Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 45

NPOV dispute on the Derek Kilmer Wikipedia entry
"Justin Olypen" has been, as I understand Wikipedia conventions, violating NPOV guidelines with the following inflammatory entries:

"Special Interest Lobby Groups and Middle East Policy

Through his cosponsorship of the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2013 [16], Rep. Kilmer works to send more Washington State tax dollars to Israel for weapons that have been widely documented in their use against Palestinian civilians.[17]

Kilmer has visited Israel with special-interest lobby groups working to increase funding for Israel's military [18]

In January of 2014, Kilmer plans to hold an "exclusive" meeting for major pro-Israel lobby donors behind closed doors. [19]"

I have amended the entries thus:

"Through his cosponsorship of the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2013 [16], Rep. Kilmer supports Israel's national defense.[17]

Kilmer has visited Israel with special-interest lobby groups working to increase funding for Israel's defense.

[18] On January 13, 2014 Representative Kilmer will address the AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) Technology Division invitation-only luncheon. [19]"

Please compare for "neutrality."

We have been reverting each other's revisions; if the intent of this noticeboard is to weigh and resolve such POV disputes, please do so here; I would rather not continue this cycle ad infinitum.

I have notified "Justin Olypen" of this New Section in Wikipedia NPOV/noticeboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czypcamayoc (talk • contribs) 22:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Please notice difference in wording between "defense" and "military", twice. Also, please see source regarding AIPAC meeting as the complaintant is merely arguing for less specificity. - Justin olypen

I have again added increased specificity from cited articles, so article now reads: "Through his cosponsorship of the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2013, Rep. Kilmer supports increased US taxpayer funding of Israel's military.

Kilmer has visited Israel with special-interest lobby groups working to increase funding for Israel's military. He describes situation as "complicated".

On January 13, 2014 Representative Kilmer will address the AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) Technology Division invitation-only luncheon, behind closed doors, in a location only known to those who donate $1,500 to pro Israel lobby group, AIPAC. "

czypcamayoc replies: Looks good. I have no objection to the current language.

("Through his cosponsorship of the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2013 [17], Rep. Kilmer supports Israel's military. Kilmer has visited Israel with special-interest lobby groups working to increase funding for Israel. He describes situation as "complicated"[18]. On January 13, 2014 Representative Kilmer will address the AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) Technology Division invitation-only luncheon, behind closed doors, in a location only known to those who donate $1,500 to pro Israel lobby group, AIPAC. [19]") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czypcamayoc (talk • contribs) 22:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

1/28/14 - I (czypcamayoc) notice that "206.63.116.11" has sneaked back in to re-introduce propaganda noted above and corrected. I reverted to the version above. Below is the relapse version.

"Through his cosponsorship of the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2013,[17] Rep. Kilmer supports increased US taxpayer funding of Israel's military despite Israel's use of white phosphorous as a chemical weapon, constituting evidence of a war crime [18] and evidence of weaponry tied to US funding being used against civilians" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czypcamayoc (talk • contribs) 02:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Subsequently another moderator further pared the entry.

2/4/14 - "Justin Olypen" returns with the following:

"Through his cosponsorship of the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2013, [17] Rep. Kilmer works to send more Washington State tax dollars to Israel for weapons that have been widely documented in their use against Palestinian civilians,[18] and despite Israel's use of white phosphorous as a chemical weapon, constituting evidence of a war crime.[19] Kilmer has visited Israel with special-interest lobby groups working to increase funding for Israel's military [20] In January of 2014, Kilmer plans to attend an "exclusive" meeting for major pro-Israel lobby donors behind closed doors. [21]"

That I amend to:

Through his cosponsorship of the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2013 [17], Rep. Kilmer supports I increased US taxpayer funding of Israel's military, and to provide assistance for cooperation in the fields of energy, water, homeland security, agriculture, and alternative fuel technologies.[18] Kilmer has visited Israel with special-interest lobby groups working to increase funding for Israel. He describes situation as "complicated." [19] On January 13, 2014 Representative Kilmer will address the AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) Technology Division invitation-only luncheon. [20] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czypcamayoc (talk • contribs) 23:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Constitutionist
, created by the same editor as the one editing articles on the Constutionalist Party mentioned above, is basically a party political statement, eg "We believe that by returning to the limited federal government, as authorized in the Constitution, we will see Liberty and Prosperity return to the nation. In order to separate ourselves those who wish to keep the current government functioning outside the Constitution, we call ourselves Constitutionists and call for a complete re-establishment of the original American Constitutional Republic." AfD may be the best way to deal with this unless someone has other suggestions. Dougweller (talk) 08:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I restored the reasonable redirect. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

NPOV edits to affiliates of the Constitution Party (United States)
has been making NPOV edits at a range of affiliates of this party, eg adding " It is time for the Constitution, and the American people who believe it its principles, to have duly elected officials willing to make the tough decisions necessary to save the American economy and American Liberty." to articles. I haven't checked the ELs either. I'll notify the editor. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * An audit and purge is likely needed to rid articles of unsourced statements based on this editor's personal point of view. Another random example of objectionable edits from this user would be this. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Editor still hard at work adding text which has Wikipedia stating as fact " Congressmen, the President, the Courts, elected and appointed officials at all levels of government have lost the vision of what constitutes a representative republic based on the Constitution. It is time for the Constitution, and the American people who believe it its principles, to have duly elected officials willing to make the tough decisions necessary to save the American economy and American Liberty." Dougweller (talk) 06:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Editor adding "The Constitution Party is a grassroots organization made up of volunteers all across the country. Whether you are able to help spread the word, work on a campaign, or run for office we invite you to VOLUNTEER with us!" to articles now. Dougweller (talk  09:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Steve Stockman
Steve Stockman is a controversial American congressman who is currently running for the Senate. Two sets of editors are working on his page, and each is accusing the other of POV violations. The result is a complete mess.

I'm not an experienced editor, so I'm not sure what additional information should be posted here. The instructions say to post diffs, but there are far too many to list here. There have been over 100 edits on the page in the last four days, plus another >100 on the talk page.

I'll admit that I have a definite opinion as to which side is in the right, but I'm honestly trying to get some outside help to sort things out. --Alexbook (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * See also Sockpuppet investigations/1houstonian. I don't think it's reasonable to say that "each is accusing the other of POV violations."  One group of IPs and two registered editors who are currently the subject of an SPI are accusing everyone else of editing in bad faith and of POV violations while at the same time refusing to engage in substantive discussion on the talk page.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It's possible that I'm bending over backwards in my attempt to assume good faith. --Alexbook (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

It is not which side of the issue you are on Laylah, GabrielF and team have been constantly vandalizing this page by removing Congressmans positions, citations, bills, interviews etc and are engaged in putting out of context quips to describe his term in office 1houstonian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1houstonian (talk • contribs) 16:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

You have repeatedly been told that your accusations of vandalism are incorrect under the meaning of that word at Wikipedia and yet you continue to make them ... in fact virtually every post of yours, on the article talk page, on your own talk page, and even here (and by your apparent sock Achtungberlin), includes the erroneous charge. That you never respond to other editors' points about the vandalism charges as well as about the POV nature of your edits and your deletions of material from reliable sources based only on your perception that those sources have an agenda you disagree with, leaves the impression that you have no interest in cooperating with other editors or following Wikipedia policies. -- Jibal (talk) 05:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Mint Press News
The discussion on this article talk page regarding how much weight to give the company's self-description and how much weight to give coverage of the response from one of their articles seems to be declining. Some fresh eyes to refocus the discussion on policy-based content would be productive. VQuakr (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Editors are over-emphasising 'Scottishness' of Picts and deleting all contradictory content.
The Picts, according to historic knowledge were, indegiounious ancient people from pre-Celtic Albion ,who were conquered by warlike Irish Scotti migrants from Ulster in the 8th century AC ,due to loosing much of their troops against the Viking invasion in the Northern parts of now conquered Scotland. British encyclopedia http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/459553/Pict does not count them as Celts but this version is impossible to edit in the Picts article because biased Scottish nationalist editors don't allow to include it .Edelward (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC) Edelward (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The article Picts does not appear to be locked, nor do I see any attempt by you to edit that article in the past since at least 2009 (when I stopped looking). I do see some talk page discussion by you, where you fail to assume good faith from other editors (accusing all who have worked on the article of being Scottish nationalists and propagandists), and engage in original research by commenting on Bede instead of simply stating what Bede does or does not say, or bringing in reliable sources that comment on Bede.  The spelling "naztionalists" would be concerning if I failed to assume good faith from you as you have failed with others.  You then make unsourced claims that the Picts were originally descended from Berbers, a claim that requires reliable sources.
 * Read WP:AGF, WP:CITE, and WP:RS. Cut the name calling, bring in sources whenever you make claims, and quit crusading against imaginary opponents.  Ian.thomson (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Constructal law
Serious issues of POV in this WP:FRINGE article. Language and undue weight given to supporting citations are all problematic. Suggest some of our resident physics buffs take a look and sort out the chaff from the wheat. Simonm223 (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Ivan Gundulić
The dispute involves the ethnicity and language of this writer. Ivan Gundulić is listed among The 100 most prominent Serbs by the Serbian Academy of Sciences (SANU), and his works (as are the works of other Old Ragusan writers) are considered part of Serbian literature by Matica srpska, which is the chief Serbian cultural institutions. Matica srpska has included Gundulić (among others) in their 200+-volume series of the most prominent Serbian writers from the earliest days to present (Deset vekova srpske književnost "Ten centuries of Serbian literature"). I've categorized him also as a Serbian poet, and his language as Serbian , but my edits got reverted (see edit history). Gundulić himself to my knowledge never professed his ethnicity/nationality because at that time Croatian nation wasn't yet "constructed" and Republic of Ragusa was an independent political entity. Older sources categorize him as a Serbo-Croatian or Serbian writer (such as the 1911 Britannica), but after the dissolution of Yugoslavia Croatian literature historians claims exclusivity on the entire Old Ragusan literature on the basis of territorial coverage (Dubrovnik is now in Croatia), while the Serbian side simply continues as it did before. Inclusion of Old Ragusan writers as a part of Serbian literature is frowned upon by Croatian academicians publicly, but Serbian academicians generally see nothing wrong with this and consider Ivan Gundulić, Marin Držić and other important Old Ragusan writers as a part of the Serbian literature. Specifically commenting the issue of including Old Ragusan writers, Miro Vuksanović, the Editor-in-Chief of the abovementioned Matica srpska's series, stated that the works included in the series "represent literature written in the Serbian language, in all its forms and dialects" (da bude zastupljena književnost pisana na srpskom jeziku, na svim njegovim 'oblicima' i narječjima, u desetvjekovnim vremenima i narječjima.). Other similar cases such as mixed Serbian/Croatian ancestry, or Serb writers from Crotia or vice versa, such as Ivo Andrić, are handled by dual categorization as well as mentioning language as Serbo-Croatian, or not mentioning the language name at all. That is the approach that I suggest here. Both SANU and Matica srpska are important and reliable sources, representing a major POV that should be included in the article IMHO. Croatian editors don't want that on the basis of arguments such as: So in short, a major POV from the Serbian side should be included following the established practice as I mentioned above. Note that the article is currently protected because I requested intervention at wrong noticeboard. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The sources are claimed to be fringe - they are not. These are very important institutions of high visibility. They reflect opinions of hundreds of scholars.
 * Gundulić never called himself Serb or his language Serbian - but neither did he call it Croatian either to my knowledge (not that it matters actually).

Israel and the apartheid analogy
Please take a look at the discussion at Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy. I argued there that the inclusion of Template:Discrimination sidebar in the article's lead is a violation of the NPOV editing policy in this very heated topic. Thanks, Yambaram (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The Italian marines incident or how to correctly apply NPOV police in an article about a per se controversial fact
The 2012 Italian Navy Marines shooting incident in the Laccadive Sea is an article about an incident that created a diplomatic row between the two involved countries (Italy and India) which, to date, are not concluded yet. Italy and India maintain rather different views on the subject, and the public opinions of the two countries are deeply polarized. Outside of the a/m countries the fact has and has had little echo, except for some specialized circles like those related to international law, navigation etc.

As a result, the vast majority of sources, including each countries officials and media both, is biased towards (or supporting) one of the two sides, which creates difficulties for Wikipedia editors at balancing them.

In this contest editor 109.134.121.9, who apparently endorses the Indian side, repeatedly reversed  Italian editors contributions by quoting the POV policy, that in my humble opinion she/he wrongly interprets  as a prohibition to cite any non-neutral source in the article, and (s)he arrived to state on the talk page that "The Italian media has no credibility because what they claim is false", thus rejecting ipso facto everything reported on Italian news (including top Italian TV channels, international press agencies as ANSA, leading Italian newspaper). Viceversa, my understanding of NPOV policy application in a case like the present is that both the Italian and the Indian perspectives must be present in the article, avoiding loaded language to promote one position over another, and that can be done also by citing non-neutral sources, providing that wikipedia editors balance the respective POVs, as suggested in the "Achieving neutrality" paragraph of WK: NPOV

