to unofficial national heroes like George Washington, I imagine.) – Quadell (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I suggest you introduce an cite note [a] with direct quotation from "Michnik 1987" who says in Note 4 of his book on page 164 (quote): "Jarosław Dąbrowski (1836–1871), Polish national hero, died in battle while he was commander-in-chief of the forces of the Paris Commune." Poeticbent talk  07:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Citing sources about Jarosław in an article about Jan Henryk? That's interesting. — Kpalion(talk) 11:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You're correct, Kpalion. Please use Encyclopædia Britannica instead for the cite note (quote): "Jan Henryk Dąbrowski, regarded as a Polish national hero for his part in Tadeusz Kościuszko’s rebellion." Thanks, Poeticbent talk  20:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I would not include it in the lead sentence, which should be just actual facts about the subject. But an attributed "he has been called X " in the lead section would probably be appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Good catch, User:Kpalion. User:Poeticbent: Regarding EB, I try to avoid using it as a source; also it claims that JHD was seen as a hero only for his Kosciuszko Uprising part, where I think most people would associate him with the Legions instead. I did find a good national hero quote: through for the most part I think it's safer to see stick with just calling him "hero". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  02:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, all. The article has no neutrality issues any longer, so far as I'm concerned. – Quadell (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Bias in the Rupert Sheldrake article
As it stands now, the Rupert Sheldrake page contains numerous examples of incomplete information in violation of neutral POV. To keep things simple, I'm drawing your attention to just one such example.

Sheldrake conducted an experiment to either verify or falsify the claim of a dog owner that her dog was aware, in the absence of any sensory cues, when she was returning home. Sheldrake concluded on the basis of this experiment that the dog successfully demonstrated knowledge of when its owner was returning home. Another researcher, Richard Wiseman, attempted to refute Sheldrake's conclusion by repeating the experiment, and he then published a paper in which he denied any evidence of a telepathic link between the dog and its owner. In a subsequent interview, however, Wiseman conceded that his own experiment generated the same pattern of data as Sheldrake's experiment and that he was simply interpreting the data differently. But the Sheldrake page leaves out this crucial piece of information, giving the reader the impression that Wiseman actually refuted Sheldrake. When I corrected the article, my edit was reverted by TheRedPenOfDoom and then by Barney the barney barney. After a false start, in which I mistakenly cited the wrong source, I made three edits:


 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=next&oldid=578929059
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=next&oldid=579545760
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=next&oldid=579642942

The changes in the second and third edits reflect the fact that I was trying to arrive at consensus on the talk page. That discussion, including the link to the Wiseman interview, is located here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Illegitimate_reversals

Despite my attempt to arrive at consensus, Barney reverted my edit and launched an edit warring complaint against me. That complaint is located here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Alfonzo_Green_reported_by_User:Barney_the_barney_barney_.28Result:_Warned.29

Barney alleged that I was "deliberately misrepresenting the opinions of a living person, in this case a distinguished professor Richard Wiseman, that make Wiseman look like he is endorsing pseudoscience." Barney's claim is blatantly false, as demonstrated by the edit he reverted: "In a subsequent interview, Wiseman stated that his experiment generated the same pattern of data as Sheldrake's and that more experiments were needed to definitively overturn Sheldrake's conclusion that Jaytee had a psychic link with its owner." Though clearly I was not claiming that Wiseman endorsed Sheldrake's view, I received a warning by Bbb23 that even a single edit on this page could result in me being blocked.

Rather than work with me to achieve consensus, TRPoD and Barney are reverting my edits without any attempt to resolve the bias in the current version. According to NPOV editors "should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another." Please ensure that editors seeking to provide complete information on the Sheldrake page will be supported by Wikipedia administrators, not threatened or told to go edit some other page. Alfonzo Green (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * is on a warning for trying to insert potentially libelous material misattributing the views of Richard Wiseman into the Rupert Sheldrake article having not gained consensus on the talk page. Editors are also reminded of WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE and the WP:ARB/PS.  I suggest via WP:BOOMERANG that Alfonzo Green takes a voluntary break from editing this before a sensible admin enforces the inevitable, AGAIN.  WP:CONSENSUS is WP:NOTAVOTE.  ping, ,  Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Barney claims I tried to "insert potentially libelous material misattributing the views of Richard Wiseman." Why persist in making a claim already proven false?  Again, according to my edit, Wiseman stated that his experiment generated the same data as Sheldrake's.  Is Barney so confused that he thinks replicating another researcher's data constitutes endorsement of the that researcher's interpretation of the data?  And what about the second part of the edit, in which I note that Wiseman advocated more experiments specifically so as to overturn Sheldrake's conclusion?  Barney's claim is simply nonsensical.  I bring this up because I want administration to understand that this is not a dispute between two reasoning people.  This is a dispute between one person seeking reasonable consensus and another person who will say anything, no matter how absurd, in order to block it.  This applies to every single point Barney makes.  His reference to WP:FRINGE makes no sense given the fact that this is an article about Rupert Sheldrake and his views.  Regardless of how fringe those views may be, we must present them - - and responses to them - - in an unbiased way.  To include a supposed refutation of one of his views without noting that the supposed refuter later backed off from his claim is obviously biased.  Equally obvious is the fact that WP:UNDUE would apply only if an editor attempted to include Sheldrake's conclusion about Jaytee in an article about psychology or dogs.  Barney has been told this repeatedly on the talk pages yet continues asserting the same point, demonstrating that his concern is not reasonable consensus but keeping the Sheldrake article as anti-Sheldrake as possible.  WP:ARB/PS is a request for arbitration in cases having to do with pseudoscience.  Sheldrake has indeed been accused of pseudoscience.  He has also been praised as a cutting edge theorist.  The fact that Sheldrake engages in repeatable experiments that could potentially falsify his hypotheses demonstrates he is in fact practicing science.  Repeating the Jaytee experiment demonstrates that Wiseman regards Sheldrake's work as legitimate, if flawed.  By citing WP:BOOMERANG Barney demonstrates an inability to recognize his own error, specifically his bogus edit warring complaint against me, which is now boomeranging against him.  He points out that consensus is not a vote, yet it's precisely because the anti-Sheldrake clique constitutes a majority of editors on the Sheldrake page that they've been able to intimidate other would-be editors and dominate the page.  Alfonzo Green (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The are two torpedoes here, either one of which would sink this boat.

The first torpedo is that the interview in question is not from a reliable source. It is a self-published blog which promotes energy healing, talking with spirits, alien contact, the whole bit. It has been accused of deleting portions of an interview which didn't fit with the agenda of the website, and is known for sandbagging guests. It is about the farthest thing from a reliable source that one could get. That quickly settles the matter, and there is no need to read further.

But for the curious, the second torpedo is that Wiseman completely rejects Sheldrake's post hoc analysis of Wiseman's data in service of support for dog-Homo telepathy, as stated in Wiseman's response paper (RS=Rupert Sheldrake, Jaytee=telepathic dog, PS=the dog's owner Pam Smart),"In short, we strongly disagree with the arguments presented in RS’s commentary. We believe that our experiments were properly designed and that the results did not support the notion that Jaytee could psychically detect when PS was returning home. Moreover, we are not convinced otherwise by RS’s reanalysis of our data and reserve judgment about his own experiments until they are published in a peer reviewed journal." Moreover, in the very same interview in question, Wiseman rejects Sheldrake's experimental methods, saying "I'm not that impressed with the data that Rupert's collected", "I think there are some methodological problems with it", "don't look to me quite as methodology rigorous as you would need", "things need to be done with a little bit more rigor and in this instance, that hasn't happened".