The latest dispute with editor 109.134.121.9 (formerly editor 109.134.121.228, non-fixed IP number) relates to  NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen stance supporting Italy that, according to editor 109.134.121.9 would have been in favour of Italy just because Rassmussen would have been mislead by the Italian journalist wording who, again in editor 109.134.121.9 opinion, would have misreported an analogous statement by EEAS High Representative Baroness Ashton. Please refer to diffs here below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012_Italian_Navy_Marines_shooting_incident_in_the_Laccadive_Sea&diff=595402186&oldid=595399446 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012_Italian_Navy_Marines_shooting_incident_in_the_Laccadive_Sea&diff=next&oldid=595402255 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012_Italian_Navy_Marines_shooting_incident_in_the_Laccadive_Sea&diff=next&oldid=595402779 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012_Italian_Navy_Marines_shooting_incident_in_the_Laccadive_Sea&diff=next&oldid=595403681 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012_Italian_Navy_Marines_shooting_incident_in_the_Laccadive_Sea&diff=next&oldid=595417865  and section Interpretation of Baroness Ashton's February 14 statements. of relevant talk page Please notice that also there editor 109.134.121.9 restates his/her idea according to which Italian Media reports are to be rejected because "what they claim is false".  Regards LNCSRG (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This is an incredibly cumbersome article, rife with every imaginable detail and it is very hard to follow. Both sides seem more interested with establishing their POV than presenting coherent facts. The best thing would be to eliminate much of day to day minutia, but this I suspect will not happen until the entire matter is closed. As for eliminating sources because of the belief that the journalists are not credible, that is POV and is unacceptable. The only relevant issue is whether the source is reliable, as per WP:NOR and if there are doubts about ANSA as a source,  a posting  should be made to the RS noticeboard. In general keep in mind that per WP:NONENG English language sources should be given preference over non English ones. The editor's personal belief that the journalists should not be trusted is not relevant. On a further note, that entire section could be significantly pruned, given that the argument is now moot; India will not try the sailor under the anti-piracy laws http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-26319402. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I would like to contribute to slimming down the article, but I am afraid that without "active arbitration remedies" and WP:1RR rules, some editors wan't have a chance against IP editors (of both sides), less a heavy commitment in NPOV's and conflict resolution procedures. --Robertiki (talk) 00:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Something that should be done is remove the section with links to court documents. There's simply no reason for them.  We summarize information using reliable, secondary sources.  Court documents are primary sources and at least one is hosted by a wordpress blog.  If the information in a court document is relevant, then there WILL be secondary sources about that document.  We should be citing those and pulling in the analysis done by those sources.  If a particular court document is truly important, put it as an external link at the end of the article.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 01:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that the court documents should be removed from this article, they could be added at the bottom under "External Links". With so many other secondary sources available, court documents are unnecessary and removing them would be a good start towards cleaning the article. As an aside, I do not always agree that if a court case is notable a secondary source will be available. This is because I have seen court cases cited in newspapers as they started, but not when they ended, if their ending was particularly unremarkable. In those situations strict adherence to requiring a secondary source can  lead to lopsided reports of a case in WP. However, this article is on the exact opposite side of the spectrum, almost  every single court event, no matter how minor, is listed and referenced to a primary source, and the case is still in the preliminary stages, or at least far from resolved. Applying the  secondary source policy could not be more appropriate in this case. By all means, reduce the amount of primary source material.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 03:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * as I've said on the article's talk page, discretionary sanctions have been authorized by ArbCom for all pages related to India, cf. WP:ARBIPA. Under the terms of the remedy, uninvolved admins may block, restrict and topic ban users editing disruptively and may also impose article-level restrictions (such as a general 1-rr coupled with semi-protection, if needed). My advice would be to follow WP:BRD and, in the event of disruption, file an WP:AE request. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your replies and your inputs, I appreciate a lot and I substantially agree with. Yes the article should be pruned and made more fluent. I do not think I will able to do it personally, since 1) I am not a native English speaker, so my idea of fluent English could sound quite ... alien to a mother tongue speaker, 2) I took a side on this controversy, so my summaries could be accused to be non-neutral simplifications 3) I am honestly afraid I am quite busy these days  because of work and personal matters. However I would welcome such a concise rewriting, if and when somebody volunteers to do so.

Now, I would like to have your opinion about this revert of one entry of mine by editor 81.240.144.24: |dif Thanks again, regards -- LNCSRG (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * @LNCSRG with regard to (Reasons for the removal of Jaideep A. Prabhu remarks in public opinion section) :  Jaideep A.Prabhu is currently a doctoral student in History at Vanderbilt University. Whereas, the subject matter of this article deals with the fields of maritime law and international relations where-in academic credentials and expertise of Jaideep A.Prabhu in are neither noteworthy nor significant. Jaideep A.Prabhu qualifications as an engineer are not relevant to this article because this article does not deal with an engineering subject matter.
 * Bear in mind that it is incumbent on contributors of text submissions to make a case and defend a text in the event of a challenge.
 * In this instance, there are two reasons given for the deletion : (A) that the information is not noteworthy of inclusion (B) that the cited source albeit reproduced by news-media, is an essay by a doctoral student in history without domain expertise in the subject matter. Either of these reasons has merit, independently, to warrant deletion of the text until the stated concerns are addressed/defended adequately in line with Wikipedia rules for content contributions.
 * Viz your comment regarding the phrase "In Italy, the humiliating volte-face was perceived as a distressing foreign policy mess leading to an embarrassing climbdown....". After checking the source citation of this phrase, it is evident that the sentence has been compiled from a Wall Street Journal article written by Italian journalist Margherita Stancati who captured Italian public sentiment of the time by drawing from editorials from prominent Italian newspapers. The article is neither controversial nor from a questionable newspaper media agency. It conforms to WP:VERIFY, WP:NONENG, WP:NOR & WP:USEPRIMARY. Also, most of the wording used is exactly the same as the ones which appeared in the cited Italian-language news articles. Hence, the phrase has the merit to remain on the article and bears no relation to the text inclusion by LNCSRG of an opinionated essay by the doctoral student Jaideep A.Prabhu. Onlyfactsnofiction (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

OMICS Group dispute/Open for discussion
OMICS Group page is being reverted and redirected to OMICS Publishing Group again & again and OMICS Publishing Group page does not keep up with the neutrality policy of Wikipedia. However to consider for notability, the group is into various businesses:
 * Educational Society- Holding around 6000 students from primary school level to degree level
 * Films and movies- turnover of INR 300 Crores / 65 Million USD Business as per the box office records
 * Conferences- only publishing group organizing scientific conferences; world-wide conferences and the largest conference organizer; organizing around 100 conferences per year
 * Health TV Channel- 1st Health Channel; monitored exclusively by OMICS Group; operating in English, Hindi and Telugu languages
 * Scientific Alliance- Collaboration with more than 150 non-profit scientific associations
 * Journals- operating 350 open access journals for the sake of disseminating knowledge for free
 * Since Journals is just a part of the business, a general page is of course required. To prove the matter, please refer to reliable sources published on OMICS Group page

Link to Talk:OMICS Publishing Group and Talk:OMICS Group

A case should be opened for discussion and consideration with above notability. Lizia7 (talk)


 * Lizia7 - I'm not sure I understand what's going on. Are both articles about the same company? It looks to have a heavy amount of critical material. Though it is sourced, I am speculative on whether the balance is appropriate on the whole. CorporateM (Talk) 22:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

2011 Turkish sports corruption scandal article
The above states article lacks a natural point of view. What, I wrote in the article's talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2011_Turkish_sports_corruption_scandal) sums up the situation really well, that's why, I am going to copy and paste it here; - Unfortunately, in Turkey football is taken seriously more than it should and every fan is looking for a way to make their team "better-looking" than the other teams. Although this investigation started with 8 teams, in this article it seems that the whole scandal is about Fenerbahce and Besiktas. For example, in the first paragraph it is implied that Emenike was caught up in the scandal but he was cleared off all charges hence his return to Fenerbahce. I don't know why it was not corrected by the people who put it there in the first place. Secondly, when I wrote this part at 18th of November; this scandal was in the hands of the high courts in Turkey and they haven't had given any final verdict about this investigation but if you read this arictle, there is no room to belive that Fenerbahce is not guilty. What happened to natural point of view? Thanks for your time.Rivaner (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC) Please look ay my last edit with updated news about this investigation, I have shared 5 names from a news article but if you read the article from top to bottom, It is the first time that their names are stated even though those 5 people were also a part of the investigation. This is my proof of this article being biased. Again, thanks for your time.Rivaner (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC) -- As you can see, the last paragraph in "copy paste" clearly shows the article as being biased and I have tried everything I can but now, it's in your hands. Thanks for your time and understanding, I hope this clarifies the situation about this article.Rivaner (talk) 07:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I have tried my best to clear the article a bit and gave reason for my every edit, hope it will help to wikipedia's policiy of natıral point of view.Rivaner (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC) You can check my reasonings from the users talk page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LardoBalsamico#2011_Turkish_sports_corruption_scandal_articleRivaner (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

My edits are being refered as vandalism while the stated article, still, lacks a natural point of view.Rivaner (talk) 13:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Earlier, I didn't want to accuse anyone about this article but since we've started a discussion both on his talk page and the above stated articles talk page, it can be said that the user who were making these edits is. Hope you can find a solution to this. Thanks.Rivaner (talk) 13:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment -as an (impartial on this subject) editor who reverted some of Rivaner's reverts, may I now take the opportunity, on re-examination, to state that I believe his edits to have been well-intentioned, and, more importantly, motivated by a desire to improve the quality of this article. To someone with no expert knowledge of the situation, the original article did read as biased and therefore unencyclopaedic for our current purposes. Hope this clarifies. Cheers. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  16:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Some anonymous IP adresses are still editing the article without a natural point of view and still the article lacks it.Rivaner (talk) 09:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

please help syrian people article
i asked for an RfC on Talk:Syrian people, sadly the article was provided with over 20 reliable references yet an editor disagree, please help and participate on the RfC --Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * the conflict was resolved, thanks any way--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Software Testing
On Software testing, I've tried raising the issue of neutral point of view, but it seems one user is dominating the discussion and edits there. The article claims, for example, that "No certification is based on a widely accepted body of knowledge" whereas there are a lot of people that think otherwise - people at ISTQB, for instance - and it seems that mainly just people of so-called context-sensitive school are opposed. The user dominating the discussion seems to also believe in what the school says, disallowing other views. The views of the school are even included in the beginning of Software testing controversies article, implying that they are controversial, but the user dominating the Software Testing page refuses to label the claims in Software Testing article as so. A wikipedia article should not label the view of one school of thought as a fact. Slsh (talk) 11:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * If something is controversial then you are right and the information and views should be directly attributed to the people/schools that hold them. However, this also means that you have to present actual sources that substantiate your argument that the opinions are controversial and that contradict the positions held by others. Those opinions/positions must also be directly attributed to the people who hold them. You can not just assert that something is controversial without supplying opposed positions that are properly sourced. Does that make sense? Scoobydunk (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Google Bus
I don't have time tonight to tear this apart, but Google Bus looks primarily like it's pushing a POV, and probably needs some surgery at least. --j⚛e deckertalk 04:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've removed the controversy section (the bulk of the article) and the external links. The text clearly violated WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. GabrielF (talk) 07:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Candelas (Master Planned Community), Arvada, CO
This article has been the subject of off-wiki canvassing, here. I cleaned up the diatribe against the development and did my best to make it NPOV-compliant, but it is getting reverted without discussion by a couple of IP's. I think having more eyes on it would be a good idea. VQuakr (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Larry Ryckman
The article on entrepreneur Larry Ryckman appears at first glance to be an autobiography. It is a word-for-word copy of the content on the man's personal website, larryryckman.com. The article is written from an overwhelmingly positive point of view that glosses over his involvement in stock manipulation schemes and fails to make mention of the doubts surrounding the companies he once owned or was involved in. Fresh eyes on the article would be greatly appreciated. CplDHicks (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Knik Arm Bridge
This article concerns a controversial proposal for a bridge between Anchorage and Point MacKenzie, Alaska. Up until now it has been fairly quiet, just documenting the progress (or lack thereof) of the project. All of the sudden today it has been the subject of edits from several SPA accounts and IPs, at least one of which is being operated by someone from a PR firm in Anchorage. They have now changed their username to something less obvious but I am concerned that the article is being slanted to favor the pro-bridge side by paid advocates. There were also some serious formatting errors introduced by some of these edits. I thought I could fix them but it is something I don't think I have seen before and so I have reverted them as they made the page unreadable on smaller screens. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Violation of WP:ASF?
I have a question about the following sentences from the Battle of Berlin article:
 * During, and in the days immediately following the assault, in many areas of the city, vengeful Soviet troops (often rear echelon units) engaged in mass rape, pillage and murder. Yelena Senyavskaya and other Russian historians have criticized such statements and argue that while such crimes occurred, they were not widespread.

Does the first sentence violate WP:ASF? The guidelines for WP:ASF and WP:NPOV in general state:
 * Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.


 * The text of Wikipedia articles should not assert opinions but should assert facts. When a statement is a fact (a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute) it should be asserted without prefixing it with "(Source) says that ...", and when a statement is an opinion (a matter which is subject to dispute) it should be attributed to the source that offered the opinion using inline-text attribution.

I think it is obvious that in this case the view in the first sentence is disputed by other historians as mentioned in the second sentence, so the statement in the first sentence cannot be presented as fact and has to be attributed. -YMB29 (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yup - seems reasonable. There are really only two possibilities here: (a) The 'Russian historians' view on the matter is significant - in which case we shouldn't be implying that it is wrong, or (b) it isn't significant (i.e. hasn't been commented on in secondary sources etc) in which case we shouldn't be including it in the first place. I make no comment as to which is correct. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the comment. Yes, the Russian view is significant and is commented on in secondary sources (like here ). -YMB29 (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump please see this edit Then see Removal of tag and these two edits: one two in my opinion YMB29 is acting in bad faith over this, and you have just been mugged. For more background please Goebbels's fevered prophecies

There is next to no dispute that mass rapes took place. To date only one Russian historian has been brought forward who to put it widely is not an objective historian, as she relies on one official soviet source to justify her argument. The source that YMB29 refers to on this page writes. Well anyone "offended that the glory of the victorious Red Army should be so tarnished" will be likely to deny the allegations (MRDA). There is nothing there to say how many Russians historians are "offended that the glory of the victorious Red Army should be so tarnished". Now for a technical point. The scale of the rapes was discussed back in 2010 and the numbers were moved out of the body of the text into a footnote, precisely because they are debated, but there is next to no debate that mass rapes took place. Therefore the Russian sentence should probably be put into the footnote, but as a way of ending a tedious debate on the talk page, the two editors who are sill willing to discuss this with YMB29 gave in and agreed that if YMB29 would remove a tag for which YMB29 placed in the article then we would agree against our better judgement to the placing of a sentence about Russian historians in the body of the text. YMB29 took that as consent and has now started to attribute the first sentence. This attribution is clearly a breach of of WP:WEIGHT and the first paragraph of the section could have been tailor written for this example, as could WP:VALID. -- PBS (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The question I asked about WP:ASF was simple, and when the response was not in your favor you complain...
 * What have you done to establish how much weight one view has over the other? I have provided more than enough sources to prove my point, while you mostly ignore this and claim to have consensus.
 * There are many historians that dispute the claims of mass rape. I have quoted some of them here . It is not my problem that you ignore the quotes.
 * The dispute, generally between Western and Russian historians, is also mentioned in many sources (like the source I provided above ).
 * The Russian view is not fringe and must be mentioned in the article (like it is mentioned in other articles on the issue) and you must follow WP:ASF.
 * You have to stop being misleading and ignoring rules and sources to push your POV. -YMB29 (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, if you are going to talk about weight, the three Russian historians I quoted have a higher doctorate in history, while Antony Beevor, your main source, has no such qualifications (honorary doctorate is obviously not the same thing). Beevor is just a popular writer. -YMB29 (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * To be clear about what I wrote, my comments concerned the specific sentences cited by by YMB29: "During, and in the days immediately following the assault, in many areas of the city, vengeful Soviet troops (often rear echelon units) engaged in mass rape, pillage and murder. Yelena Senyavskaya and other Russian historians have criticized such statements and argue that while such crimes occurred, they were not widespread." It seems self-evident to me that this assertion in Wikipedia's voice that particular historians are wrong isn't compatible with WP:NPOV policy - which is what my reply was directed at. As I said, I am making no comment as to whether a particular viewpoint is significant or not - you need to sort that out amongst yourselves, or ask for wider input. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I asked a simple question and you answered it clearly. -YMB29 (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The first sentence makes no claim about the scale of the events (that is in a footnote, because it is already noted that the scale is questioned) so the comment by Russian historians properly belongs in that footnotes. AndyTheGrump I suggest that if you wish to voice an opinion on this that you do so on the talk page of that article after you have read the content of the talk page on this subject. -- PBS (talk) 08:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Stop hounding him. He just gave his opinion.
 * So you are claiming that "engaged in mass rape, pillage and murder" is not a reference to scale? -YMB29 (talk)


 * That's right. I gave an opinion on the specific phrase you quoted. I made no recommendation whatsoever about any specific replacement for it, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to imply otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The first sentence only violates ASF if there is a dispute about the facts. That some Russian historians have questioned the facts is insignificant.  If it were, the sources used would have mentioned the dispute.  Also, the first sentence has 4 footnotes which are attached to three parts of the sentence.  That is poor style and should be corrected.  And I agree that popular books should not be used as sources.  TFD (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, the sourcing and citations for the first sentence are poor.
 * There is a dispute about the issue and it is not that only some random Russian historians are disputing it. The dispute is mentioned in other sources. -YMB29 (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Lots of things are mentioned in sources. You need to show that it is a significant view.  The advantage of using academic sources, such as Grossman's Jews, Germans, and Allies: Close Encounters in Occupied Germany, the only academic source used for the sentence, is that events can only be presented as factual if there are no serious disputes, and any substantial dissenting views must be acknowledged. Here is a link to his book, the matter is discussed on pp. 48ff.  I suggest using this as the sole source for the sentence, but do not see any equivocation in his narrative.  If the facts were in dispute, that would be a serious error in his writing and while that can happen, you would need to show that the book received criticism on that account.  TFD (talk) 17:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * TFD, I don't know if that book got criticism or not, but it is not as popular as Beevor's book, so it will be harder to find criticism of it.
 * I quoted some of the leading Russian historians and also Western sources that mention the Russian view and the related dispute.
 * Is that enough according to you to show that the view is significant? -YMB29 (talk) 06:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * YBM29, academic books are reviewed by independent scholars with different viewpoints. Factual accuracy is crucial, because later scholars rely on facts presented in academic writings.  Popular books do not have the same level of fact-checking and writers are free to choose which version of the facts they like.  While book reviews of these books may appear in academic journals, they are rarely mentioned in academic writing.  Hence the fact Beevor ignored the Russian scholars would be overlooked, even if it was a significant view, while Grossman would be criticized for such an omission.  Errors and omissions in academic writing are corrected in subsequent editions and in extreme cases, the publisher may even wirhdraw the book.  You are correct that some scholars have a different opinion, but need to show that this opinion is significant in order to justify inclusion.  TFD (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Legal aspects of Russia's military in Crimea (Ukraine)
I need help with the Legal aspects section of the following two articles:
 * 2014 Crimean crisis
 * 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine

The statements are sourced, but they are a legal opinion. They also seem to fall for what Wikipedia considers WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. I'm highly concerned that this might spiral into a litigation against Wikipedia as it identifies a professional by his name. See WP:NOLEGAL for another pertinent policy as well.

I need an admin to intervene on this matter. I don't want to remove text on a highly controversial topic and cause anger all around because of it.&mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Edit boldly!--Froglich (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I assume your point is that the sections give more weight to opinions opposed to Russia. But the bar is placed high for invasions and declarations of independence and it is unlikely that many informed writers would claim Russian and Crimea have met them.  So policy says that we should provide more weight to the anti-Russian view.  Also, there is usually no legal problem in quoting what people say.  And administrators have no special ability or authority to review content disputes.  TFD (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I would like to add to this that there is also a lot of violations on WP:NPOV being made.

These people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Owner_Ming and 31.48.69.109 are blatantly pushing an agenda, can we please have the article protected and some sort of action taken against these people? Avion365 (talk) 04:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Given the wreckage of his talk page, I would predict Owner Ming is about to disappear.--Froglich (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

In the template "in the news", describing neutrally the fact that Crimea decided to join Russian Federation
The user "The Rambling Man" when editing the template "in the news", used the word "annexed" in regard to the Crimea becoming a federal subject of Russian Federation. I think using this word violates neutral point of view, because in the official act, signed by president of Russia, the word "reunion" (воссоединении) is used. And this is also how the overwhelming majority of Crimean population see it. And in the Putin's speech, was said that due to historical context, the Crimea returned to Russia. And there's a lot of talk about historical justice taking place (Khruschev giving the area to the Ukrainian SSR, even though the core population there, at then time, were ethnic Russians, and the Crimea itself was part of Russian Empire prior to USSR). As an example, BBC, a reliable source, uses a neutral tone in describing how Crimea became part of Russia, by using the word "absorbed" instead of "annexation". The wording is controversial (reunion/annexation), the former being pro-Russian, while the latter being pro-American/"pro-western" preference in media. I think wikipedia should use a neutral word, and let others decide whether it's an annexation or a reunion. Pessimist2006 (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The most neutral word is probably "join". Could be "annexed by" or "returned to". No implications of intent. "Accession" is technically fine, but might sound a bit too much like "ascension". We must consider general audiences. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I posted what was considered a consensus at WP:ITN/C, nothing more. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Neutrality should not be used to buttress a lie. I.e., Crimea did not willingly "join" Russia.--Froglich (talk) 02:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's the thing. If you want to believe it unwillingly joined, the word still works. "Annexed by" and "acceded to" are directional forms of it, and have to be read one way or the other. Neutrality is letting readers choose their own conclusions (sometimes). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Software Testing neutral point of view issues
This is revival for a discussion as the discussion was archived but the matter is not resolved and I was unable to answer comment directed at me at the time.

On Software testing, I've tried raising the issue of neutral point of view, but it seems one user is dominating the discussion and edits there. The article claims, for example, that "No certification is based on a widely accepted body of knowledge" whereas there are a lot of people that think otherwise - people at ISTQB, for instance - and it seems that mainly just people of so-called context-sensitive school are opposed. The user dominating the discussion seems to also believe in what the school says, disallowing other views. The views of the school are even included in the beginning of Software testing controversies article, implying that they are controversial, but the user dominating the Software Testing page refuses to label the claims in Software Testing article as so. A wikipedia article should not label the view of one school of thought as a fact.

This is an example of a contradicting view: "The scheme relies on a Body of Knowledge (Syllabi and Glossary) and exam rules that are applied consistently all over the world, with exams and supporting material being available in many languages." (source: ISTQB). ISTQB is a big organization in the field of software testing certifications, as confirmed by these figures, so their view should be considered a notable one, at least as notable as few individuals from a specific school of thought. I'm not saying that we should take it as a fact, but we shouldn't be saying the opposite as a fact either unless we have real good sources on claiming so. Slsh (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I appear to be the other editor who is being accused of "dominating" the discussion. ISTQB is only one point of view in regards to testing. There are many others. It seems that not everyone agrees that there are many points of view. I'm sorry that I can't change this.


 * The issue is simple: there are several types of certifications and not all of those who believe in testing believe that certification is in any way valuable. That's what the WP:BALANCE section is about. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Nationality of people from disputed areas
This is a notice in accordance to Requests for comment. I have created a Request for Comment on the concern that potential offensiveness or objectionability of many biography articles of people from disputed areas (when they include only one 'nationality'-like description, including Scottish and Welsh) may be in violation of NPOV and if so are not covered by Content disclaimer leaving Wikipedia exposed to potential legal liability, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. Yiba (talk &#124; contribs) 00:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Dreams from My Real Father
Seeking input regarding a long-running dispute going on at Dreams from My Real Father — an article about a documentary-style film claiming that Barack Obama's biological father was Frank Marshall Davis, an African-American Communist activist. The dispute involves whether the lead section of the article should describe the above claim as being "improbable" (or "preposterous"), or whether the lead should simply say that the film makes this claim. One editor insists that calling the claim "preposterous" or "improbable" is POV, and he has been removing such wording (see [ here] and [ here], for example) — while two other editors ( and ) have insisted on putting the disputed language back in (see [ here] and [ here]). I advised everyone on the article's talk page (see [ here]) to pursue WP:DR rather than continue to edit-war, but this suggestion appears to have gone unheeded. I would prefer not to take admin action here myself, since I expressed an opinion on the issue on the article's talk page (see [ here]), and also because I believe editors may disagree in good faith over which of these possible lead wordings is appropriate. I'd like to see at least some attempt at dispute resolution here before people start getting blocked. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Please note the Noticeboard requirement: "You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion" at the top of the page. (The bold-faced red text and underlined word "must" indicate its importance and non-optionality.) As I have become aware by other means, however, we'll skip it this time.--Froglich (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The lede was edited [ last April], and remained as such without much dispute. [ This recent edit] by another user also indicates agreement there's nothing wrong with the lede.  This issue was taken to the talk page, where it was discussed, and consensus was against the change.  "Preposterous" (which came from a cited reliable source) has since been changed to "improbable"; that is also a sufficiently accurate summation.  --Weazie (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "One editor (Froglich) insists that calling the claim "preposterous" or "improbable" is POV..." — Let's be clear that it's not my insistence; it's Wikipedia policy. The requirement is that articles maintain a neutral point of view—and cramming "preposterous" or "improbable" into a lede description most certainly does not constitute objective encyclopaedia writing. As neither of you took up my Talk page challenge to attempt continually reverting the ledes of articles of more well-known incendiary tracts (e.g., Mein Kampf) to similarly POV-label them, I conclude that you fully understand what the ramifications of doing so would have been. Therefore, alerting the Noticeboard was perhaps not the wisest move considering the two-to-one advantage you were heretofore enjoying in a previously cobweb-growing article.--Froglich (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Unaware of this dispute, I just myself removed the "improbable". It is an inappropriate POV to put in wiki's voice. If the film's claims have been described as perposterous, then we should say it has been described as such, but WP:SUBJECTIVE opinions like that should be WP:ATTRIBUTED (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV) Gaijin42 (talk) 21:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 *  ...You just removed the word "improbable" from the lede, ostensibly for POV reasons as stated above, but used your edit to recycle it back to "preposterous" (because that's somehow less POV???) while not bothering to attribute—which you just stated above should be done. Q. How is it you imagine the internet does not have a memory for this sort of behavior?--Froglich (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think either word belongs in the lede, whatever happened to thinking for yourself, readers can form their own opinion. Raquel Baranow (talk) 22:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As was noted on the article's talk page, WP:FRINGE applies to this article: "A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is." We have had similar discussions about this concept as related to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories.  (I've placed a note about this discussion at Fringe theories/Noticeboard.) --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Although legions of editors (in my experience) seem to be under the erroneous impression, WP:FRINGE does not constitute a valid excuse to ignore NPOV requirements.--Froglich (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you have a serious misunderstanding of WP:NPOV. If a film has been universally lambasted as ridiculous by independent, reliable sources, then we are obligated to share that fact with the reader. You are violating NPOV by editorially "sanitizing" the film's reception, downplaying criticism, and creating a false impression of the film's credibility. MastCell Talk 00:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As previously suggested more than once, I dare one and all to go try that right now with the heavy-traffic Mein Kampf article. Just cram "preposterous" right into the lede paragraph. Beat on it with a mallet until it fits right in! Step right up, folks, and put your money where your mouths are. (You'd also do well to note that DoMRF is not "universally lambasted", as the article itself lists some support, albeit partisan as one expects in these kinds of topics.)--Froglich (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Froglich, regarding the idea of trying to change the Mein Kampf article, please go (re-)read WP:POINT. Also, even though it's true in principle that consensus cannot override policy, when you find you are arguing with numerous editors, all of whom disagree with your understanding of what is demanded by policy, you should at least seriously consider the possibility that their perspective on the policy in question is more on target than yours.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What said, and ., if the article says "has been described as 'preposterous'" then what we're saying in Wikipedia's voice is that it has been described as "preposetours", and that's accurate. If a movie is widely deemed a masterpiece, we can say that. If it is widely deemed to be preposterous, and it's said in quotes, this is problematic? Drmies (talk) 01:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Richwales, I will not seriously consider the possibility that Dreams of My Real Father warrants a "preposterous" description in its lede if Mein Kampf simultaneously does not. — I *would* like to consider the possibility that a respondent who stipulates truth-in-principle (of encyclopedia policy not being trumping by numbers) would admonish these other "numerous" (under half a dozen) editors obviously desirous of shirking said policy.--Froglich (talk) 01:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