Alfonzo is strongly editorializing in saying that Wiseman conceded or that experiments are needed to overturn, much less "definitively overturn" this claim of a psychic dog. Sheldrake's experiments are not viewed highly by Wiseman, nor by the scientific community for that matter. vzaak (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Also note that I previously alerted Alfonzo to the non-reliable-source issue, and he responded to me before posting to this noticeboard, so there was no need for others here to sink their time into this. (His response in that link continues the conspiratorial thinking throughout, calling Wiseman "disingenuous", "conceding", etc.) vzaak (talk) 23:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Alfonzo Green is correct that I am making no efforts to come to a consensus that would in anyway misrepresent Wiseman's comments in a way that "concedes" he sees any potential psychic phenomena in these experiments. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Alfonzo seems to be correct, that Wiseman has conceded *something*: namely, that Wiseman's *own* experiments of 1995 do not manage by themselves to overturn Sheldrake's claims.  In Wiseman's original ~1995 paper, that was claimed.  It is absolutely positively true that Wiseman *still* holds the position that no telepathy happened in any of the 1994/1995 trials (either by Sheldrake or by Wiseman), but he now points to methodological concerns as the reason, which is different from his stance in the 1990s.  Methinks the current language Alfonzo is suggesting on the talkpage is totally fair.  (Barney's original reverts were correct though -- the original language that Alfonzo used *could* have been misinterpreted, and thus constituted a possible BLP violation.)  The problem on the talkpage at the moment is the one vzaak points out:  I'm not convinced we have a *source* for the revised-neutral-language, that Wiseman has in fact changed the reasons underlying his current position (the position itself is unchanged and the current language so notes).  Alfonzo:  suggest you withdraw this noticeboard alert, please, and return to the talkpage for another week.  Progress is slow, but we are making progress there.  Thanks.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The source of the Wiseman material is an interview, both in audio and transcript form. The words are Wiseman's own.  In effect the source is Wiseman himself.  Skeptiko is just a vehicle by which Wiseman chose to concede that, contrary to the impression he gave in his published paper, he did not refute Sheldrake but generated the same data and chose to interpret that data differently.  That said, in a good faith effort to achieve consensus, I replaced "conceded" with "stated," as the attempted edit above reveals.  Pointing out that Wiseman sought to "definitively overturn" Sheldrake's claim was also a concession to editors who asserted that I was misrepresenting Wiseman as somehow endorsing Sheldrake.  As to Wiseman's statements cited by Vzaak, none of them directly challenge my edit.  How does whining about Sheldrake's methodology change the basic fact that Wiseman replicated Sheldrake's data and then turned around and claimed to have refuted his claim?  Our job is to report the dispute between Sheldrake and Wiseman, not intervene in the dispute by portraying it in a way that's favorable to one side.  Again, consult NPOV.  The reference to "conspiratorial thinking" appears to be an attempt to smear me by association with conspiracy theorists.  Aside from the fact that this is completely out of the blue, guilt by association is a well known logical fallacy akin to ad hominem.  Alfonzo Green (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * That's not what I'm reading in the interview. Never mind Skeptiko's dubious reputation as a source: what Wiseman says is that he and Sheldrake subsequent to the first trials ran tests separately, and got divergent results. And then he says that be cannot utterly reject Sheldrake's positive results because of a lack of information about the experimental setup. This strikes me as a very odd response, because my reaction (and I think most students of experimental technique would agree with me) is that Sheldrake's trials lack authority because of irreproducibility. If only he can get positive results, then it stands to reason that he is (consciously or not) doing something to queer the test. But at any rate Wiseman's response is not as strong an endorsement as you're trying to get into the article; he doesn't say that more trials are needed to "overturn" Sheldrake's conclusions. What he says in fact is that, well, maybe there's something there, he cannot be utterly sure there isn't, but that the trials done thus far aren't rigorous enough. Mangoe (talk) 23:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Mangoe, please see the ca.2000 Wiseman paper vzaak provides, which I quote below, where Wiseman says the data-patterns match (which I'm taking as almost-but-not-quite-reproducibility... Wiseman only did 4 trials after all). Agree that we should not make Wiseman sound like he thinks the Sheldrake-trials are now valid... in fact, he still does not think that.  (We have also argued the 'something there' quote on the talkpage to death... Alfonzo leans to your reading, that 'something [kinda-telepathic] there' but TRPoD has convinced me via other Wiseman context-snippets that Wiseman means 'something [methodologically flawed] there' which is totally different.)  HTH.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Wiseman sets up the flaws with the experiment: "Well, yeah, I mean, I suspect it’s quite problematic because it depends how the data is collected," he goes into the flaws with the experiment. He comes out with  "I think as is so much of [Sheldrake]'s work, it’s very easy to look at it and go, yeah, a priori, that looks like there’s a cased something there, but things need to be done with a little bit more rigor and in this instance, that hasn’t happened." His position is completely: "I see nothing in this experiment that convinces me as scientific evidence. If he wants to do another experiment with more scientifically rigorous conditions, I will look at that as well, but he hasn't. " Presenting it as anything else cherrypicking out-of-context statements to push a POV. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I responded to these points earlier. For anyone who really wants to delve into the matter, reading Wiseman's response paper is essential, as it clears up some apparent confusions in the timeline by this user. The user is making all sorts of inappropriate inferences from primary sources, weaving a narrative that Wiseman is being disingenuous; this is charitably called conspiratorial thinking. vzaak (talk) 23:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah. The confusing part was that this is a ca.2000 paper by Wiseman... I did not realize that Wiseman had ever responded publically to Sheldrake's ca.1999 re-analysis claims.  So yes, Alfonzo, you (and myself until just now) are both confused about when Wiseman admitted the patterns matched -- methinks the ca.2007 skeptico interview is at fault for our misunderstanding, rather than any conspiracy-theories about Wiseman that either myself or Alfonzo are prone to hold.
 * Here is the relevant quote from Wiseman's ca.2000 paper that Vzaak links to: "...he [Sheldrake] had re-analysed our [Wiseman's] videotapes of Jaytee [the dog] and found the same pattern in our first three experiments [that was seen in Sheldrake's 200 experiments].  We [Wiseman] do not believe that RS’s [Sheldrake's] re-analysis of our [Wiseman's] data provides [suitably] compelling evidence for the notion that Jaytee [the dog] could psychically detect when PS [the dog-owner] was returning home. First, it appears that RS's [Sheldrake's] observed patterns could easily arise if [goes into various methodological concerns]...."
 * So we now *do* have a source (and can ignore skeptico which does not add much methinks), at minimum per WP:ABOUTSELF plus prolly from where-ever Wiseman mailed this paper for publication, which shows that Wiseman agreed in ~2000 that the patterns matched, just disagreed that this was compelling, due to methodological concerns. Alfonzo, that is what you were after, right?  I think this is it.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

This is not complicated, people. Wiseman repeated Sheldrake's experiment and got the same results, but he chose to interpret the data differently. As he states, "the patterning in my studies are the same as the patterning in Rupert’s studies. That’s not up for grabs. That’s fine. It’s how it’s interpreted." He goes on to say that he didn't run enough trials to determine if the dog "was picking up something" but that "Rupert has that sort of data" and that "by looking at his data... there may well be something going on." He concludes that more experiments are needed to settle the issue. As he says, "I would sort of tick the 'more experiments needed' box, under slightly more rigorous conditions."

The complete text is here: http://www.skeptiko.com/11-dr-richard-wiseman-on-rupert-sheldrakes-dogsthatknow/. Instead of accusing me of cherry picking quotes, an easily refutable charge, why not work with me in trying to get the material right so it can be added to the article? Why simply revert my edit and refuse to work with me unless you want to keep the Sheldrake page slanted against Sheldrake? Keep in mind that the source here is not Skeptiko but Wiseman by way of Skeptiko. It's better than Wiseman's paper because it's more recent and more informative. Nowhere in that paper (which is already cited in the article) did Wiseman fess up to the fact that he actually did replicate Sheldrake's data, instead merely noting that Sheldrake claimed to have "found the same pattern." Only in the interview does he admit to the embarrassing truth.