saying in wikis voice that the film is "improbable" is much more pov and subjective than saying "described as preposterous" which is an objective and verifiable fact. It does have a bit of WP:WEASEL to it, but since there are multiple sources for that description, and this is just the lede (and we go into the details in the body) I don't see that as an issue. My main objection was stating in wikis voice as a fact that the claim was preposterous/improbable etc. I have no objection to saying as a fact that others have described it as preposterous (although "widely" etc I think may run into WP:RS/AC type issues) - I have no substantial objection to Mastcell's version. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC) Rollcall: Now voting on the motion — submitted by Mssrs. Richwales, Weazie, MastCell, Drmies and Gaijin42 — that editors may now grossly violate Wikipedia's consensus-derived NPOV policy in the event said editors are sufficiently convinced that an article is obscure enough that they're willing to gamble that no unbiased administrator will ever come around to dish out richly-deserved 30-day blocks and 6-month topic bans.
 * I try to never object to Mastcell's anything. I hear they have a terrible temper. Drmies (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I have a very mild temper... for a surgeon. :P MastCell Talk 16:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Your signatures (for the record): X__________, X__________, X__________, X__________, X__________--Froglich (talk) 11:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Change "article is obscure" to "subject is preposterous", and you've won my vote. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Another vote for "Screw the 'Manual of Style'!" — so noted.--Froglich (talk) 10:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Wow. Talk about not assuming good faith! I wasn't going to get involved, but you've got beyond the bounds here. 30 day blocks and 6 month topic bans for daring to disagree with you? Add my !vote to that of the rest who disagree with you. Somehow I'm not bothered to be seen in company with Richwales, Weazie, MastCell, Drmies and Gaijin42. Dougweller (talk) 12:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Add me too. If the consensus amongst reliable sources is that a theory is nonsense, we must make that clear. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you not paying attention? This isn't about either editor consensus *or* RS. It's about adhering to the encyclopedia's guidelines for proper article writing. (And yes: I *will* accuse of bad faith those editors who continue to deliberately ignore said guidelines.) Simply put, they don't care what the rules are and have repeatedly expressed their intent (see above) to ignore them.--Froglich (talk) 02:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Putting the juiciest quotes of screamingly negative reviews to a film into the lead of that film's article is not appropriate. If the overwhelming reaction to a film is negative than, by all means, mention it in the lead. What has happened in this particular article appears to me to be the inappropriate framing of the topic by the use direct quotation of the most inflammatory language available. That the initial straw-poll consensus seems to be to encourage such behavior is worrisome. While I'm always loath to follow the invocation Godwin's Law I have to admit that Froglich's analogy to Mein Kampf is not without merit some merit. If reviews are so comprehensibly bad then such a fact is easily attributable in the lead and all of that red meat can be put into the body of the article, where it belongs. GraniteSand (talk) 04:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If reviews are overwhelmingly negative, then it's fair to quote them, to show the extent of the negativity. Simply to say "it received negative reviews" doesn't do justice to the response. I think the lead as it is now is fair. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * A notable blurb from a notable critic can hypothetically be quotable in the lead, sure. If Roger Ebert says a film is "the greatest film of our generation" then that's a pretty substantive quote. On the other hand, stringing together single words such as "preposterous" or "implausible" plucked from varied sources, to be used as adjectives leading into "a vulgar conspiracy video, one that outdoes even birther propaganda in its lunacy and bad taste" is a pretty outrageous abuse, even were it not in the lead. That the lead then veers into focus group testing and further abusive verbiage signals the intent of this constructed montage of attack quotes. GraniteSand (talk) 04:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you can find (and source) some redeeming qualities, go nuts. If there are none, we have to reflect that reality. There is no "other hand" here. By weighing glowing reviews differently from damning reviews, you're inherently tipping the scales of neutrality. What's appropriate for a +100 film is appropriate for a -100. Same goes for +50 and -50. If we were to treat a mediocre film as either great or awful, it'd be the same sized lie. When we treat either a great or awful film as mediocre, same sized lie. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * And "preposterous" is particularly relevant, since it's used twice in the body. Multiple sources agree. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I haven't made myself clear. I'm not objecting to asserting the fact that the film was poorly received in the lead, I specifically mentioned otherwise. My objection is to piling on with select quotations and cherry picked adjectives. The quotes as presented are premature from a formatting point and aggressively and excessive as content. Additionally, this formatting of the article's lead seems to exist in contradiction to the formatting used by WP:FILM. GraniteSand (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * They are piled a bit deep. I understood that part, just didn't consider replying to it. One (containing "preposterous" in context) should suffice. I hope I was clear that the greatest and worst films/things of our generation are equally substantive/substantial, as far as leads go. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course, badly received movies should be identified. What was done on this article is far beyond that. For reference, I would say that any of the any of the movies made since 2010 listed on List of films considered the worst provide a good template for what a poorly received movie's lead should look like. If we agree that this lead is not quite right, how do you think we should proceed form here? GraniteSand (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * My journey into this issue is pretty much done, but if I were you, I'd get rid of the snippet-assembled quotes and replace them with one full, attributed sentence on how it's preposterous. And then I'd find something else wrong on Wikipedia, and change that, too. Safe travels, Sandman. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously comparing the situation at this article with those on a list of bad films? Perhaps the issue has not been explained—the article under discussion describes a "documentary-style film" which makes outrageously stupid and obviously incorrect claims about a living person, a living person who attracts conspiracy theories. The first duty of an encyclopedia is to not mislead its readers, and it is not satisfactory for the lead to describe a political attack merely as a "documentary-style film". Johnuniq (talk) 02:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That "documentary-style film" bit is wrong, too. It's a documentary, even if it's lying or mistaken. That wording just makes it seem like the writers are trying to say "Don't believe it!" too hard. That should be changed. Now I'm done. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You seem to be creating a unique litmus for this article's formatting based on a series of subject judgments about the subject covered by the film. Your perception of the veracity of the hypothesis of the film and the political tribulations of the film's subject should not have any bearing on the formatting of the article or the applicability of policy. GraniteSand (talk) 03:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Eurasian Observatory for Democracy and Elections
User Volunteer Marek repeatedly changes the whole article from encyclopedic to outright denigrating. I wouldn't really care, but the sentence is simply incorrect and may even look like an intentional lie. In my edit summary I invited the user to look at the EODE site for himself, find the complete sentence and see what it says. (The part was intentionally taken out of context.) Anyway, in a few edits he makes an article an attack piece, like this: After After After. --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) He calls a person a "neo-nazi".
 * 2) He changes the first sentence to say that the organization doesn't monitor elections, but only "claims to monitor" them.
 * 3) He repeatedly adds a sentence saying "On its website the organization states that "it shares the values of "the current Russian leadership and V.V. Putin.""
 * 1) He enclosed the words "monitoring missions" in quotation marks as if to show that these weren't actually monitoring missions.
 * 2) The sources he uses don't look reliable. (See #3 for an example of how a source twists what the EODE site actually says.)
 * 1) Before
 * 1) Before (I didn't revert everything because I am trying to be polite snd I don't know how to deal with bullies and don't want to violate a 3RR)
 * 1) Before


 * The person in question is Jean-François Thiriart. An actual neo-Nazi     and so on and so forth. It would be trivial to add a dozen more sources to that effect. Indeed, this is exactly what Thiriart is known for.
 * I changed the wording to "claims to monitor elections" because the only source which claims that they "monitor missions" is EODE itself. Note that claim was sourced to a primary source, more specifically an article on their website by another far-right politician with ties to neo-Nazi groups, Luc Michel, (this version). There are no secondary sources provided to support the claim.
 * Direct quote from the source : "The letters EODE actually stand for Eurasian Observatory for Democracy and Elections, and it declares on its website that it shares the values of “the current Russian leadership and V.V. Putin.”". Apparently Moscow Connection's objection is that his own original research does not agree with a reliable source.
 * See number 2. Same reason.
 * "doesn't look reliable"? According to whom? One source is the New Republic. Another source is an article by a renown Yale historian Timothy Snyder. Gimme a break and quit wasting my time.


 * Now. Before, the article was essentially a promo piece for an organization with ties to neo-fascists and neo-Nazis mostly sourced to their own website. Adding information about it from actual reliable sources and what they say about is *not* making it into an "attack page". It's what writing an encyclopedic article actually is.
 * Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

It actually monitors elections, doesn't it? Why deny it? As far as I know, it is going to monitor elections in Armenia. Use common sense. This is supposed :to be a neutral-sounding encyclopedia article. It must just state facts. By the way, what I did was simply reverting you on a couple of articles. Just a couple. You have destroyed some more and they all should be reverted to the state before your yesterday's edits. Also, it's just obvious that the article sounded neutral before your edits and after your edits it attacked the organization in almost every sentence. --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This is an attempt to denigrate an organization. So, some people in the organization are followers of Jean-François Thiriart, who has been described as a neo-nazi (but denied it, according to his Wikipedia article). How is it relevant to this article about EODE?
 * Add "according to its website". I already tried to write that it was the aim of the organization, but you reverted it cause you like the expression "claims to". "Claims to" sounds like you don't think it actually monitors anything.
 * The source lies. Find the exact words on the EODE website. Find them. I actually looked and the website doesn't say that, it says something different. The part is taken out of context. Therefore, your source can't be trusted.
 * See #2.
 * The article you are using doesn't look reliable. It was written with certain aims. Even its title about "far-right", etc. is POV.
 * No, it's you who should stop wasting everyone's time. You are on a wild spree deleting parts you don't like and sources you don't like from articles. (He deleted Russia Today references from everywhere and started edit-warring.) I personally think what you do is destructive POV editing and it would be better if you just stopped completely and be kept away from all Russia-related topics.


 * Yours is an all too common "why won't they let me push my POV in peace???" complaint that unfortunately I've seen a lot on Wikipedia in my 9 years here. You are confusing WP:IDONTLIKEIT with WP:NPOV. NPOV does not mean whitewashing far-right organizations or avoiding "controversy" (when convenient to one's point of view), removing reliable sources, or misrepresenting reliable sources, or including text sourced to non-reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Comrades Colleagues, be polite. While this organisation really seems to lean towards supporting Russian government ("...the nightmare of the Junta of Kiev..." sentence says all for itself, although I'm not supporter of the 2014 February Revolution) it has to be described in a neutral way (and labels such as neo-Nazi and etc. are controversial, even when (and if) it's true - remember that edit warring on Right Sector page) and with reliable sources. Seryo93 (talk) 11:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

So what do I propose? Remove "far right" from "far-right non-governmental organization" (but retain it in "far right activist"). Maybe add "some media view it as supporting Russian President Vladimir Putin[here goes references]". Otherwise this version seems pretty neutral for me. Seryo93 (talk) 11:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * No. "Neutral" does not mean "whitewash". If a guy is a neo-Nazi or a neo-fascist and many many many sources point that out about him - in fact, that is exactly what he's noteworthy for - we don't remove it because it's "controversial". If an organization is composed mostly of far-right persons, and if it is described as far right in reliable sources we dont' remove that. And no, that version is not at all neutral, it's a hatchet job, it's a whitewash, it involves removing actually reliable, respected sources and what they say. It's a gross violation of Wikipedia policies. It's based on somebody's WP:IDONTLIKEIT. We have policies on Wikipedia for a reason, so that our articles don't turn into idiotic comment sections on blogs or something.
 * And BTW, Seryo93, was obviously canvassed here by Moscow Connection, where on the talk page they're pretty much discussing trading off "supports" for each other in the respective discussions. Come one guys. It's sort of obvious.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No personal attacks please. OK? Seryo93 (talk) 11:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And yes, it would be nice to see your variant (for example User:Volunteer Marek/EODE. We can discuss differences and reach an agreement. "What is dividing us shall not became obstacle for our common goal", btw. Seryo93 (talk) 11:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have not made any personal attacks. And no, it doesn't work that way - where I write an article in my sandbox and then somebody who doesn't feel like following Wikipedia policies gets to veto it. The information is relevant and noteworthy. The sources I'm using are reliable (Yale professor, established journal etc). Excluding this info and sources essentially involves lying to the reader by misrepresenting the subject. My edits follow WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:V. Moscow Connection's edits are based on nothing but his own WP:IDONTLIKEIT with a bit of WP:OR thrown in. Wikipedia policies trump some editor's particular biases and desires. I've been discussing this in good faith and extensively and yes, I am getting a bit sick and tired by the obscurantism and the constant WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. And also this attempt at canvassing support.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * We may do this as this is done with Right Sector: "many view it as a far-right..." etc. Neutral and without removal of important information. Seryo93 (talk) 11:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I actually disagree with that. If the Right Sector is described as "far-right" in the majority of reliable sources then that's how it should be described in the article as well. The "many view it as" (or it's cousin "on the one hand, on the other hand"), aside from being bad writing is typically a form of WP:WEASEL.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Following an established policy is nice when happens uniformly. If we write as a fact that organisation is a far-right, then we have to do it everywhere (and it would lead to many controversies). If we rename that event to "annexation" (even while it is, it's only half of process, the other half is request by local authorities) then we have to name all similar (and even not so similar but falling under definition of annex.) joinings (incl. German reunification) annexations; otherwise it will be not only similar to NPOV violation, but also double standards. And yes, accusing me of "trading off support" is definitly a personal accusation of ungood intentions (if not personal attack). BTW: I'm not supporting "Accession..." title, nor "Annexation...". Sorry for off-topic, but I'm needed to clarify my position. Seryo93 (talk) 12:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What's a "neo nazi" exactly, is there a clear definition who is a neo nazi and who is not? If the person didn't define himself as a neo nazi, how can Wikipedia connect him to "fascists" and "neo nazis" in the first sentence? How can you add something like this in the first sentence? That's just terrible. At least it wasn't a BLP. --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * For the purposes of Wikipedia a "neo-nazi" is a person who is described as such in numerous reliable sources. Which is the case here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation
User LiphradicusEpicus is pushing pro-Ukrainian/pro-American POV on VERY controversial grounds of "civilized world". Annexation has very negative connotation in regards to that event, but user IGNORES it and pushes his favorite point. Seryo93 (talk) 06:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

UPD:Withdrawing my request. Seryo93 (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

2014 Ukrainian revolution
There are several editors who add and remove a sentence about the fact that the event is considered an unconstitutional coup by some sources. Like this:.

Do something about it. I believe the sources for the sentence are reliable and per WP:NPOV they should remain in the article. I've reverted once right now, but I can't participate in the edit warring.

Also, some editors remove all references to Russia Today under what I regard as false pretences:. (I actually tried to reason with the editor here on his talk page, but it looks like someone just wants to remove the sources without any regard to the rules.)

It has been going on for days. Someone must revert the article to a more neutral state and protect it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Jean-François Thiriart
Volunteer Marek adds "associated with fascist and neo nazi groups" to the first sentence. The result is:

Jean-François Thiriart (22 March 1922, Brussels &mdash; 23 November 1992) was a Belgian politician associated with fascist and neo-Nazi groups.

Is this a neutral way to define a person in an encyclopedia? I have tried to revert him, but he reverted me back. --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * This is getting ridiculous and is bordering on stalking/harassment.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "Associated with far-right" would be more neutral, IMO. But are there RS for these associations? If so, then there seems no problem (if we take WP:WEASEL into account). And yes, there are similar definitions, so there's seemingly long-term established policy: when there are RS about political beliefs of persons, then these beliefs are written as fact, without WEASEL [pseudo]attribution. Seryo93 (talk) 12:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * @Moscow, "Thiriart is a bald man" is a neutral way of describing him provided we have sources of the type wikipedia calls "reliable source" and that we use those in a way that does not violate either WP:WEIGHT or our rules about biographies of living people.  If you change the word "bald" to "chef", or "plumber", or "neo-Nazi" the same rule of thumb applies.  I've just skimmed the discussion but you seem to be arguing on the basis of your indignant feelings, rather than the content or reputation of the sources that have been alleged to support the other party('s) views. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * PS Also @Moscow, regarding the prior thread and the issue whether some organization-or-other does something-or-other....for example, manufactures cars ..... our rules require independent sources that report that fact. If all we have are the subjects' own statement that say things about subject, we call those "self-published" statements, and we only consider them to be "reliable" for the fact that the subject made the statement.   If no one other than GM was saying "GM makes cars" then we'd have to report GM's claim as something they say about themself, i.e., "GM claims it makes cars".  You might have conviction that it is true, you might even work for GM, but that doesn't really factor when we decide if a claim is supported by multiple RSs or is just a self-published one. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's sourced and relevant I see no problem - the problem might be in removing it, as this seems extremely relevant to his biography. And many people (sadly) would see this association as a good thing. Dougweller (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's unsourced. Volunteer Marek added this without any sources. Most of the article is unsourced, by the way. The only sourced statement that mentions fascist or neo-nazi movements is a sentence saying "Historian Walter Laqueur called his views a form of fascist Maoism." But the source can't be checked online and basing solely on the source why not call him maoist in the lead instead? Probably because Volunteer Marek wanted to present the subject of the article in a certain way. Moscow Connection (talk) 16:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Update: Volunteer Marek has added some sources already. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've looked at the sources Volunteer Marek added. They indeed mention "neo-fascist" and "neo-nazi" organizations. I can't be sure about the one before last he added, though. Cause only a snippet is available online. But yes, now the sentence is sourced. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * (By the way, I'm not sure why I didn't see Volunteer Marek's edits when I replied 20 minutes ago. He had added sources already by then.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There were some issues with the formatting. I take it this was a good-faithed disagreement that is now resolved then? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's resolved. You've added the sources and now I see reliable sources saying it. (I've just added "neo-" to "fascist", though. To agree with the source/sources mentioning "neo-fascist" organizations.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Jason Russell
Talk:Jason Russell has a current RfC dealing with how to treat his famed "incident." This was proceeding apace until a new editor states that it is violating NPOV to say he was in his underwear when "The article should properly describe what happened or, if it's not deemed relevant for inclusion, remain silent about it; but you can't have it both ways and write the section in that way, pretending that Russell never exposed his genitals in public."  Note the RfC appears, IMO, to be strongly leading towards minimal coverage of the incident, using conservative wording. Which is fine, but that editor now pasted a POV tag on that section, despite the fact I cannot see any particular direct relevance of WP:NPOV myself to what is clearly a WP:BLP dispute. But since the tag is in place, it seems fitting to present the claim here.

Is a description choice among "naked and masturbating", "naked" "nude" or "in his underwear" (where the police report and a number of reliable sources state "underwear") a matter appropriate for this noticeboard as being one of violating the neutral point of view policy by using the most conservative reliably sourced description, where more "interesting" wording is preferred by some editors? Thanks. Collect (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As the editor who started the content dispute with my bold edit, I want to clarify that my concern was not with mentioning the underwear, but with the fact that the sources stated that he was removing the underwear, a part which was omitted, and which changes the narration of the events; misrepresenting what was reported in the references by selectively quoting them is what I deem a neutrality problem. In your enumeration of options, you actually left out the one I favor in the current situation: having no description at all. If your concern is one of minimal coverage with conservative wording in order to protect the BLP's subject, what's wrong with simply removing any mention to his dress status as I suggested but you reverted? Diego (talk) 12:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No -- my problem was your edit war and walls of text -- there is now a strong consensus that your position fails. You achieved 4RR on 13 April, and should be glad you were not reported at WP:ANEW.   Cheers.  Collect (talk) 12:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Recent move of Accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation into Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation
Moved to non-neutral title (but I admit, that past title was seemingly non-neutral too) without consensus. Seryo93 (talk) 05:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Still in favour of "joining". You can willingly join your friends at a bar, or unwillingly join your friends in The Slime Pit. Businessmen join boards, but so do carpenters. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Adithya Srinivasan
It seems to me that a bunch of IPs are turning Adithya Srinivasan into a puff piece. I've been trying to deal with it for a long time, but the IPs keep restoring the peacock material and removing the POV tag. Lately, I've been getting this kind of stuff over it. Can someone else take a look at this? Jackmcbarn (talk) 12:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of IP addresses in India. I am watching the article now too. Thanks for posting here.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  14:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Kvenland - King of Kvenland
Hello, I need help in a dispute concerning two articles Kvenland and King of Kvenland. I have been trying to remove a reference to King Charles IX of Sweden (1550-1611) from those articles, because Charles IX was never a king of Kvenland, nor was he linked to Kvenland in any way by any known historian. Kvenland, the land, vanished from the documented history by the end of the 14th century, i.e., long before his time.

We are talking about a historical fact, not an individual opinion. Including the name of a random king in the articles is an utterly incomprehensible idea, extremely poorly defended by the opponents.

The opponents, a group of 4 editors (including 3 Swedes) Thomas.W, Yngvadottir, BogatusAB and Bishonen, act as if they have a monopoly over these two articles. It's too obvious these editors have an agenda.

The matter was already discussed on the Dispute resolution noticeboard with the help of Guy Macon, who at first promised to "focus on article content", but ended up not keeping his "promise" to judge the dispute solely on the article content. It appears he was pressured to change his approach.

The Russian source writes correctly that "it is often, and erroneously, referenced that king Charles IX of Sweden would have called himself as the "King of the Kvens"."  (Let alone called himself the King of Kvenland or, even more importantly, been one).

What makes it easier for a volunteer to give his/her neutral opinion, is that a personal opinion is not what matters here as we're dealing with a historical fact.

http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kvenland

Anyone courageous enough to support the removal of the reference to Charles IX from the articles? Please note that this is definitely not a political question.Finnedi (talk) 03:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Finnedi is the latest incarnation of a long time POV/fringe-pusher who is now desperately forum-shopping after having failed to convince anyone on the the Dispute Resolution Board, where he has a clear consensus against him... Thomas.W   talk to me  07:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC) (Since he didn't notify anyone about bringing it here I've done it for him...)


 * I have nothing to do with this content dispute, but I think I should respond to Finnedi's mention of me as an opponent with an agenda on Kvenland and King of Kvenland, two articles I have never read, let alone edited, nor their talkpages either. I'm afraid these subjects are uninteresting to me, I've never taken the trouble to form an opinion one way or the other. Sorry, I realize that is tactless to those who feel strongly about them, but it's a fact. I've warned and sanctioned Finnedi for edit warring on these articles with a clear conscience precisely because I'm uninvolved with the articles to the point of boredom. (Finnedi, you'll notice how Yngvadottir, who is also an admin, has by contrast never taken any admin action against you. See how that works?) Finnedi's standard accusations of agenda and bad faith, this time extending even to dark hints about the dispute resolution volunteer Guy Macon (ping, Guy), are personal attacks, naturally, and I will warn Finnedi on his page. This has gone on long enough. Bishonen &#124; talk 10:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC).


 * The point at issue is whether academics have related the "Caijaners" (sp) in Charles IX's list of regnal titles to the Kvens and specifically whether they have discussed the possibility that that item can be equated with the earlier term "King of Kvenland". Sources indicate that they have; specifically, it is discussed in Kjösti Julku's book, cited in the two articles to that effect. In response to Finnedi's criticism of inclusion of the section, I found and added a citation of the actual words in Swedish; after s/he started the now closed section at DRN (Dispute resolution noticeboard), I searched for citations of Julku's book that summarized his argument and what I found confirmed that he does in fact discuss the use of the term Caijaner as a later equivalent of Kvens and that that is the context of his citing the Charles IX passage. (I cited my findings in the DRN discussion.) It is therefore simply not true that no historians discuss the passage in this context. Julku's credentials as a historian are nowhere in question; his is cited as one of the versions of the two dominant interpretations of the origin of the term "Kven". I have already improved King of Kvenland a little bit, and I admit Kvenland needs work, including shortening the bit relating to that passage. And in both articles, the lead-in to that section could do with toning down - I don't believe the sources justify the current wording, "It is often stated". But I cannot see any justification for removing it; the sources show that the Caijaner and Charles IX's regnal titles are indeed discussed in this context. And (except for "often stated"), that's all we are saying about it, which is not non-neutral. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Moreover, since Finnedi had not to my knowledge cited any Russian source up to this point, I looked at those two links, and they are not valid sources at all - they are at a site based on en.wikipedia, as can be seen from the URLs. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The point at issue is not whether "academics have related the "Caijaners" in Charles IX's list of titles". The point at issue is that NO historian including Julku has ever linked Kvenland to the aforementioned king in any way whatsoever. The king lived in 1550-1611, and he was never a king of Kvenland simply because Kvenland vanished from the documented history by the end of the 14th century. This is why nobody ever linked him with Kvenland and why there is no reason to include him in the articles Kvenland and King of Kvenland either.


 * A simple rule of logic, presented for the umpteenth time: It would be equally absurd to link the current king of Norway to the ancient Kvenland or its people only because there are Caijaners living in Finland and Kvens living in Norway even today. The problem is not that you don't understand but that you don't want to understand. As if you were consciously misleading those who are not familiar with the subject by bypassing the core issue. Maybe the problem is simply that you don't want to be "wrong" in this dispute?


 * Here's a relevant question for you and everyone else involved: Has any historian ever linked Charles IX to the land called Kvenland? Please answer with either yes or no.Finnedi (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * And here's an even more relevant question for you: do you have any reliable sources that support your endlessly repeated claims about there having existed a country called Kvenland? Because those claims are AFAIK not supported by any known historical documents or archaeological findings (meaning that Kvenland has only ever been a geographical name, describing an area around the northern part of the Gulf od Bothnia, an area that of course still exists and hadn't vanished by the end of the 14th century or whatever...). And proving that is more important than you seem to understand, since there is no need for the references you request until you manage to prove that there has ever been a country/political entity named Kvenland, at one point in time or another. Thomas.W   talk to me  17:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * One source . Here's another one . Do a search in Google Books to learn some history, will you? Now it's your turn to answer my question. I'm waiting....Finnedi (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Nope, those are not reliable sources. One is a map showing a geographical name, and the other is a personal website with made up/fantasy genealogy. I very strongly suggest you read WP:RS before continuing the discussion. And please stop vandalising my user talk page, it isn't exactly helping your case... Thomas.W   talk to me  17:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Don't even try to change the subject. Both are reliable sources. My question was: Has any historian ever linked Charles IX to the land called Kvenland? Please answer with either yes or no.Finnedi (talk) 18:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I highly recommend leaving Finnedi "waiting" forever. Arguing with him over article content is not appropriate in the context of Finnedi making the accusation that "The opponents, a group of 4 editors ... act as if they have a monopoly over these two articles. It's too obvious these editors have an agenda." The proper reply is "Evidence, Please." (And no, the fact that Finnedi disagrees with everyone else who is working on the page is not evidence supporting the accusation) Finnedi would love to suck you in to another pointless conversation about his favorite hobby horse, and throwing out easily-refutable claims is part of that effort. You should ignore his attempts to hijack the thread and instead focus on his accusations and his failure to provide any evidence supporting them. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * My question was: Has any historian ever linked Charles IX to the land called Kvenland? Please answer with either yes or no.Finnedi (talk) 18:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * My only involvement in this is as a WP:DRN volunteer on a case that Finnedi himself filed (Dispute resolution noticeboard). I did exactly what a DRN volunteer is supposed to do, which is to look for policy violations in the content, determine the current consensus, try to get the sides to agree, and advise all concerned as to what to do next. In this case I refereed Finnedi to an essay I wrote at WP:1AM. I understand that he didn't like the advice I gave him, but that is no reason to assume bad faith on my part.


 * I also made it very clear that I did not recommend that he come here and accuse someone of wrongdoing unless he had solid proof of collusion. He has made no attempt to offer any sort of evidence.


 * As for Finnedi's comments on Swedes (assuming that they are accurate), coming from the a particular country is not evidence of a NPOV violation. Would anyone be surprised to find that some of the editors who are interested in Kvenland are from Scandinavian countries?


 * Finnedi should read WP:1AM again and follow the advice there. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * User Finnedi has been blocked with an expiry time of indefinite (long-term tendentious editing). --Guy Macon (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

This was resolved with the blocking of the person posting the notice.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  14:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Signature in the Cell
Could I get some help here. This book, Signature in the Cell, clearly advocates a certain view. Writing a synopsis of the book is allowed for in WP:SOAP, since it is an WP article about a book advocating for a religious/scientific/political position, not simply a WP article advocating said position. An edit war commenced on said issue, with myself contributing to the Talk:Signature in the Cell page, and the other editors not contributing much at all. Was the main points section, found here, not written from a NPOV? Best, Purefury182 (talk) 18:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that material is almost completely OK. It just needs a few modifications. I've restored it, hopefully in an improved form. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

UK Independence Party
Please see the discussion at Talk:UK Independence Party about whether academic sources describing the UK Independence Party as far-right are reliable. LordFixit (talk) 07:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Why is this at NPOV? We don't discuss reliability here. Dougweller (talk) 09:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Because one editor has claimed the sources are biased against UKIP and I am seeking any editors with interest in the matter LordFixit (talk) 10:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually because the actual academic sources do not support the "neutrally worded RfC" which ain't.  Read the RfC and note the NYT position that the use of "far right" is used by "harsher critics" and it is clear that when one only cites the "harsher critics" one might not be wording an RfC in a neutral manner as prescribed.  In fact the NYT compares the UKIP's rise to that of Labour in the 1920s, and the  Questia searches   "right wing" and not "far right wing" used in academic sources with regard to the UKIP.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Organizations designated as hate groups by the SPLC
Is a category like this a violation of the WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE-rule? I think it is a "the view of a significant minority," but maybe the SPLC's view is an "significant viewpoint," and in that case,, this category that calls organisations a "hate group" is no violation. See also the discussion at Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 12. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The SPLC is widely recognised as a reliable academic source:

In addition, the SPLC works with the FBI: 'The FBI has partnered with the SPLC "to establish rapport, share information, address concerns, and cooperate in solving problems"' As long as the article of the hate group contains a citation of the specific claim by the SPLC that the group is a hate group, I can't see how the category itself violates WP:NPOV because we are not endorsing the SPLC's view - we are simply reporting it. LordFixit (talk) 23:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Poverty_Law_Center#cite_note-McVeigh-106
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Poverty_Law_Center#cite_note-Chalmers-107
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Poverty_Law_Center#cite_note-Barnett-108
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Poverty_Law_Center#cite_note-109