There's no ambiguity here and no reason for further discussion. Alfonzo Green (talk) 00:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you proposing to add something like 'Wiseman conceded that "there may well be something going on"' based on this interview? That would cause readers to think that Wiseman is agreeing that Sheldrake's data gives evidence to show that the dog has psychic powers, and that would be a complete misinterpretation of what Wiseman actually said. In the two paragraphs preceding that off-the-cuff comment, Wiseman outlines how a dog may pick up patterns that give clues about when the owner will return, and a likely interpretation of Wiseman's comment is that the data shows the dog is doing something non-random, but that non-randomness may be due to uninvestigated issues that could have provided clues to the dog. WP:REDFLAG applies to claims made in an article, and if someone suggests a dog has psychic abilities, very good sources would be needed to support the claim—in that context, it is not satisfactory to pick a few words spoken by Wiseman (possibly from politeness) and present them as a suggestion that Wiseman thinks the dog may have strange powers. Johnuniq (talk) 09:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * My last proposed edit makes no mention of the "something going on" line. "In a subsequent interview, Wiseman stated that his experiment generated the same pattern of data as Sheldrake's and that more experiments were needed to definitively overturn Sheldrake's conclusion that Jaytee had a psychic link with its owner."  Your comment is irrelevant to my complaint, as are all the comments below.  Alfonzo Green (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it's fair to say that Wiseman doesn't think that the evidence that Jaytee was psychic is convincing. The onus really is on Sheldrake to prove that dogs are psychic, get the results published in a peer reviewed journal (not Rivista di Biologia, or his own book, and for his work to become generally accepted and allow others to positively build on his work).  Jaytee is almost certainly dead now, but according to Sheldrake's surveys, such dogs should be easy to find.  In the meantime, Sheldrake's ideas of "morphic resonance" do not provide a credible mechanism that is consistent with scientific theories or other evidence.  Steven Rose has previously accused Sheldrake of being "so committed to his hypothesis that it is very hard to envisage the circumstances in which he would accept its disconfirmation". Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sheldrake's morphic fields would mean they are not only easy to find, but getting easier to find and getting better at knowing when their owners are coming home to be giving more and more conclusive results! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Alfonzo, Wiseman's response paper contradicts much of what you've stated here. On the Sheldrake talk page you said Wiseman was disingenuous in the paper. However if you read the paper without that assumption, you'll see it is consistent with the interview. You have built a narrative around this claim of Wiseman being disingenuous. vzaak (talk) 14:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I was just looking at FTN. Alfonzo, in response to Barney the barney barney you say: "Sheldrake draws hostility from materialist ideologues because he's skeptical of the idea that causation is limited to contact mechanics. Once we recognize the possibility of action at a distance, already well established in physics, we no longer need to rely on genes to carry a blueprint from parent to progeny. Organisms might be able to connect both across generations and across space without material intermediary. What Barney represents is a fear of science, a fear that scientific investigation will reveal that his pre-scientific prejudices will be proven wrong."
 * It looks to me that this ties into the narrative you've built for Wiseman. vzaak (talk) 15:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I think we need to draw the distinction between the statements "there is proof that Jaytee was not psychic" and "there is no indication that Jaytee was psychic" - the two are different, and the first one is actually extremely difficult to prove since, you know, he could have been psychic but sometimes didn't bother to go to the door to indicate this. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I wish that dog had been called Barney, or Roxy even. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Please stop adding irrelevant commentary to my complaint and let the administrator do his/her job. If you want to make general points about Sheldrake and Wiseman, you can do so on the talk page under Illegitimate reversals. Alfonzo Green (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Huh? It is very relevant to show that the claim of "Bias in the Rupert Sheldrake article" is not correct. At Wikipedia, editors are expected to engage in the discussions that occur by thinking about points raised and responding to them. Johnuniq (talk) 22:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Alfonzo should have said 'repetitive' rather than irrelevant. Pretty much the exact same points seen above, that are being re-made here at the noticeboard, are all from people already very-actively-participating over at the talkpage, and are repeats of exactly what they said over there.  This noticeboard discussion should wait for different people to comment, which is hard when it is filled to the brim.  Not that I'm free of sin.  :-)    Stone, meet glass house.  Johnuniq and Mangoe, please advise, is this new&improved phrasing fair to both Wiseman, and also to Sheldrake, without BLP violations on either side of the conflict:

((existing sentences go here... see below)) Subsequently in 1999, Wiseman stated[3] that his re-analyzed 1995 trials generated the same pattern of data as Sheldrake's.  However, pointing to methodological concerns, Wiseman still maintained[3] his original conclusion, that additional experiments (performed more rigorously to eliminate artefacts) are absolutely required, and that current data (even when re-analyzed) still provides no conclusive evidence to support claims that any telepathy-like behavior exists/existed. Wiseman also went on to say that he reserves judgment about Sheldrake's experiments, until such time as they are published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
 * The source for these is Wiseman's own 1999/2000 scientific paper, link provided by vzaak (see above). For contrast, here is what the mainspace article said when Alfonzo filed his NPOV complaint; since then tweaked slightly.

Wiseman et al independently conducted an experimental study with Jaytee, a purportedly telepathic dog mentioned in the book, and concluded that the evidence gathered did not support telepathy. They also proposed possible alternative explanations for Sheldrake's positive conclusions, and questioned whether laypeople had the ability to conduct experiments without inadvertently introducing artefacts and bias due to inexperience with rigorous experimental design.[50][62]
 * My interpretation of the connotations in the current mainspace sentences are (methinks) what any reader would interpret: Wiseman, a *real* scientist, did a *real* experiment (elide "only 4 trials") on the 'purportedly' (WP:EDITORIALIZING) telepathic dog.  Wiseman concluded (elide in 1995) that the evidence did not support telepathy.  (Elide any mention of Wiseman's changed stance, of the patterns matching, and of the methodological flaws being bidirectional.)  Finally, Wiseman said Sheldrake's trials (imply *only*) were flawed, because Sheldrake is not rigorous, and Sheldrake is a layman-not-a-scientist.
 * To remove the bias in these sentences, we have to point out that Wiseman's trials had the same pattern as Sheldrake's trials (methinks we can skip who pointed out that fact to whom). Next, we have to say that after 1999/2000, Wiseman now "reserves judgement" on Sheldrake's trials (methinks we can skip that this is a change from Wiseman's earlier position that Wiseman's 4 trials proved Sheldrake was a charlatan).  Finally, wikipedia should not pick winners and losers, whether than means amongst WP:BLPs, or amongst conflicting WP:RSes.  The sentence that implies Sheldrake is a layman, and Sheldrake's experiments *alone* suffered from experimental artefacts, is very misleading.  HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Alfonzo Green, your complaint contradicts bare facts in the interview and in the response paper. It was pointed out to you that Wiseman says that he and Sheldrake were "addressing two different questions" and "testing two different claims". You responded by saying that "Wiseman appears to be trying to fudge the issue with his statement that he and Sheldrake were testing different claims". You were also directed to the response paper which is at odds with your conclusions. Your response was that Wiseman was disingenuous in the paper. In both the interview and in the paper, you dismiss statements which run counter to your narrative by claiming that Wiseman is not being truthful. This is absurd. vzaak (talk) 00:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Vzaak, are you putting my comment of 01:07 immediately above in the same bucket, as contradicting what sources say, or in any way misrepresenting either side of this in-real-life conflict between two scientists? Do you think that mainspace, as currently written, has zero bias whatsoever, with no connotations that could conceivably, in any way, be interpreted as anything but neutral?  74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:EXHAUST This is a problem not only here but on the Sheldrake talk page where certain editors are blocking consensus by contributing excessive, repetitive or pointless commentary. Alfonzo Green (talk) 20:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * well, i think we can all agree that there have been walls of meaningless text generated and that progress on the article is minimal. we probably disagree who is the responsible party(s) for discussions going round and round in circles. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  04:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

A meta-comment on the form of the data
Even disregarding the disagreement over what Wiseman said and meant, there is a big WP:UNDUE problem here; the disagreement only exacerbates it. What all of this talking and talking and talking comes down to is trying to squeeze in the claim that one researcher may have said something that could be interpreted as saying that Sheldrake's ideas may not be entirely unfounded. This is way too weak to justify inclusion. If a bunch of people, working independently, manage to come up with definite results ratifying Sheldrake's claims, and those studies are accepted by others, then there will be something to go on. But this is trying to make a building out of a bolt lying in the grass; even if Wiseman intended the positive interpretation being attributed to him (which is very doubtful), he wouldn't represent anything more than a very preliminary hint at ratification. This isn't even up to the level of a an in vitro drug study, which we do not accept as notable. Mangoe (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * support -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * As it stands now the commentary on Dogs That Know implies that Wiseman refuted Sheldrake. In fact Wiseman replicated Sheldrake's results and merely interpreted those results differently.  This MUST be included or the commentary is biased.  The disputed edit says NOTHING about Wiseman supporting Sheldrake's ideas.  Alfonzo Green (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * He did NOT "replicate results" . Wiseman, in the interview you keep clinging to, clearly states that they did their experiments differently. When you do scientific experiments differently, you are not replicating the results. Period.--  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  04:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that results were not replicated, however, I hesitate to mention this ... but ... did TRPOD just mention ... scientific experiments? Surely not.  I always believed that Shelly stopped doing science in the eighties.  --Roxy the dog (resonate) 04:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. This meta-issue, as Mangoe knows very well methinks, is the crux of all the NPOV difficulties at the Sheldrake BLP, including whether or not Sheldrake can be called a biologist slash scientist (which the bulk of the sources say -- across all five decades), and of course whether Wiseman's completely well-sourced quote that "the patterns match" can be excluded somehow.  This is a tactical strategy known as WP:IDONTLIKEIT, also recently dubbed "the long grass of extreme sceptism" by an uninvolved editor who briefly visited the Sheldrake talkpage before immediately vacating the area.
 * Compare the diffs of the Sheldrake BLP page and the morpho-theory-page from before summer 2013, with the merged-into-one page we have now. Compare the deWiki pages to the enWiki pages.  Compare the BLP pages of similarly-controversial figures like Hapsgood (professor that believed the pole-shift theory and dubiously-ancient figurines might mean humans and dinosaurs co-existed), and with other phytomorphologists (Sheldrake's branch of biology), and with Penrose (physicst that believes consciousness has an as-yet-unknown quantum-level explanation... just like Sheldrake).  None of *those* pages have WP:BLP violations, or even generic WP:NPOV violations.  But the Sheldrake combo-page is a WP:BATTLEGROUND basket-case.
 * There is no organized conspiracy here, despite what Sheldrake and Chopra and Weiler assert on their oxygen-of-publicity blogs, and to the BBC; there are just some individual editors that incorrectly believe WP:FRINGE, which is *specifically* about excluding seemingly-reliable-sources such as the peer-reviewed journal of sasquatch science, *specifically* because that journal is not in fact reliable *as* science and is not in fact recognized by biologists, can be abusively broadened to Every Field Of Scholarship Evah. There is a recent thread over on the WP:FTN where a misguided editor is trying to use WP:FRINGE to eliminate coverage of specific *religious* topics, involving whether or not certain Bible prophecies can be interpreted as referring to Muhammed of Islam.
 * The misguided editor's argument is identical to what we see on the Sheldrake page, and in this noticeboard thread, and in all the previous noticeboard threads. The *real* experts in the *real* sources know The Truth about Sheldrake, and as long as I can cherrypick which sources are *real* and which sources are *pseudo* then the article will WP:RGW and get out WP:The_Truth to the poor gullible readers, making me a hero!  Whenever a *real* source makes the *mistake* of saying something that accidentally might not 100% support the sceptic POV being propagated in mainspace, such as Wiseman admitting "the patterns match" in the case of Sheldrake (and such as unspecified "very few real sources" over in the islam-suks-christians-rulz thread), it is blatantly excluded based on rationalization using WP:UNDUE, or on some other tortured grounds.
 * I fully agree with Alfonzo that mainspace right now misleads the reader into thinking "Wiseman totally proved Sheldrake is a retarded-layman plus overturned his fraudulent claims" ... when the reliable sources, straight from the horse's mouth, which Vzaak quoted above and which is already used in mainspace, say nothing of the sort. Wikipedia has to mirror the sources, that is what pillar two means.  Editors cannot pick-n-choose which sources we like, beyond separating the reliable from the unreliable.  If you don't like what the reliable source said, then go find some other reliable source that diasgrees, and then the article can neutrally describe the conflicting sources.  But wikipedia cannot decide who wins the conflict.  If you don't like some *part* of what some reliable source said, and wish to exclude it, then take a cold shower, you are suffering from the blinders of POV.  Rumor has it that there is no such thing as the sceptic POV... anybody who believes that needs to re-read the diffs I mentioned at the top.