 * IIRC, the FBI specifically has no on-going relationship with that organization, and there is considerable controversy as to defining any politically active groups as "hate groups" where the main issue has been disagreement with the SPLC itself or its own political positions. For example, any group opposed to same sex marriage is automatically included as a "hate group" even though it is decidedly a political and religious position, and not "hate" in the traditional sense at all.  The SPLC is a well-known organization, but it does not have the gravitas now that it may have once had.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The SPLC does not automatically list groups that oppose same-sex marriage. Otherwise every Church and the every part of the GOP would be listed, which they are not. Please provide a source for that claim. Secondly, your personal view is that the SPLC is no longer credible. But that is your view and not supported by reliable academic sources. LordFixit (talk) 03:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * But the "anti-same-sex-marriage" is used as one criterion: WaPo:  The Southern Poverty Law Center this week labeled as "hate groups" several political and religious organizations that campaign against same-sex marriage and, the center says, engage in "repeated, groundless name-calling" against gays and lesbians. ,  HuffPo  The petition blasts Benedict for "hateful language and discriminatory remarks" and for implying "that gay families are sub-human." The petition says that as a result of those remarks, the Roman Catholic Church "fits the definition of a hate group as defined by both the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League.",  so the facts are fairly clear that the SPLC does count the marriage issue in making its little list.  SPLC  (Hatewatch In an amicus brief filed yesterday in federal court in Michigan, the Traditionalist Youth Network (TYN) –– a student organization concerned with promoting white identity –– has taken up the mantle of defending the “sanctity of marriage” against “Culture distorters” who seek to reject “originalism  quite appears to link the marriage issue to "hate".  In fact the "Hatewatch" aspect of SPLC appears to regularly include groups who oppose marriage equality.   Whether or not they engage in actual hate speech.    Anti-LGBT bigotry also can lead to horrible hate crimes appears to link the Boy Scouts indirectly to "hate crimes".  Sorry -- the SPLC appears to be a primarily political organization, which uses "marriage equality" as one criterion for linking groups to "hate speech" and "hate crimes."  Cheers.  Its opinion is clearly citable as opinion, but making its claims in Wikipedia's voice as "fact" is unwise. Collect (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The criteria for categories are different than those for lists. I think the list is fine and should be further developed, and certainly if not UNDUE such claims can be put into the text of the relevant articles, but using the category system to "tag" all such organizations based on the views of a single organization violates the core aspect of categorization which is that these things should be WP:DEFINING, and they should not be controversial. Indeed, we don't even categorize people or organizations that are racist or homophobic, that was rejected by the community in 2011 and many times since. Simply put, categories are the wrong way to capture this information - categories are for navigation and should not be as contentious as this one clearly is.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not yet time for you to ring down the curtain on the SPLC as expert on hate groups. First, they do not "automatically" put anti-gay marriage groups into the hate category—the group must practice the demonizing of homosexuals, the spread of falsehoods on the topic, or appeal to fear. The SPLC continues to be respected by scholars, if not by a few individual Wikipedia editors. Binksternet (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Very good points. Some editors seem to be unaware of the SPLC's academic respect and criteria for listing. LordFixit (talk) 03:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * This is like a category for "List of politicians ridiculed by Rush Limbaugh". Roger (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Unfortunately, category (and template) abuse has become one of the holes in current process of curating content. When POV pushers cannot get their content into the main body of the article, they often turn to these less monitored alternatives to present their own agenda. In this case, that agenda appears to be that of agrandizing the SLPC's rather controversial labeling of various organizations with the moniker of "hate group". More general and essential categories apply, and where multiple sources support the categorization, those categories can be applied. Allowing the SLPC alone to label organziations on wikipedia doesn't adhere to the guidelines set out in WP:CATEGORY or WP:NPOV. aprock (talk) 01:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I am pretty shocked by your allegations of bad faith. I am not a POV-pusher. You claim 'When POV pushers cannot get their content into the main body of the article, they often turn to these less monitored alternatives to present their own agenda.' - what a shocking load of rubbish. The allegation by the SPLC that any group is a hate group is listed widely in articles of hate groups, and for any page to be in this category, the article should contain the claim as well. I will be considering raising your comments about me and other editors at the appropriate forums. LordFixit (talk) 03:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You might consider responding to the NPOV issues I raised about the category here, and any behavioral issues on WP:ANI. aprock (talk) 04:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You didn't raise any 'issues' - you simply made false and hysterical allegations that I and others have acted in bad faith through 'less monitored alternatives' LordFixit (talk) 04:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I just saw there is also a Category:Worst Picture Golden Raspberry Award winners. I might be violating WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS here, but since that category is also about a negative expert opinion, it touches the same vein, according to me. See what you can do with that info, boys and girlsJeff5102 (talk) 07:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point. As I said before, the category does not endorse the SPLC listing, it purely reports that a reliable academic source has made such a designation. LordFixit (talk) 07:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * @Jeff5102, If you find the category improper, you should file a Category for deletion report. From there policy, guidelines and community consensus will determine how to handle the category. aprock (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I prefer to do it the other way. I first want to know if the category violates any rule. If so, then I should consider if it should (not) be deleted. And therefore, I would have the case investigated over here first. Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment: The general threshold for categorization is not just V and NPOV; it is also that the article subject (or at least one thereof) has the defining characteristics embodied by the category. To qualify as defining, a characteristic will usually be established in the article lead section (if it's the lead sentence, so much the better), with the implication of significance to the article that this brings. See CAT and OCAT for more discussion on defining characteristics. If a significant number of articles have the defining characteristics embodied by a category, then the category is warranted. If there are fewer such articles, then categorisation to a less-specific set of characteristics may be appropriate. HTH, Aquegg (talk) 08:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I take your point, but this category relates to inclusion in a verifiable list. There is always going to be an exact number of articles that will fit into this category - we can't add more and we should not remove some because we disagree with the organisation compiling the list. Dougweller (talk) 09:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to make a point per se, just to remind folk of the nature the category system at a high level. If this particular category doesn't seem to quite fit with that, then leaving it as a list may be the best option.—Aquegg (talk) 10:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * comment this is a hotly debated case, so more input is always useful - all those who haven't yet weighed in at CFD could you please do so? Thanks, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Are Ken Ham's views "incorrect"?
Ken Ham is a Young Earth creationist. In the lead of his article it is currently stated that his views are "incorrect". There has been an extensive argument at Talk:Ken Ham as to whether this is an appropriate form of words. Both sides claim to be suppporting NPOV, but only one of them is right. New eyes on this might help. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * When in doubt, always move towards "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them." (WP:YESPOV). If correct/incorrect is disputed, use the words like disputed, questioned, etc. and describe the arguments from both sides.  The view that you need to choose one or the other description sounds to me like limiting possible solutions.  Yiba  (talk &#124; contribs) 04:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's pretty ridiculous. "Young earth creationism" is not merely disputed -- it's wrong (i.e., falsified by scientific research).  The idea that there are competing viewpoints here is absurd -- at least if we're writing an encyclopaedia.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ham's view on the age of the Earth is incorrect. The question is how we convey his incorrectness respectfully but without engaging in false equivalency. MastCell Talk 19:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that his views are clearly based on religious views of the literal inerrancy of the Bible -- thus we are in a quandary, as if we assert everyone who holds such a belief is "incorrect" we are verging into the "religion" v. "science" category. IIRC, the community has decided that where religion is concerned, calling a belief "incorrect" is problematic. We might as well add "incorrect" to anyone who does not know the "one true religion" whichever one it might be. We can say his views on creationism are not in concord with "scientific consensus" but "incorrect" in Wikipedia's voice could be applied to essentially every single person who avers a religious belief, including Pope Francis. We could do so, but so far the community appears to believe that conservative writing of BLPs per WP:BLP is policy. Collect (talk) 12:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a simple matter to describe such views as "based on an interpretation of the Bible that has been falsified by scientific evidence" without actually saying "incorrect".NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but they are just massively, grotesquely incorrect, as far as science goes. This is the only NPOV thing to say -you don't get much more NPOV than facts. I am ashamed of seeing editors who think we have to walk on eggshells to say the blatant truth.-- cyclopia speak! 13:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * He can have his religious based beliefs. That does not mean that we need to treat wildly incorrect claims as anything other than incorrect. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course young earth views are incorrect. But we can write informative articles without using every possible opportunity to kick sand in the face of people who follow various faith-based beliefs. There is no need (or legitimacy) for the wikipedia editors to, in the voice of Wikipedia, make an overall pronouncement regarding incorrectness vs. correctness of his views in covering this person in this article.  North8000  (talk) 13:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * To write that they are "incorrect" is not "to kick sand in the face", it is a bland, neutral statement of fact. -- cyclopia speak! 16:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the current version, boldly posted by QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV four days ago, is fine. It complies with MastCell's desideratum to "convey [the] incorrectness respectfully but without engaging in false equivalency" and it doesn't kick sand in anybody's face. Bishonen &#124; talk 13:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC).


 * Better, but still not neutral. I think Ham would deny that his 6000 years is contradicted by fossils and rocks. He would say that mainstream scientists have interpreted those rocks to be millions or billions of years old, while he has another interpretations based on the Bible. Considering that he readily admits that he disagrees with mainstream scientists, I see no reason to directly imply that he is incorrect. Just describe what he says, and it will be obvious that he is pursuing a fringe theory. For an example, see how PBS describes him without directly saying that he is incorrect or contradicted by the evidence. Roger (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The article on Young Earth creationism calls it "pseudoscience," which is mostly the same as calling it incorrect. Howunusual (talk) 21:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Good. HiLo48 (talk) 22:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It is good if you are pushing that point of view. Roger (talk) 02:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not a point of view. It's fact. Young Earth Creationism simply IS pseudo-science. Wikipedia cannot present it as anything else. HiLo48 (talk) 02:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * More importantly: A significant number of reliable sources agree that it is pseudo-science, and no significant number of reliable sources dispute this description, which means that by WP:NPOV we are supposed to describe it as such. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 03:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You cannot even find a significant number of reliable sources agree what pseudo-science means. It would be much better to replace the name-calling with an objective statement. As it is, the article just read as if it were edited by people who do not like Ken Ham. Roger (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, there's no consensus on what "pseudo-science" means in every detail, but that's never been a condition for using a term. Naturally, as a converse, there's no consensus on many details as to what "science" means either.  That doesn't prevent us from describing things as science.  This is true for a huge swath of important categories: "life", "language", "existence", "colour", "cause", "consciousness".  We describe things as living, things as languages, things as existing etc. even though the experts on defining these categories are not in complete agreement. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

links to slurs on Scotch-Irish American
I recently removed links to derogatory terms on the page [Scotch-Irish_American]. However, a user Eastcote keeps restoring them and now appears tobe doing the same via a sockpuppet BilCat. As other articles on ethnic commmunities do NOT link to derogatory terms, these should be removed in order to keep the article more neutral. Duedemagistris (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * OP has breached WP:3RR and has accordingly been hit by a 24h WP:BOOMERANG. The OP is also reminded that spurious accusations of sockpuppetry are considered personal attacks. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

David Horowitz
Due to repeated uglifications of the lead of the David Horowitz article, I've added a Neutrality tag, and would like to see an administrator step in and deal with the "wolfpack" tactics of a small group of editors claiming their at-present numerical majority entitles them to violate the Manual of Style with impunity.--Froglich (talk) 03:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No one has claimed that the manual of style should be violated. There is disagreement over whether the material Froglich has removed in fact violates the manual, but that is a different matter entirely. Froglich seems intent on using "this violates the manual of style" as an excuse to remove or censor material that he dislikes. The David Horowitz article is not the only place where he is using such tactics. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is perilously close to WP:POINT. There is no neutrality issue, the dispute is a trivial one of normal editorial judgment over the way certain barely-notable groups are characterised. Guy (Help!) 09:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The dispute was not trivial; style rules (being rules, their violation should be definition not be trivial) were being blatantly and flagrantly violated by a clique which manifestly did not care for them. -- If Wikipedia isn't going to enforce its own guidelines, then it should remove them and abandon all pretense of being a real encyclopedia rather than a YouTube comment thread. Or at least give editors like me some idea of which articles fall into the varying "We absolutely care about presentation here!" and "Myeh; this one can look like shit!" categories.--Froglich (talk) 00:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Further point: The style violations involved were so obvious that any non-derelict (or complicit) admin ought to have immediately jumped in to punish the guilty. While I do not always find myself on the consensus side of things in contentious articles, I have been reliably informed that the MoS was arrived at via consensus; and so my position here should in fact enjoy the broader support even though the aforementioned wolf-pack presently controls the "barely notable" David Horowath.--Froglich (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Is it pov to say that China was the most technologically advanced civilization until the 19th century?
Until yesterday History of science and technology in China said "Ancient Chinese scientists, mathematicians and doctors made significant advances in science, technology, mathematics, and astronomy. Traditional Chinese medicine, acupuncture and herbal medicine were also developed through empirical observation and scientific experimentation."

It now says "For over 9,000 years until the 18th century China was the worlds most technologically advanced civilization. Ancient Chinese scientists, engineers, metallurgists, mathematicians and medical doctors made significant innovative advances in science, technology, mathematics, and astronomy. Traditional Chinese medicine, acupuncture and herbal medicine were also developed through empirical observation and scientific experimentation."

I reverted this but was reverted again with the edit summary "Please refer to Science and Civilisation in China by Sir Joseph Needham and read this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6669569.stm". That's in my response to saying that writing developed in the Middle East, which I believe is still consensus even if early pictographs which may be the origins of Chinese writing existed before writing. Of course both statements are unsourced.

We actually don't talk about Chinese civilization being anywhere near 9000 years old. Look at Chinese history and for instance Longshan culture. The written history of China only goes back to the Shang Dynasty and the development of cities in China seems to have started later than elsewhere. I'm not trying to denigrate their wonderful achievements but this claim is not correct. I also reverted based on a book by Gavin Menzies.

While I'm at it, is there a decision on PRC/ROC that would be relevant to this template change? Thanks Dougweller (talk) 05:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The whole concept of civilizations "advancing" and time "moving forward" are POV, in my books. How do you objectively measure something like technological progress? And can we measure every other civilization, the same way, at the same time? If not, we can't compare them. So on this particular issue, I prefer the old way. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * This is the sort of crap that gets stuck into History Channel fluff but obviously cannot be justified in a serious encyclopedia. Revert away. Mangoe (talk) 13:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note your headline says "until the 19th century?" but the quote below says "until the 18th century" - a very different matter, though still a very arguable claim. One might start the clock, if one wanted to play that game, at around 1500 BC, but anything before is rather silly. Needham, though very distinguished, is also notoriously boosterish of Chinese science. But the whole issue is best avoided, & replaced with something vaguer, perhaps stressing the continuity of Chinese civilization. Johnbod (talk) 13:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It's pov unless it can be directly attributed to a reliable source, and then it should be represented that way.Scoobydunk (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Vladimir Putin
Can we get a few eyes over at Vladimir Putin - we have some undue weight in re-guards to the current Intervention in Crimean Peninsula. Not sure what is there is the norm for a bio - odd to go into so much detail about the conflict in a bio. What do others think ? -- Moxy (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Current affairs tend to get excess coverage, I suppose, but the case at hand is getting very substantial news coverage, with Putin in the dead centre.  So it is natural that we cover the Crimean issue with some weight. Collect (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Political positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton
Appears on its face not quite to conform to WP:NPOV. I asked about this at its talk page and was told it was no more hagiographic than Political positions of Sarah Palin which I then looked at. I seem to discern a difference on how the two people are treated. This is "silly season" but I also doubt that articles should be campaign documents either (sigh). I avoid editing in this type of morass where people insist that NPOV does not apply here but trust that other eyes will look at this political tract of an article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Attribution issue at Ethiopia - do we need to say "known to scientists"?
I'm trying to get my head around some reversions by User:Til Eulenspiegel at Ethiopia. A sentence that read "Ethiopia is one of the oldest locations of human life known to scientists" was changed by User:Jérôme to "The oldest known traces of human life are known from Ethiopia". Til reverted this saying it needed attribution (ie it had to say "known to scientists", it was restored, then reverted again by Til. I reworded it to say ""Some of the oldest evidence for modern humans is found in Ethiopia" which is better as we the source is about homo sapiens, and then I was reverted by Til whose edit summary says "Uh oh, seems Doug Weller prefers to flare this into a dispute, says "attribution isn't necessary" for what European regime-paid scientists say, published views of Ethiopian scholars he deems irrelevant but theirs is the more prominent voice in that nation").

My question is do we actually need this "known to scientists" in situations like this one? If we do, we may need to look at another article. Note also that of course the lead is a summary of the article, and the relevant section in the article just says "Ethiopia is widely considered the site of the emergence of anatomically modern humans, Homo sapiens sapiens, in the Middle Paleolithic 200,000 years ago. The earliest known modern human bones were found in Southwestern Ethiopia, and are known as the Omo remains.[39] Additionally, skeletal remains of Homo sapiens idaltu were found at a site in the Middle Awash in Ethiopia. Dated to around 160,000 years ago, they may represent an extinct subspecies of Homo sapiens sapiens, or the immediate ancestors of anatomically modern humans." Nothing about "known to scientists" there, so it's unclear to me why Til thinks it is necessary in the lead. Dougweller (talk) 13:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The fact that you and Jerome seem to want to get a "decision" on this from anywhere BUT Talk:Ethiopia does not bode well... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Til; I do not mind having this discussion on page page or another – I'm more interested in discussing the actual issue. But please feel free to give your arguments in the article talk page.  Cheers –Jérôme (talk) 13:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

From my point of view, phrases such as "known to scientists" and "known to science" are weasel words – they attribute a fact to unnamed scientists, but do not give a precise reference. It would be much better to simply provide a reference in such cases, which then would make the phrase "known to science" redundant. What is more, everything in Wikipedia is supposed to be referenced, so adding "known to scientists" does not add anything to a sentence in Wikipedia, because Wikipedia as a whole should reflect facts that are known to science. Also, the particular phrase "known to scientists" is reminiscent of unscientific texts, such as those written in tabloids; this is definitely not the tone that an encyclopedia should have. –Jérôme (talk) 13:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That is about as half baked as everything else I have seen from you. If you are not willing to discuss this with other contributors of the article at Talk:Ethiopia per standard procedure, I have nothing else to say here. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * This is not an issue specific to this article, it's a general question as I've made clear above. :I've reported Til to AN3 now -as he chose to revert rather than wait for the outcome of the discussion here. Dougweller (talk) 13:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * He won't be back for two weeks, but I would very much like to continue the discussion. Dougweller (talk) 13:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Forgot to note that at the moment it is Til's version that is in the article and it is not actually a summary of what the article says. Dougweller (talk) 14:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

To wrap my head around this, I took a look at the Earth article. If we added "according to scientists" or "known to science" to every relevant fact there, it would make the article unreadable. Attribution like this should be done on a case-by-case basis with a reason specifically applicable to the case being provided. -- Neil N  talk to me  14:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Twenty days late -- "known" is pretty clear as a single word -- "to scientists" implies that some non-scientists know something else. They don't. This is worth not a lot of discussion IMO. Collect (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Succinctly put. I think we can close this. Til is blocked for good reason. Guy (Help!) 17:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with Collect, "known" should be sufficient here. The policy relevant here might be WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. If there are no indications that there would be a significant divergence of views represented in the best sources on the subject, then I don't see a need to attribute. If there exist local beliefs, they can of course be presented in the article too, in a suitable way. --Dailycare (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Gun Control
Is this edit in conformance with the WP:NPOV policy?



changing
 *  In the United States, some gun owners say the right of private gun ownership is a check against tyranny.  Such a position has a long history in gun politics in the United States, and has been noted in some other countries.


 *  U.S. gun-rights advocates Stephen Halbrook and Wayne LaPierre believe that Nazi gun control, and gun laws in other authoritarian regimes, were a form of tyranny that contributed significantly to past genocides. This hypothesis is not supported by mainstream scholarship.

to


 *  Some U.S. gun owners agree with what gun-rights advocates Stephen Halbrook wrote: that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution "reflects a universal and historical power of the people in a republic to resist tyranny." Halbrook, Wayne LaPierre, and their supporters believe that Nazi gun control, and gun laws in other authoritarian regimes, were a form of tyranny that contributed significantly to past genocides. This hypothesis is not supported by mainstream scholarship.

Removing a reliable source for the first sentence as originally stated.  The Issue of gun control, Volume 53] H.W. Wilson, 1981; 192 pages; page 43 and only retaining the problematic Halbrook and LaPierre sources. By so doing, they remove an actual academic source (H.. W. Wilson is a reputable publisher) in favour of two non-academic sources which are then demolished in succeeding sentences. I suggest that removing an unquestioned reliable source source about a "non-Godwinian" point of view and asserting by inference that all are invoking Hitler, that NPOV is clearly violated. Other views? Thanks. Collect (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Disagreement regarding biography (death section) of professional wrestler Warrior aka Ultimate Warrior aka Jim Hellwig
There is a disagreement between myself and several other Wikipedia users regarding the biography of The Ultimate Warrior.

There is a sentence in his death section that reads, "Warrior was admittedly a heavy user of steroids during his professional wrestling career; since the heart is a muscle, steroids can affect its condition." and lists the following articles as reference....

http://pwtorch.com/artman2/publish/WWE_News_3/article_77724.shtml http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/ultimate-warrior-death-wwe-hall-of-famer-died-from-heart-disease-autopsy-concludes-9262036.html

most notably, the following quote from James Caldwell is the main point of reference,

"Warrior was an admittedly heavy steroid user during his pro wrestling career, which affects the condition of a person's heart due to the heart also being a muscle. He had a family history of heart attacks, as his father died at age 57 and one of his grandfathers died at age 52."

Their argument is that they have a source that states "steroids can effect the heart since the heart is a muscle."

My argument is that James Caldwell is a beat writer for professional wrestling. He is not licensed to practice medicine, and as far as I know has no education or expertise in pharmacology, chemistry, physiology, biology or any other practice that would qualify him to give an opinion on steroids and whether or not steroids had any part in Warrior's death.

What we do have is an official autopsy report, and there is no reference to steroids whatsoever. Since the medical professional did not list steroids, I believe no mention of steroids should be listed in Warrior's death section. I have no problem if Warrior's past steroid use is mentioned, but to place it in his death section is misleading and possibly suggests steroids played a part in his death. Since his official report omits any reference to steroids, I believe his official wiki bio should also omit any reference.

I would welcome any help in resolving this issue.--Jmurdock21 (talk) 23:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think that this is a NPOV issue and you've already started a similar discussion on Dispute resolution noticeboard.LM2000 (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

National Religious Broadcasters
I am not linking to any dispute here (there isn't any yet), but I would be very grateful if someone took a look at the National Religious Broadcasters article. I've read the lead section a few times now and I am still... confused. The lead states bluntly that "the mission of NRB is to advance biblical truth, promote media excellence, and defend free speech, so that the Gospel of Christ may be freely proclaimed in the United States and around the world". No quotation marks in the article. According to the article history, this has been there for years. I would gladly do something, but I wonder if I am just imagining things. Surtsicna (talk) 23:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * (In my opinion) the first part of the sentence "to advance biblical truth, promote media excellence, and defend free speech" is a direct quote from the mission statement and should be in quotation marks, as it isn't a npov. The second part "so that the Gospel of Christ may be freely proclaimed in the United States and around the world." is not in the cited mission statement and should be removed unless supported by citing a source.
 * external links in the body of an article are deprecated - see WP:EL. The external link should be replaced by a reference. Apuldram (talk) 08:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Creation story/myth/narrative
There is a current discussion at ‪Wikipedia talk:Article titles‬ concerning NPOV as applied to article titles. The discussion arises from the discovery that articles about traditional/folkloric/religious accounts of the creation are not named in a consistent manner. Most are called "Foo creation myth" (e.g. Japanese creation myth) but a few are titled "Foo creation narrative" (e.g. Genesis creation narrative). The overall article about the subject is called Creation myth (with redirects from "creation narrative" and "creation story").

Points of discussion include: Do these titles show favoritism to some religions over others? Is the difference in titling the result of WP:Systemic bias or is it appropriately based on what Reliable Sources use? Should such articles be named consistently or on a case-by-case basis? Any input appreciated. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Article "Jews and communism"
We could definitely use some neutral editors at the terrible mess that is the article Jews and Communism, take a look at its talk page, there is rampant edit-warring, what I would say is obvious original research from the very first sentence, highly suspect POV-pushing, ownership issues, on and on it goes, if anybody feels that they can bring a NPOV to a whole series of disputes between two very entrenched "sides" and dares to wade in over there that might be helpful. There are so many issues that I don't feel I can single a particular one out and provide diffs.Smeat75 (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm having a hard time fathoming how this article even has justifiable reasons for existing (certainly no one assumes that apostates are representative of their faiths). After all, there aren't similar grossly-named smear articles for "Christians and Marxism" or "Muslims and Naziism"--Froglich (talk) 03:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The article was nominated for deletion (before I knew about it,not that that would have made any difference) but the nomination failed, closed as "no consensus". It is truly, as another editor has said, "a blot on Wikipedia". There are some very committed editors determined to keep it and present a very slanted view of things in my opinion, (if they see this they will accuse me of "canvassing"), as the article does exist and there is nothing we can do about that, at least at the moment, some of us are trying to bring it to some semblance of neutrality and we need all the help we can get.Smeat75 (talk) 04:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Removal of torture, rape, murder etc from Uday Hussein
Sourced mentions of rape, torture, murder, profiteering and more have been removed from Uday Hussein with edit comments claiming NPOV and propaganda.

This edit by was first, with the edit comment NPOV. I reverted, commenting While torture (for example) does not reflect well on Uday Hussein, it would be a breach of WP:NPOV to omit such significant and sourced material. I also left a warning on the IP talk page though it geolocates to a US hotel chain, so I didn't expect much and there's been no response there.

About an hour later, the IP reverted to their rewrite with the edit comment NPOV U.S. pro-war propaganda and made a further edit commenting npov.

I opened discussion on the talk page here but had no response and about an hour and a half later restored the article to its original state with the edit comment Please follow WP:BRD and do not revert without discussion at Talk:Uday Hussein#Removal of material as NPOV and propaganda.

Another IP has now reverted to the pruned version with the edit comment better version. I don't want to carry on simply reverting so that is how the article now stands, without the mentions of torture, rape, murder and so forth.

I'll notify the IPs now. NebY (talk) 09:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, this kind of statement in the article needs to be sourced and presented in a neutral way. "Neutral way" in this regard means a way that reflects the gist of what the sources say. Here is one source, which may not be the best one possible but it was easy to find. The source ties together Uday's behaviour and his loss of successor status. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I think the article was presenting sourced material in a neutral way, at least broadly speaking - there's usually room for improvement and I can't say I've gone over it with a ble pencil myself. The changes the IP editor made in the name of NPOV, such as replacing "tortured" with "was tough on", were arguably anything but NPOV. The article's now back at the old version and no-one's joined the discussion I opened on the talk page; there may yet be a need for extra eyes and hands. NebY (talk) 08:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I have not read the sources but we should accurately reflect what they say. If they say he tortured someone, then we should say that but if they say he allegedly tortured people we should say that instead.  Saying someone did something when sources do not actually say that is wrong.  But it is also incorrect to qualify statements when sources do not, because it creates doubt which does not exist in the sources.  TFD (talk) 03:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Aye. We wouldn't say Palmolive tortures grease, but is lenient toward hands. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Was trying to fix overly promotional page. As I kept reading it's more clear it's a big ad. Still CSD?
This is what the article Grovo looked like when I came to it a few minutes ago. There are copyvios mixed in with the obviously promotional tone. I pared back and tried to fix the lead, then started moving down. This looks like it must have been written by a PR firm or someone in-house because, to me anyway, the entirety appears to be an ad. In such a case I'd likely CSD G11 it, but now that I've made changes to the lead someone looking at it might not have the immediate impression I do. Best to just tag appropriately, add CSD, or (and this seems pretty unlikely) rv myself and csd? --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  15:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If it was just you, the original author, and maybe WP:SPAs we could believe were the author's co-workers, I'd suggest CSD followed by recreating with your version. But, I'm perfectly capable of assuming good faith with .  Otherwise, it looks pretty fixed to me (good job!), though I would not object to someone removing the "Honors and Recognitions" section and merging the "Description" section with the lede.  Ian.thomson (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits to Cursillo
I'm not sure if this belongs here or in the reliable sources noticeboard.

User, along with , , , and , made some edits to Cursillo that are biased and based on unreliable sources. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cursillo&diff=607218903&oldid=607184789 diffs). All of these users have little or no activity except in relation to the edits in question. Some or all of the IP users are likely the same person; I'll leave it to others to judge whether it's intentional sockpuppetry or a new user who forgot to log in.

After only a couple of back and forths and little discussion they requested page protection and were told by an admin that their behavior was not acceptable. I've explained what the problems are with the sources and how they are used in the article, but they persist in reapplying the edits and removing templates by me and other editors disputing neutrality, insisting that the sources are reliable and the article as edited represents a neutral point of view, generally acting as a tenditious editor.