 * At the end of the day, I fully agree with TRPoD that we should phrase our language carefully, because "replicate" is flat out incorrect, and some other Wiseman quotes about "something going on" need care because they too could easily mislead the reader into thinking Wiseman meant something he actually did not. We need to mirror the sources correctly and say what Wiseman actually said and actually meant.  But, that includes the undeniable fact that Wiseman now agrees with Sheldrake that "the patterns match" ... and excluding *that* factoid, but not Wiseman's earlier 1996-ish stance, is utterly non-neutral.
 * This article is specifically about Sheldrake, the BLP, and must neutrally describe him, mirroring the bulk of the sources, most which say biologist-or-scientist, and a very few (but all perfectly reliable!) which say not-a-scientist. For the bio-detail-portions, WP:FRINGE has zero applicability.  Right now mainspace does not mirror sources, it picks winners and losers.  Because of the merge-decision, this same article is *also* about Sheldrake's scientific-theories, pseudoscientific-concepts, and philosophical-slash-religious-ideas.  WP:FRINGE applies solely and only to the center category, never to Sheldrake's religion, never to Sheldrake's philosophizing (even when he philosophizes about the process of scientific funding & discoveries), and Nevah Evah to downplaying Sheldrake's several decades of scientific work.  Right now, the article is non-neutral.  Until this fundamental disagreement, about whether NPOV-means-mirror-the-sources-pillar-two can be somehow trumped by "NPOV"-means-exclude-sources-we-dislike-because-wp-fringe, the article and the article-talkpage will remain basket-cases, tempers will continue to run high, and noticeboards will repeatedly be filled with Sheldrake-alerts.
 * TLDR: mirror the facts and the weights found in reliable sources -- quit trying to cherrypick  the *really* reliable and *really* weighty facts-n-sources, excluding is non-neutral.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * and in mirroring Wiseman's comments about the psychic dog, anything other than ZERO WEIGHT to the suggestion that Wiseman believes experiments have shown it exists or the possibility that it exists is too much. Wiseman didnt spend 6 pages saying that Sheldrake had blatantly misrepresented Wiseman's work because Wiseman has any belief that there is evidence of psychic dogs. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. We violently agree.  Wiseman has firmly held to the same conclusion:  no evidence of any psychic phenomena.  And we must make sure the language we use conveys that position.  But in Wiseman's own words, the statistical patterns did match (which -- yes -- is not the same as replication).  Right now, mainspace does not convey this, nor clearly convey that Wiseman's current stance on Sheldrake's 1994/1995 experiments is 'reserve judgment until such time as they are published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal'.  Those are the portions being omitted, which methinks are most crucial.  Do you disagree?  Additionally, methinks that the layman-rigorous-thing suffers from editorializing, and could use a rewrite by David for clarity; unless Wiseman really *did* call Sheldrake a "non-rigorous... layman" in which case we need to *quote* Wiseman saying that, not imply it by connotation from our own prose.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 05:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * the "pattern" on my clothing may match the "pattern" on your clothing but to assign any type of meaning to that is ridiculous because I am wearing a plaid shirt to imitate Elmer Fudd hunting and you are wearing a plaid kilt because you are a member of Clan Campbell. The grasping at one passing phrase when ALL OF THE REST OF THE WISEMAN INTERVIEW AND ALL OTHER PUBLISHED WISEMAN COMMENTARY is to refute the Sheldrake experiment. It is the EPITOME of NPOV violation to place such UNDUE emphasis on that phrase out of context. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand WP:UNDUE. It is *never* a license to delete Reliably-Sourced-material.  Evah.  You are correct that the Wiseman-quotes regarding "something going on" are too likely to mislead the readership, to be in the wikipedia article... but only because other equally-valid Wiseman quotes exist, which fully provide Wiseman's position on the matter.  Wikipedia defines NPOV as reflecting what the sources say, without undue weight; you are zeroing out certain parts of certain sources.  That is POV.
 * Wiseman in fact no longer believes he has refuted the 200 Sheldrake trials, with the 4 Wiseman trials. But just because Wiseman did not refute Sheldrake, does not therefore mean Sheldrake wins; all it means is that Sheldrake does not outright unmistakably lose.  Wiseman still has very valid methodological concerns; Wiseman still 100% says neither the Sheldrake nor the Wiseman experiments lend any evidence whatsoever in favor of telepathy, and Wikipedia must make it crystal clear to the reader that this is the case:  Wiseman says absolutely zero evidence for telepathy exists, in 1995 and 1999 and 2007 and still today in 2013 (pending far-more-rigorous-proof ... and we also have a perfectly-Reliably-Sourced quote from Wiseman on *that* subject).  But the bare fact is, when Sheldrake published that the 1995 patterns matched, and then later Wiseman in his published reply confirmed the 1995 patterns matched, at that very moment, the factoid surpassed WP:SELFPUB to attain WP:NOTEWORTHY status, and thus it belongs in wikipedia.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE (and the rest of NPOV and V) ABSOLUTELY allows us to not include content even it if it reliably sourced. Evah, and Always. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No -- you are simply wrong. WP:UNDUE allows moving content to the correct article for that content.  So that you don't have to click which the link you keep posting, here is the first paragraph of WP:UNDUE.


 * "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources ((as judged by wikipolicy not as judged by any individual wikipedian)), in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.  Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it."


 * Because only a "tiny minority" of scientists believe morphogenetic fields explain phytomorphology, that concept is not covered in biology, phytomorphology, or morphogenetics. Instead, that concept is covered in the article on morphogenetic fields.  And in *that* article, we must fairly represent all signficant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in published reliable sources.  That's a direct quote from policy, btw.  If there is an article about a tiny-minority-viewpoint, you cannot delete Reliably-Sourced-sentences *giving the viewpoint* from the article about it.  WP:MAINSTREAM and WP:SPOV are not policy.  If you believe there is a policy justification for deleting Reliably-Sourced-sentences about a topic, from the article-about-said-topic, please post the snippet here.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

the enfield poltergeist
The current Enfield Poltergeist page has slowly been changed to remove the facts of the past and to add terminological inexactitudes, I have been studying this case for three years and so am completely nonplussed as to why this is being allowed. There are several accounts which seem to want to add American references to a wholly British affair.

JudgeJoker — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judgejoker (talk • contribs) 22:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What kind of "terminological inexactitudes"? Also, I'm not clear as to what a reference's country of origin has to do with its reliability.
 * Furthermore, edits like this and this aren't acceptable. Please adhere to WP:CIVIL when dealing with others on Wikipedia.
 * I think if you want help for people here, you're going to need to present some evidence because at this point, I think you're looking at a WP:BOOMERANG situation.  Ol Yeller21 Talktome  05:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * He's editwarring (at around 6RR now, I've warned him). He suddenly appeared yesterday and is accusing others of vandalism and as you can see daring to add American references. Dougweller (talk) 10:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And by sheer coincidence, I'm sure, shows up at the same time helping him and agreeing with him on the article talk page and also complaining about Americans. Dougweller (talk) 10:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Fight Against the Right
The article Fight Against the Right has a blatant pro-far-right slant/spin to it, essentially presenting a conspiracy theory (known as KgR or Kampf-gegen-Rechts-Industrie in German) current in German far-right circles, I think, trying to denigrate activism/resistance directed against far-right activities (antifa) as alarmist and somehow unlawful/unconstitutional or undemocratic, and the activists as extremists themselves (in the vein of anti-antifa, a far-right strategy). This is not my speciality, though, so I would appreciate if someone more deeply familiar with the subject would examine the article. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Awards and Professional Honors
2011 Society of American Registered Architects, New York Council Design Award of Merit, Project: 99 Gold, DUMBO, Brooklyn 2011 Society of American Registered Architects, New York Council Design Award of Honor, Project: 406 Lorimer, Williamsburg, Brooklyn 2009 Society of American Registered Architects, New York Council Design Award of Merit, Project: Satori Condo 2009 Society of American Registered Architects, National Design Award of Honor, Project: Vere 2 2008 New York Enterprise Report Small Business Award, Construction Services Category, Scarano Architect PLLC 2008 Society of American Registered Architects, New York Council Design Award of Merit, Project: Satori Condo 2008 Society of American Registered Architects, New York Council Design Award of Excellence, Project: 52E4, NoHo, NYC 2008 Society of American Registered Architects, New York Council Design Award of Excellence, Project: 364 Myrtle Avenue 2007 Society of American Registered Architects, New York Council Design Award of Merit, Project: Manhattan Park Condominium 2007 Society of American Registered Architects, New York Council Design Award of Honor, Project: Vere 26 2006 Society of American Registered Architects, National Design Award, Project: The Myrtle Affordable Housing Project 2006 Society of American Registered Architects, National Design Award, Project: Scarano Architect PLLC Offices, 110 York Street 2005 Brooklyn Icon Award Presented to Robert M. Scarano, Jr. by Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz, April 11, 2005 2005 Metal Architecture Design Award, Project: Scarano Architect PLLC Offices, 110 York Street 2005 NYSAFAH Award for Excellence - Project of the Year - The Douglass, Harlem USA 2005 Society of American Registered Architects, California Council Design Award of Honor, Project: The Arches at Cobble Hill 2005 American Institute of Architects, Brooklyn Chapter Design Award of Excellence, Project: SoHo Residence, New York City 2005 American Institute of Architects, Brooklyn Chapter Design Award of Excellence, Project: 234 West 20th Street, Chelsea, NYC 2005 American Institute of Architects, Brooklyn Chapter Design Award of Merit, Project: 171 North 7th Street, Williamsburg, Brooklyn 2005 American Institute of Architects, Brooklyn Chapter Design Award of Merit, Project: 142 West 10th Street, West Village, NYC 2005 American Institute of Architects, Brooklyn Chapter Design Award of Merit, Project: "Ella 82", Greenpoint, Brooklyn 2005 American Institute of Architects, Brooklyn Chapter Certificate of Appreciation, Project: Toy Factory Lofts, Downtown Brooklyn, New York 2005 American Institute of Architects, Brooklyn Chapter Certificate of Appreciation, Project: The Douglass, Harlem USA 2005 American Institute of Architects, Brooklyn Chapter Certificate of Appreciation, Project: Silo House, 400 Carroll Street, Brooklyn 2005 American Institute of Architects, Brooklyn Chapter Certificate of Appreciation, Project: The Arches at Cobble Hill, Brooklyn 2005 American Institute of Architects, Brooklyn Chapter Certificate of Appreciation, Project: Scarano Architect PLLC Offices, 110 York Street 2005 Society of American Registered Architects, New York Council Design Award of Honor, Project: Clarkson Avenue Housing 2005 Society of American Registered Architects, New York Council Design Award of Honor, Project: 354 Franklin Avenue, Brooklyn 2005 Society of American Registered Architects, New York Council Design Award of Excellence, Project: Ella 82, Greenpoint, Brooklyn 2004 Society of American Registered Architects, National Design Award of Merit, Project: The Arches at Cobble Hill 2004 American Institute of Architects, Boston Society Housing Design Award, Project: 234 West 20th Street, Chelsea, NYC 2004 Association of Licensed Architects National Design Award of Merit, Project: Clarkson Avenue Housing 2004 Society of American Registered Architects, New York Council Design Award of Merit, Project: 171 North 7th Street, Brooklyn 2004 Society of American Registered Architects, New York Council Design Award of Merit, Project: The Arches at Cobble Hill 2004 Society of American Registered Architects, New York Council Design Award of Honor, Project: Toy Factory Lofts 2004 Society of American Registered Architects, New York Council Special Recognition Award, Project: 2908 Emmons Avenue 2004 Society of American Registered Architects, New York Council Special Recognition Award, Project: Greenpoint Redevelopment Masterplan 2003 American Institute of Architects, Brooklyn Chapter Design Award of Excellence, Project: 10-09 49th Avenue, Queens 2003 American Institute of Architects, Brooklyn Chapter Special Appreciation Award for Residential Projects 2003 Society of American Registered Architects, National Design Award of Excellence, Project: Medellin Convention Center, Colombia, SA 2003 International Competition for the International Convention Center in Medellin, Colombia, Third Place of 6,230 design entries 2003 Society of American Registered Architects, New York Council Firm of The Year Award 2003 Society of American Registered Architects, New York Council Design Award of Honor, project: 496 Court Street, Cobble Hill, Brooklyn

Here is one example of many biased statements made within the bio by anonymous IP addresses: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Scarano,_Jr.&diff=prev&oldid=525200973

Real Deal is used often as a source for negative citations but not once from this article: http://therealdeal.com/issues_articles/with-100s-of-projects-scarano-remakes-b-klyn/ which is a positive example of coverage from the source.

These are just a few examples. I would like to update the article with current, accurate and unbiasedly sourced content, awards and current member standings.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikabogner (talk • contribs) 22:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

NOTE: this has also been cross posted at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard Discussion should probably be centralized there. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Norplant


I ran into this situation while patrolling new articles. The article I patrolled was Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty which seems to be a synopsis of a single chapter in a book by Dorothy Roberts. There's no article for the book so I redirected it to the author's article. That redirect was reverted but I just reverted that reversion, left an WP:OR template on the user's talk page, and invited them to a discussion on the talk page of the article. Now that I think about it, the chapter will almost certainly never be notable on its own. The article should really just be deleted.

Digging a bit deeper, I found the Norplant article. Several sections seem to be based solely on Dorothy Roberts's findings and the article seems to have previously had issues with alleged soapbox editing and original research. I tend to stay away from such controversies so I won't say whether the edits were problematic or not. At the very least,

The Dorothy Roberts article has few references. One seems to be a broken link to an online profile, another is an online profile, another is to an article of hers published in the Howard Law Journal, another is to a book she wrote, the last is an article written about her in a student newspaper (here is a replacement for the dead link in the article). Assuming she is notable, much of the unreferenced content found in the Dorothy Roberts article was placed by editors whose only other edits were large additions the the Norplant article.

The editor Stellaiyeo's sandbox, User:Stellaiyeo/sandbox, seems to outline her intentions. Between Norplant and Dorothy Roberts, there seems to be a collection of WP:SPA accounts participating. Every one of those editors have utilized their sandbox to keep notes on their experience and intents, in the same way that Stelleiyeo has.

I think this is a class assignment. One of the users states in their sandbox, "The topic my group wanted to focus on". I don't sense any intentional socking. Even though was blocked for socking, I can't find a single bit of evidence or even an investigation to support that. I only checked out accounts that had redlink userpages. There could be several more. At any rate, I think the situation needs attention.  Ol Yeller21 <sup style="color:#827839;">Talktome  04:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed; this is obviously a class assignment. Looking at the chatter on the sandboxes, there's a lot of comments on whether the content is still up or not; I speculate that one of their goals is to keep their added content up. I asked them what they're doing here. I'll also xpost to the Administrator's Noticeboard as I have no idea what our policy is on this. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 10:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Reported here: . AFK'ing now. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 10:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Best I can tell, it may be related to instructor . WikiProject Feminism/Students Sandy Georgia (Talk) 05:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Jacque Fresco
Dif of reverted edtis

Talk Page

It has been claimed that these edits were reverted because they have neutrality problems. However no explanation is given despite request. There are many edits that were done individually with different reasons for doing so. However, they have all be blanket reverted. Sorry if this complicates things.--Biophily (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

POV and images content
I have added these 2 images(Diff page) while keeping the POV balance of images (i.e. images that shows Arabs only Vs. Images that shows Jews only). I have noted:"based on help desk advice, there is no image limit per section. re-added 2 images. deleted other 2 images because of POV claim". USER:Pluto2012 removed it (Diff page). He explained in the talk page :"Pov pushing with the use of images is well known. There is even an article dedicated to this issue (but in the media) related to the I-P conflict... Media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict. The same issues was already exposed on the article about the Six day war. It is not a question of having an image "for each side". Images must be equilibrated, not introduce bias or useless emotions (ex. pictures of snipers who shot at civils or children around a armoured car...). The notoriaty and the reliability of the picture is also important...".

As for this case I do not agree with him. My purpose is making the article more attractive, such as an occasional reader might be tempted by the attractive images to read it. --Bear in mind, that I am the only editor who added images (of both sides) to the article during the last half a year. -- The concensus is automatically against me, since I am the only Israeli editor among regular editors. Is the addition of those images considered as a POV problem? thanks. Ykantor (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no views on the use or otherwise of the images; what I'd like to comment on is the caption written under the first image: "Arabs attack the commercial center, Jerusalem 2.12.1947." This rather implies that the figures appearing in the photo are Arabs. The Wikicommons description of the photo is: "Commercial Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem attacked on December 2, 1947 a few days after the announcement of the positive vote at UNO on the Partition Plan for Palestine." Obviously, there has been an Arab attack, but it's ambiguous whether the attack is in progress or is over. There is certainly, however, no statement that the figures appearing are Arab. Also note that it specifies that it is the Jewish commercial centre (British English spelling to be consistent with the flavour of English used in the article), not the commercial centre. The same, misleading, caption is used in one other article where the photograph is used. Pardon me if that's all a bit irrelevant here. <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">   ←   ZScarpia  00:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you suggest another caption? May we continue in the article talk page? Ykantor (talk) 07:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * How about "Arab attack on the Jewish commercial quarter of Jerusalem, 2 December 1947"? <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  20:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree, although it probably was used by everyone (e.g. Jews, Arabs) as all the shops in Mandatory Jerusalem. Ykantor (talk) 21:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Just trying to stick closely to what the the Wikicommons description says. It would help to know exactly where the photograph was taken. The filename for the photo is interesting: "Quartier commercial juif attaqué - 2 décembre 1947."  01:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * For information :
 * These diffs dates back more than 2 months and nobody reacted.
 * Since then Ykantor keeps performing forumshopping. He launched more than 6 WP:DNR and even 1 WP:A/E.
 * Some weeks ago he put more than 20 notices on the talk page of the article 1948 Arab-Israeli War but don't participate to the discussion.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 07:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Race (human classification)
Editor Maunus here reverts to the claim that race has no biological or genetic basis. As demonstrated on the talk page this is one POV, a majority POV among US social scientists, and a minority POV among the international biological and medical community. He appears to be reverting and calling for 'discussion' to stonewall this evident fact and maintain the view of his personal academic field (the view of US sociologists regarding human biology), which is based entirely on biological fallacies and maintained for socio-political reasons. SpaceBobber (talk) 02:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Given that you appear to have made no attempt to discuss this matter anywhere before posting this here, I suggest that you follow the instructions at the top of this page: "Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Include a link here to that discussion". AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The point has been demonstrated ad nauseam on the talkpage. Plenty of good sources have been provided. The next stop is here. SpaceBobber (talk) 05:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No, the next stop is WP:SPI, or just an indef per the usual if an admin familiar with the area notices Special:Contributions/SpaceBobber. Johnuniq (talk) 05:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Also see WP:ANI. This NPOVN post is typical of a Mikemikev sock. Dougweller (talk) 13:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * 2 articles deleted now, and Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev created earlier today. Dougweller (talk) 15:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I can see that I have been a bad boy following BRD again. Naughty me.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * As before, what the POV-pushing editors call "good sources" are sources collected on political advocacy websites that often don't meet Wikipedia guidelines for identifying reliable sources in medicine and almost always are specifically excluded by the general  Wikipedia source guideline. In other words, if someone uses abominably bad sources for editing an encyclopedia, it is not surprising if the person is confused about what neutral point of view is on a particular topic. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Christian terrorism
An "analysis" by a self-described Hindu nationalist, Rajeev Srinivasan, "Hindu terrorism does not exist", is used in the article  Christian terrorism. Srinivasan says Hindu terrorism is 'propaganda', only "Abrahamic traditions, including Communism" have terrorists. Abrahamic traditions refers to Jews, Christians and Muslims. I do not know why he includes Communism. It would be helpful for other editors to look at the neutrality of this article. TFD (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Whoever is going to make opinion about this issue, must have a look at Talk:Christian terrorism once. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Christian terrorism
The article Christian terrorism has ongoing disputes about Christian terrorism in India, which is primarily sourced to several sources in India which might not meet general RS standards for factual claims as naybe having a teensy bit of a religious motivation. As a result, the entire article may appear to some few as having a very strong religious bias, and a few neutral point of view seekers would likely be welcomed on that article, which I daresay is not quite at GA status. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * ?Yes this is a repeat -- (just noticed), but the persons adding all the cruft seem to be in full vigour at that article. Collect (talk) 14:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I moved this into the previous thread. I hope nobody minds. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

"Isaeli settlement" article
Hello The article Israeli settlement seems to be highly biased. I find that the bias points are all throughout the article, and not in certain minor sections. I have stated some examples in the talk page, under "Bias" thread. Here is a link to the discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israeli_settlement. I wish to thank anyone who will help with making this article neutral. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.24.45 (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Jat people
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jat_people

Im concerned editors aren't reflecting all sides here; see talk page POV ref. One editor in particular took upon herself to remove the NPOV tag whilst being on one side of a debate; I'd also add she seems to be spending an unhealthy amount of time on this subject. This article needs some independent fresh editorial and admim support as current sides can't reach consensus and seem too involved in the subject matter. I thought it wass sloppiness first but suspect it might be a wiki cyber caste war through coordinated gaming of NPOV from part of this jat group and people who are from opposing tribes. Sitush, oxywrian and fowler seem on one side and vplivecomm, abstruce on the other.

(I've I also looked at one editors talk page which seems to suggest this editor is constantly on wiki to the dismay of many other editors) Evidence first (talk) 09:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that you may be misunderstanding WP:CONSENSUS. It is not a vote and any opinions that are expressed which do not comply with policy should be discounted when assessing outcomes. You are correct that numerous people have objected to things on that article, most commonly the statement that the Jats were traditionally non-elite tillers. The problem is, they seem to object more on principle than because of policy. Time and again, they have been asked to provide reliable sources etc and they have failed to do so; time and again, they have been pointed to WP:CENSORED and other relevant policies but have failed to understand them. You are the latest in a long line to raise issues but your comment is pretty vague.


 * Most of the wording in the present version, and in particular that of the lead section, is the work of but I for one have checked it against the available sources and it appears to reflect them. As so often with caste-related articles, this appears to be less a case of seeking neutrality than of appeasing vanity. - Sitush (talk) 10:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The Jat people were indeed non-elite tillers of the earth, confirmed by solid sources. They were scorned by the Rajputs. This historic situation must be described to the reader, despite some editors distaste for it. Binksternet (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but since you are clearly on one side of the wiki caste war  it makes no sense that you, or the others mentioned, make opinion judgements on independence. I hope you understand this simple, but effective, principle - separation of powers.

What in the world is a ragpot, let me guess, another ' non elite 'tribe or caste that made rags and pots - were they harassed by the tillers? Hence the scorn. Were they like ye olde gyspy tinkers?

Clearly, historic situations must be described, but it is upon us to describe them clearly and from the different perspectives!

Is there no professional integrity left on wiki?

Please get editors not from this region or ethnic groups, with at least a post graduate degree and courage of character to stop this cyber caste war and save some wiki respect.

Evidence first (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * not gonna happen. Wikipedia is open to edit by everyone who follows our content and behavior requirements. part of the behavior requirements are not attacking people because of their caste or ethnic group. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Regardless of caste, these are people, not hidden objects. They aren't "found in" places, they "live" there. Not exclusive to this group, but starting to piss me off. Same for animals. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Charlie Wilson (singer)
I like Charlie Wilson, but to say that the article is non-neutral would be an understatement. I already removed a few unsourced, POV-pushing sections (not statements; sections) but the tone of the article is still in rough shape. Statements like "Charlie Wilson’s distinctive voice is evocative of both past and present" and "Wilson's delivery of this beautiful song and its performance at radio have confirmed that it is a wedding classic for years to come" are only a couple of many examples. (I started a discussion here first instead of on the talk page because the talk page has barely been looked at since the article was created almost ten years ago.)  Erpert  WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 03:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

There has been a bit of back and forth, as shown by the discussion on the talk page, but I would suggest this article is now in pretty good shape, and the NPOV tag should be removed. Same proposal inserted on the talk page Matruman (talk) 10:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

pain in animals
views from reliable sources are rejected without explain. They also keep removing the POV tag while the dispute is unresolved.124.168.29.171 (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The below information is in my link, I copy it here again: The content I am trying to add is this "However, scientific evidence strongly suggests mammals (such as rodents) can experience pain" "Suffering is different from pain. There is a lack of agreement on the definition of pain in lab animals. Whether pain is viewed as stress or as stressors depends on the perspectives" source: Recognition and Alleviation of Pain and Distress in Laboratory Animals, By Committee on Pain and Distress in Laboratory Animals, Institute for Laboratory Animal Research, Commission on Life Sciences, National Research Council page 2,4,5

Several editors (such as DrChrissy, Epipelagic) who have a conflict of interest case on the noticeboard and OWN problems are keep removing the views from my source.124.170.221.69 (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

DNA Tribes in Population history of Egypt Article-WITHDRAWN-I WISH TO PROCEED WITH AN/ANI
Previous discussions have involved using DNA tribes in the Ancient Egyptian race controversy article and consensus among editors of the article seems to have been met. There were also two noticeboard discussions. Now the question is whether including the DNA Tribes info in the Population history of Egypt article would be NPOV to give a balanced view of the debate. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 06:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My particular concern is that DNA tribes is being removed for being unreliable. But then ABO blood group and craniofacial studies are being kept! I would think DNA evidence is more reliable than these other studies and it would ensure a NPOV to balance them. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 06:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * If a source fails WP:RS we shouldn't be using it. The noticeboard discussions are at and the earlier one at . Not getting a satisfactory answer at one forum isn't a good reason to try another, and it seems to be your personal opinion that this private company is a more reliable source than the Journal of the American Medical Association. This persistence is getting a bit disruptive. I'll also note that editors need to follow WP:SUMMARY and I've edited the relevant section in Population history of Egypt so it is closer to the main article for that section. Dougweller (talk) 11:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I wish to withdraw this claim as I wish to proceed with AN or ANI. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 23:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And having failed at AN and ANI as well as RSN, Mediation and Dispute Resolution we have Arbitration/Requests/Case. Dougweller (talk) 10:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Marian Dawkins
The POV dispute on this page was not resolved, but the POV tag was removed. 124.168.8.38 (talk) 02:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * To clarify the above, the POV dispute was not resolved to the satisfaction of an IP contributor. Several other editors agreed that highlighting some criticism of an aspect of the subject's work (probably a misreading of her work, btw) was not suitable for a BLP. If there is an article on the topic, everyone notable can have their WP:DUE say, but a biography is not the place to coatrack negative opinions. Johnuniq (talk) 04:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, you mislead the issue. Several editors (such as DrChrissy, Epipelagic) who have a conflict of interest case on the noticeboard and OWN problems(concerned by multiple editors) are adding propaganda for Marian Dawkin. The content they added has clear violation of policies, such as injection of original research.124.170.221.69 (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, this sounds like a WP:WEIGHT issue. If Dawkins' work is widely discussed in sources, then any criticism of it in the article should be present roughly in proportion to the incidence of the criticism in reliable sources, as compared to to the incidence of other handling of Dawkins' work in reliable sources. So criticism isn't wrong as such, but having just criticism is non-neutral due to weight. The Amazon score shouldn't be included in any event, IMO. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism of Parcheesi
The article Parcheesi has been repeatedly vandalized by user 68.196.14.175, who always says that the game can be won simply by bringing a wheel of cheese. The most recent case is [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parcheesi&diff=582195317&oldid=582131969]. Others extend back to last August. All four levels of warning have been posted on the (otherwise blank) user-page, with no response but more vandalism. I have just asked for the vandal to be blocked, but the request was taken down with a statement that the complaint was not actionable. Will someone please enlighten me? J S Ayer (talk) 04:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds like vandalism or trolling rather than an NPOV issue. Try WP:AIV, WP:RFPP, or -if you have a strong stomach- WP:ANI. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * reported on WP:AIV. Mangoe (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Rfc for Phil Robertson GQ Comments section
I've tried to edit the GQ Comments section with citation regarding Robertson's comments regarding "blacks". However they keep being removed. In the same exact article Robertson made disparging comments regarding Homosexuals, but they seem to be able to stay. Why can't the comments regarding blacks stay, but the homosexual comments can stay?--Ron John (talk) 00:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Phile Robertson GQ interview


 * Um -- how many talk pages and noticeboards do you intend to hit? The issue is WP:BLP and the consensus at the article was clear -- I see no way that WP:NPOV/N is a proper drama board to hit immediately after you return.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The BLPN noticeboard issue, is different, it concerns reporting of the age of Phil's wife when they were married. Sportfan5000 (talk) 03:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Have you read WP:FORUMSHOPPING? Because that's exactly what you're doing Ron. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I am marking this resolved because the function of this board is to help people establish discussions to reach consensus. There is a discussion established at Talk:Phil_Robertson. It is an RfC, so people are well-alerted to this discussion by Wikipedia standards. Anyone from this board may join the discussion through that link. Because of these things, there is no ready reason for more discussion to happen here on this board when comments should happen in that existing space. If there is a future NPOV problem then feel free to bring it here for assistance in placing it within existing consensus and existing discussions.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   15:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

POV gallery at Black Egyptian Hypothesis
This article is a spinoff from Ancient Egyptian race controversy. Both are under ArbCom sanctions. A few days ago User:Dailey78 inserted a gallery of images with no discussion the talk page despite being under a restriction to gain consensus. There is discussion about this at Talk:Black Egyptian Hypothesis in the bottom few sections. I've been distracted by an attempt to get editors disagreeing with the Black Egyptian hypothesis banned or blocked and hadn't gotten involved in this and hadn't recalled that Dailey was restricted from such edits. I also have always said that a gallery in these articles cannot be NPOV (although I've pointed out on the talk page that there may be times when we would include individual images). One of the images, for instance, is that of Tiye: Looks dark, doesn't she? But that's a wooden bust and what you are seeing is the natural color of the wood, and what might be interpreted as an Afro is what's left of a blue-tile covered headdress. A gallery is totally inappropriate for an article on this subject. I removed the gallery but it has now been re-inserted by the editor trying to get me banned or blocked, User:Andajara120000. Rather than get more involved in the edit-warring on this article, I've come here for more input. Dougweller (talk) 12:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've just noticed that pictures were removed at the end of December 2012 - see Talk:Black Egyptian Hypothesis And of course restored without consensus in the past few days. Dougweller (talk) 13:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Saw this post and I have removed the gallery. I have explained my reasons in detail at Talk:Black Egyptian Hypothesis, I would invite other non-involved editors to chip into the discussion as new input to a rather stale argument would be beneficial. I would remind editors that NPOV requires us to include significant viewpoints in the literature not WP:FRINGE material with WP:UNDUE prominence. There also seems to be a tendency toward WP:OR and WP:SYN in editing to prove a hypothesis not to represent significant viewpoints in the literature. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It is flatly untrue that I inserted a gallery without discussion on the Talk page. In fact, I inserted 2 or 3 pics in the body of the article and due to discussion on the Talk page, I inserted a gallery to provide an aesthetically pleasing format for editors to insert numerous pictures in support of the article.  All of the pics support the article, as outlined on the Talk Page and repeated here.  It would seem more fair and impartial to wait to hear the other side of the story, as opposed to taking action based on Doug's erroneous claims.


 * Please take a look at the Talk Page (at the very top), that is where the discussion happened in recent days. Why at the top you may ask?  Because we have been discussing pictures on this Talk Page for a solid year.


 * The pics add to the reader's understanding as follows:
 * Much mention is made of black skinned egyptians in the article, so Ahmose-Nefertari is shown as an example of a black skinned egyptian.
 * The article mentions Queens from the South. Tiye is shown as an example of a queen from the south.
 * There is a specific controversy over Tut, so Tut, his parents, and grandparents are shown. (Akhenaton, Tiye)
 * At the UNESCO conference several scholars mentioned that they saw black people (in Egyptian art) in all kingdoms (Old, Middle, and New). Therefore, representative pics of Egyptians from all kingdoms were added (Khufu, Khafre, Mentuhotep, Hatshepsut, Ramesses the Great, etc.)
 * There is a tabloid style controversy over Cleopatra, so another editor added her pic.
 * The 25th dynasty ruled all of Egypt, and like Cleopatra, were from a different "kingdom/empire."


 * On the Talk page, four editors voiced support for the pics (view the top of the Talk page). One editor voiced support and then retracted support in the same day.  These are the facts.
 * Doug provided commentary on the Tiye bust. I have never said anything about her bust or tried to make any points using her bust.  Isn't Doug's commentary WP:OR.  Is he a peer reviewed secondary source that can be used to discuss the attributes of Tiye's bust?  Why is this bust not controversial on the Tiye page?  Is anyone disputing that this is a bust of Tiye?  Is anyone disputing that Tiye is Tut's grandmother, as DNA evidence has proven it? http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=185393 figure 2.
 * Finally, I added the pics without changing a single caption or modifying the pics at all from their source Wiki articles. A different editor made a bunch of comments on the pic of the 25th dynasty and in typical sloppy scholarship fashion, this has been attributed to my edit.  It's ridiculous.  Be fair. Be impartial. Be reasonable.Rod (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * In Doug's "looks dark doesn't she?" original research above, did it ever occur to you that she might actually have been dark? Can you prove that she wasn't dark, as your original research insinuates?  Please review these quotes from peer reviewed secondary sources:
 * In the early 20th century, Flinders Petrie continued the discussion of Black Egyptians. Petrie, Professor of Egyptology at the Univ. of London, spoke of the "black queen" that was the divine ancestress of the XVIIIth dynasty. Petrie indicated that "southern people reanimated Egypt, like the Sudani IIIrd dynasty and the Galla XIIth dynasty." [20]
 * The British Africanist Basil Davidson stated "Whether the Ancient Egyptians were as black or as brown in skin color as other Africans may remain an issue of emotive dispute; probably, they were both. Their own artistic conventions painted them as pink, but pictures on their tombs show they often married queens shown as entirely black, being from the south : while the Greek writers reported that they were much like all the other Africans whom the Greeks knew."[75]Rod (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * This screed is an example of why discussion on these articles is so difficult. Tiye may have been "dark", or she may not have been, though I guess it's an open question how dark you have to to be "dark" or how light you have to be to be "not dark". As far as I know, we can't be sure of that, or even if she came from the "south". It's just a sculpture made of heartwood. It looks dark for the same reason that Tut looks pale in this sculpture from the same room in the same museum. The latter is made of plaster. It's absurd to ask why it is OK to have it on the Tiye page, but not on the race controversy page. It depicts Tiye. It does not depict "race". When it is chosen to go on the race controversy page then it is made to represent "race" by the editor who chooses it. OR, by the way, applies to articles. It is perfectly acceptable to discuss issues on Talk pages. However, there are many sources that discuss the bust, the headdress and the materials from which it is made. If one were to create an article on the bust comparable to the Nefertiti bust article then these could be used. No-one doubts that Egyptians of all classes probably ranged from fairly pale to fairly dark, with the latter clustering in the south and the former in the north. The problem here is the attempt emphasise a POV about the "race of Egyptians" and to use images to promote it. Paul B (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * We should have started this discussion with the statement that virtually none of the editors involved believe in the flawed social construct known as race. However, as mentioned at the UNESCO conference, race (black, white, yellow) will continue to be used when discussing Ancient Egypt because it was used historically and the public is still interested in "race", especially as it relates to A.E.  Therefore, we are stuck having mindless arguments about a construct that we don't believe in, just to provide an overview of the history and current discussions regarding the flawed construct known as "race."  Now that we've properly framed this debate, some characteristics/traits/etc have to be used to group people into "races."  Peer reviewed secondary sources grouped some Egyptians into the black "race" because they had black skin, because of their bone structure, etc.  Many of these sources are mainstream Egyptologists.  Sources such as Flinders Petrie, arguably the father of Egyptology said the 18th dynasty was started by black queens from the south.  I've added a pic of a black queen from the south, Ahmose-Nefertari to support this text.  The public likely does not know what black Egyptian queens look like in Ancient Egyptian art.  Thus, I inserted the picture.  The picture is worth a 1000 words.  The pictures enrich the article.  That's my position.
 * Regarding Tut, we have no problem adding highly contentious modern renderings (Nat. Geo) of his flesh tone, but here it is contentious to add a bust of his grandmother that was made by the Ancient Egyptians, not some modern company.Rod (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding Tiye, her article states: Tiye's father, Yuya, was a non-royal, wealthy landowner from the Upper Egyptian town of Akhmin,[1] Upper Egypt is generally considered the south in the context of the A.E. civilizationRod (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It is probable that Tiye's father was based in Akhmin, yes, but it is also speculated that he came originally from Asia, on the basis that his name appears to be non-Egyptian. You must know this because it is in the article you've just referred to, but you just omit that aspect of the content. And, of course, we don't know where Tiye's mother came from. So, it's speculation piled on theory and conjecture, with fragments of evidence (though, of course we also have the actual bodies of all these people, from which "race" has also been interpreted in competing ways!). We shouldn't be quoting archaic sources like Flinders Petrie for crying out loud. As for Amhose-Nefertari, like Tiye and Tut, she's black in some images and she isn't in others like this one. Since she was her husband's sister, it's unlikely that their skin-colurs were really dramatically different, and there are many cases in which the same individual will be depicted as black or as brown or as pale, as with Tut himself. Paul B (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * As for it being flatly untrue that you (Rod) added the gallery without consensus, I can't find the consensus. There's a discussion which ended over a year ago, then there is you adding to that discussion at 3:20 am yesterday. At the very same time you started adding pictures. You had no consensus for that.. You then added a gallery, for which I also see no consensus. As for adding grandparents, really? Specific images that have had specific discussions from RS on both sides of the debate might be added with discussion, but not this way. Dougweller (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed Doug that was a point I tried to make. Specific images, that have specific discussions in RS that represent mainstream views of the debate should be the means for selecting images.  As a side discussion from the talk page, this entire article seems to be a POV fork, which are generally discouraged.  I wonder if this article should be nominated for deletion, though given the passion it seems to engender that will be a controversial move.  A point to all concerned, NPOVN exists to provide an external view, if you all pile on you will deter outside comment. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As it happens, I remember the entire history of this. The content was originally in the Afrocentrism article. A dispute arose with an editor called user:Deeceevoice, who wanted to promote the Black Egyptian position. She and user:Dbachmann clashed, and then the spin-off Race of Ancient Egyptians was created, which then went through various name changes and was itself spit into the "Controversy" article and the "Population history" article. Then there was yet more expansion of the "Black egyptians" material, leading to another spin-off (or POV fork) the "black Egyptian hypothesis" article. Other articles like Km (hieroglyph) have been drawn in. It's became a bit of a swamp. Paul B (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's the history as I remember it. The A.E. Race Controversy article was written in a fashion that promoted the POV of any debunked theory except the Black theory.  Editors of good faith enriched the Black theory section (which is in an article alongside several other FRINGE theories that have been completely refuted by mainstream scholarship).  The Black theory section became long and the A.E. Race Controversy article became longer.  There was a consensus to split the articles due to the length of the A.E. Race Controversy article.  Editors that are pro and con agreed to the split.  The black theory article became a place to discuss the black theory, it's history, and any modern findings.  The majority of the balance can be found in the A.E. Race controversy article, however the black theory article is also balanced as Yalens, Aua, Doug, etc. ensure that it remains that way (and I appreciate them keeping everyone honest).
 * Moving on to the mainstream view. The mainstream view is that Ancient Egyptians are mixed and the population included red skinned people from the north and darker skinned people from the south.  According to mainstream scholarship, Egypt colonized the South at a very early stage in the civilization and mainstream scholars agree that this interaction with the south intensified in the New Kingdom.  Greeks and modern historians routinely refer to black skinned Egyptians (in addition to red Egyptians and comments about symbolic colors) and most of the scholars at the UNESCO conference agreed that at least 1/3 of the A.E. were black/negroid.  None of what I just said is controversial.
 * Getting back to the point. I hear a consensus that pics are okay in the article, as long as they are discussed individually on the Talk page first.  This seems extreme, but it's the only consensus we have been able to reach in a year of discussing this topic.Rod (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Doug, my initial edit on Jan 5th at 19:20 was to add 2 or 3 pics. After discussing that edit on the talk page, I thought it might be a good idea to add a gallery so that more pics could be added in an aesthetically pleasing way.  That's the entire crux of this discussion.  Afterwards, a lot of discussion was generated on the Talk Page.  Four editors agreed to pics in one form or another during the ensuing discussion on the Talk page.  Many of those discussions have now been collapsed on the Talk page, so you would need to review the older versions of the Talk Page in history.Rod (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Why does the term "red skinned people" have to be invented? Just avoid calling them "white"? Of course red/ruddy has regularly been used to mean "flushed with health" in many contexts. And so has "black", to mean the same thing - coloured with health, or "tanned", as opposed to deathly pale. Famously, Homer describes Odysseus turning "black" to refer to his recovery of health. This is why simply quoting colour-terms like this as if they map onto modern racial usage is next-to useless unless it is done through expert knowledge of how such terms were used in specific context and what they meant at the time. Paul B (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

POV template documentation - Removal of 5 yr old text "Do not use this template to 'warn' readers about the article"
Comments requested at this thread, to help forestall edit war and to discuss the proposed removal of the sentence
 * Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article.

From This version of Template:POV/DOC NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)