That's not to say the article (before any of this happened) is as neutral or its sources are as reliable as we like to see on Wikipedia, but the edits in question make it far worse. mwalimu59 (talk) 19:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Kennesaw, Georgia
an editor placed this template on the above article. I don't know what the mechanism of that template is, but other than the editor that placed it and myself, there has been no discussion at the article talk page. The article is, from reviewing the talk page, been a bit of a POV playground for a long while. the POV spins around some local gun control or gun mandate law and the article appears to have been turned into a platform for the pro gun factions. I don't care too much either way, but when the copy about a relatively new law exceeds the copy on the civil war by approx. triple, there is obviously a problem. My proposed solution would be to mention the passing of the law and that is it. Everything else seems to fall under WP:NOTNEWS, never mind the claims of lack of WP:RS and failure of references to verify. Can we please get some help here? Not notifying anyone because I am not asking for any sanctions (yet) nor an I discussing any particular editor. John from Idegon (talk) 00:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Today, I removed all the content that was sourced to non-WP:RS sources. John from Idegon (talk) 20:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Türkvizyon Song Contest
Should the flags of secessionist movements be used to represent country subdivisions which do not have their own flag? Currently, Türkvizyon Song Contest uses the flag of the East Turkestan Liberation Organization to represent the region of Xinjiang (a volatile region of China which is 43% Muslim, 41% Chinese, and home to frequent ethnic violence), which seems to me like a serious POV issue. This flag is used in a manner which suggests that it is either a legitimate or official usage, which is at odds with other articles on Wikipedia relating to the topic. On the article talk page, it is argued that the official Türkvizyon Song Contest website uses this flag, and therefore it should be allowed, however no other page on Wikipedia uses this flag to officially represent the region, and the reasoning behind this relies on a partisan source with a WP:FRINGE stance. In response to my concerns, I have also been accused of "pushing the POV of the (Chinese government)". Is my POV concern regarding this page legitimate, or am I thinking in the wrong direction? -- benlisquare T•C•E 10:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

2013 IRS scandal
There is a discussion at Talk:2013 IRS scandal that partly revolves around how to interpret WP:POVNAMING. Opinions from the folks at this noticeboard are solicited. --MelanieN (talk) 23:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Fox News Channel controversies
I think the WP:LEDE should summarise the body but any attempt to expand the lede to summarise the body is reverted. The bottom line is that the lede is too short. QuackGuru ( talk ) 01:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think the added material is needed in the lede. The lede already summarizes the body, when it states that there are accusations of bias... the added material simply consists of some examples of those accusations.  Such details are better presented in the main body, not in the lede. Blueboar (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Outside input desperately needed at Soka Gakkai
The above named article, and related articles, have for years now been, basically, a battleground between editor(s) who may or may not be rather POV driven given their stated allegiances. Also, so far as I can see, at least one of those editors, on the article talk page, seems to post statements which might be even longer than some of my book-length commentaries(!) which have so far as I can see little if anything to do with actually improving the article. I regret to say that I myself have at best limited access to a lot of material regarding this topic, but I believe that it would very much be in the interests of the encyclopedia to have more significant, sustained, input regarding the article, and, possibly, review of the actions of some of the editors involved to see if some sort of further action may be required. John Carter (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't see much hope in resolving the mess. Whom do you think with what credentials/knowledge/authority/willingness (and time/effort required) would be able to achieve what you are seeking?  Suppose an outsider with significant talent and access to more materials 'could' make some "significant and sustained input", such an input is almost guaranteed to be buried in the mess (partly because it is sustained, and partly because of the length/detail tactics used by others), and such a person would clearly see the likely outcome before he/she steps in.  I appreciate your concern and hate to be pessimistic, but 'beliefs' have formidable power to fight against.  May be we could learn from the mess how better Wikipedia policy could deal with (religeous, political, historical, etc.) disputes in the future.  Yiba  (talk &#124; contribs) 04:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Umm, ArbCom has such credentials, and I think the admin noticeboards might too. Do I myself think that it might well be the case that only such extreme measures might work here? I don't think it would be appropriate for me to answer that directly at this time, but I do think that if such an extreme measure were called for, it would be better for everyone involved if there were a broader group and number of people able to offer input regarding the matter of possible conduct issues at whatever location such a theoretical future measure might potentially be taken. John Carter (talk) 15:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Does material on the so-called "War on Terror" belong in Persecution of Muslims or Islamophobic incidents?
I'd say no and have removed it from both, but disagrees and added the material I removed from Persecution of Muslims to [{Talk:Persecution of Muslims]] but with no discussion. The fact that Muslims have died in military actions in various countries does not prove that these were aimed at Muslims due to their religion. Dougweller (talk) 14:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I would agree...  Yes, there may well be some overlap between these topics ... certain specific events that have occurred during the "War on Terror" might very well belong in Persecution of Muslims and/or Islamophobic incidents... but, as written, the material is wildly overly inclusive, giving the impression that the entire "War on Terror" is a form of persecution and/or one big islamophobic incident, when it isn't.  Blueboar (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * See also and related text. I've noticed the same thing happening with articles on persecution of Muslims/Hindus, people adding material about events in which Muslims or Hindus died or had property destroyed but weren't actually persectution of them because of their religion. Dougweller (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * When it is debatable whether something is an example of Islamophobia, it is wrong to add it to a list, because then we would be saying it was Islamophobia, which would be a violation of neutrality. We could put in something like some people (identifying who they are and how widely their views are held) consider the War on Terror to be an example of persecution of Muslims/Islamophobia.  Of course that would depend on whether that is a significant view.  TFD (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed - if it's a significant view then it can be proportionately included. At Islamophobic incidents we have a paragraph about a mentally ill woman which I don't think should be included. I'm not at all sure that the Lynndie England or in fact any of the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse material belongs. There is nothing in her BLP that suggests this was Muslim related nor is there anything in Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse. We are calling her and the others Islamophobic with no sources, and we have two photos of here in this article. Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I think there is a large overlap between the two. Islamophobia is largely influenced by the events of the War on Terror and many of those actions were faith influenced. They are certainly largely connected and the religion of the prisoners was a huge part of their torture --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Quote from the article: "'Do you pray to Allah?' one asked. I said yes. They said, '[Expletive] you. And [expletive] him.' One of them said, 'You are not getting out of here health[y], you are getting out of here handicapped. And he said to me, 'Are you married?' I said, 'Yes.' They said, 'If your wife saw you like this, she will be disappointed.' One of them said, 'But if I saw her now she would not be disappointed now because I would rape her.' " [...] "They ordered me to thank Jesus that I'm alive." [...] "I said to him, 'I believe in Allah.' So he said, 'But I believe in torture and I will torture you." --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * And now we have added by  who I now realise added the Lynndie England & Abu Ghraib material earlier today. A bit odd that all these edits are occurring in the last few hours, although perhaps Teaksmitty simply inadvertently edited logged out. Responding to Drowning, I am sure that there were many American and UK soldiers involved in these events who hated Muslims (and there's another issue about hating the enemy I won't go into), but that's not the issue. Can we call the events themselves persecution of Muslims or Islamophobic? Or to put it another way, can we say that the US and UK governments persecuted Muslims and are or were Islamophobic? Can we call Lyndon Eddie Islamophobic? And remember that most of this material was added today. Dougweller (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I think you can definitely call the events themselves Islamophobic, or at least report that many Islamophobic actions happened within them. I would argue that a good deal of the soldiers who were involved in these events did hate Muslims and the faith of the victims was a huge part of the torture. So yeah, I believe they were Islamophobic events, maybe the people were not put into the situation because of their faith, but it was soon utilised against them and it was integral to the psychological tortures. I personally thought they were good WP:BOLD additions on a controversial topic. I would prefer it if the editor who added them were involved in this debate though. Were they invited? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Notified through notifications, I guess they need to be invited as well. Don't get me wrong, what Lyndie England and the others did was terrible, but I've looked for evidence that this was out of hatred for Muslims rather than just hatred of the enemy and all I find is material such as . In any case we need reliable sources for adding it to the article and excellent sources for naming people. I'm speaking as one that has wanted to keep our articles & templates, etc on Islamophobia. Dougweller (talk) 19:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And to be fair to myself, Teaksmitty uses and reads edit summaries, I suggested going to the talk page of Persecution of Muslims and what they actually did is copy the deleted material there with no comment, and I suggested this board when I removed the material at Islamophobic incidents. I see you've posted to their talk page. Did you see no point in telling the IP? Dougweller (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I did send a request to an IP - did I miss one? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm on the article right now and some of the content also strikes me as strange. Why is a list of Islamic terrorist attacks featured in article but the torture of Muslims by the American government not? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I hadn't checked the IP but it's probably Teaksmitty logged out, no big deal if he doesn't do it deliberately. What terrorist attacks? Dougweller (talk) 19:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My mistake sorry, I was thinking of todays edits on the Islamophobia article and the inclusion of "List of Islamic terrorist attacks" on that. I still think there is a correlation between using the religion of extremist Muslims as part of the psychological aspect of their torture (sexually abusing them and then saying they should be ashamed for religious reasons, torturing them into rejecting their god etc.) and Islamophobia but consensus seems to be against me so maybe more work has to be done in the context of the vilification of Muslims in general society before it is as widely accepted --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't see including such material on specific instances of implementation of government policy, whether that policy is good or bad. Now, it might, reasonably, be included in something on Islamophobia might include some discussion of the war on terror, and I suppose if lawsuits are filed alleging that such phobia was a reason for certain government actions, some mention of that might be included. But any action of a government employee which is performed in accord with the policies and guidelines of the government in question is more a matter of that than any personal motivations of the government employee in question, and, yeah, in most cases, I would include most Nazi empoyees as well, provided they didn't exceed their mandate for action and the actions were before serious questions regarding the legality of the orders was raised. There is a big question regarding relative priority of major topics and the broad "what goes where" problem, which I would like to see addressed somewhere, but I tend to think consulting reference sources on such topics is probably the best way to go, and I don't know that many such sources cover the newer incidents of alleged Islamophobia yet. John Carter (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Isn't the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandal intrinsically Islamophobic for its content? In the Nazi instance that you brought up, I would still argue that the violently antisemitic actions of many Nazi generals were, well, antisemitic. If BLP is really an issue in correlation with the state mandating it then surely we should just remove the mention of their names or word it so we are saying the actions themselves are Islamophobic rather than the people then there should be no issue? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "Isn't the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandal intrinsically Islamophobic for its content?" Perhaps, but for purposes of writing an encyclopedia, only if we have sources that reach that conclusion themselves. - MrX 20:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If an independent reliable source indicated that the "war on terror" was intrinsically Islamophobic, then maybe I might consider that source. However, without such sources, such statements are OR or SYNTH, which are not permitted by policy. I also note that for something to be truly "Islamophobic", it would more or less have to be opposed to Islam in all its forms, and I myself don't remember any real indications that many people had such universal "phobia" toward Islam in and of itself, just individuals who were involved in illegal incidents who used Islam as an excuse or justification of their behavior, which is a different matter entirely. Also, regarding Nazi generals and such, actualy there might be a point there, because many of them were the ones who set policy and guidelines, and some of them may well have gone to far. However, that is rather different than one prison guard who basically seems to have been acting, in general, in accord with clear policies and guidelines, and just mouthed off in a racist way. His motivations may have been bad, granted, as we can't know his motivations unless we have RS about them specifically, but if his actions were in general roughly in as much accord with policies and guidelines as that of other prison guards in other areas, there is no reason to jump to conclusions that his actions, which seem to have been in general in accord with orders at the time, were "Islamophobic". The evidence of some surly comments does not in and of itself make it reasonable to cast judgments on all the actions of the people involved. John Carter (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with what most everyone else has already said here, especially Blueboar's initial comment. We have to be careful not to attribute motives based on speculation. Copy pasting the Abu Ghraib material into multiple articles and onto a talk page is not a good way to introduce the topic Islamaphobia into these articles, assuming that reliable sources have made such a connection in the first place.- MrX 20:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I get what you are saying. However appropriate the topic is, it should be rewritten with mention to the explicitly Islamophobic aspects of those events, and not copied and pasted into the article (something I wasn't aware of before now) --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 21:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * What I find interesting is that at Persecution of Muslims, Dougweller, has deleted the section about US without even starting a discussion at the article's page. I started working on removing any BLP issues (Lynndie England, ect) but Dougweller insist on mass removing info that is cited with reliable sources without discussion. This is a content issue and all participants should work at the article talk page, not here in a forum setting trying to bundle the issues related to Islamphobic. Doesn't seem encyclopedic to me this kind of work flow (lack of). Our article about systematic bias WP:CSB is always a good read. --Jmundo (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I started a discussion on the talk page. Editors cannot simple assemble a list of loosely related facts and conflate them to mean something entirely different. Specifically, you can not say that because Muslims were killed in two separate wars, then the United States has persecuted Muslims. It's illogical and it violates our policies. The content does not discuss religious persecution inflicted upon the followers of the Islamic faith nor does it discuss Islamophobia. - MrX 22:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * WHen an issue spills across more than one article it needs to come to a forum, or when an editor ignores a request to discuss it on the talk page, bothof which happened here. I don't disagree that we have problems with systematic bias, but our policies on WP:NOR andWP:VERIFY are even better reads. And must be followed. And I repeat, I have removed similar material from Persecution of Muslimswhich was about massacres in Azerbaijan. All of the religious persecution articles need to be watched as they can become vehicles for nationalist and religious disputes, and of course editors do get genuinely confused about the difference between episodes where people were killed, etc for religious reasons and where this happened for non-religious reasons, eg ethnic persecution. Dougweller (talk) 05:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * We cannot examine an incident and apply the criteria for Islamophobia and call - that is synthesis, as has been pointed out. The arguments about why it should be considered Islamophobia have been presented.  We need a source that says something like "The Abu Ghraib incident is considered by x to be Islamophobia because...." or that says there is consensus that it was.  Then we can determine whether we can assert it was Islamophobia (because there is a consensus) or mention that some or even most writers disagree, whatever the source happens to say.  TFD (talk) 03:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia doesn't have a duck test. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and talks like duck, then it might just be a duck but you are going to have to provide a reliable source if "it's challenged or likely to be challenged" WP:PROVEIT. Looking at some of the cases that seem clear cut and obvious to some, I myself am not so sure. Lynndie England as an example. She claimed to be following orders and folding in from pressure from her lover. That is Plausible.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Mariupol standoff
The page Mariupol standoff is about very recent clashes in Mariupol, east Ukraine, which peaked on 9 May. That day there was shoot-out between Kiev troops in armoured vehicles versus some people in the central police station, which ended up gutted by fire. Kiev's armoured vehicles were also opposed by crowds of residents in the streets. People were killed and wounded, most on the Mariupol side of the conflict rather than the Kiev side.

Ukrainian interior minister Arsen Avakov explained the 9 May clash as a military engagement against a force of 60 separatist militants, who had tried to take the police station by storm — i.e. the troops came in to help the local police.

But local residents contested this in interviews shortly after the incident, with reporters from the New York Times, the BBC, the Independent and the Telegraph. They said Kiev's troops had attacked the local police, all or most of whom were friendly to the protest movement.

At present Avakov's POV dominates the page, though there is some mention of other views, and some attempt to reconcile the two. (E.g. by mentioning "renegade police" as an element in the claimed "takeover" of the station by the militants.)

Discussion has been polarized, between editors (such as RGloucester, Volunteer Marek, Lvivske) who think its OK to present Avakov's statements as facts (rather than assertions), and editors (including FakirBakir, MyMoloboaccount, and myself) who have wanted more attention to the POV of the residents.

My own position is this: I certainly support including Avakov's explanations in the article, (in fact I've added more of his statements), but NPOV requires that the Avakov POV should be presented as assertion not fact, e.g. by using expressions like "according to..." After all, he's hardly a disinterested observer, hardly a third-party source. (The fact that he said these things is established by reliable third-party sources, but they do not establish that his statements are factual.)

I've also questioned the assertion that separatists were forced out of Mariupol on May 15 by patriotic steelworkers and police. It's true that barricades in the centre of the city were dismantled then, and that some usually reliable media (including the New York Times) thought this meant separatists were gone from the city.

But... a day or two later, Radio Free Europe reported than separatist militants were patrolling Mariupol alongside local cops, and then CNN conducted an affable interview with the separatist leader and his kalashnikov-toting side-kick, who continued to have a headquarters in Mariupol.

I have been accused of going against the due weight principle. RGloucester has reminded me that NPOV does not mean treating statements by David Irving the same as those by Simon Wiesenthal.

A series of sourced edits I made recently (adding well over 1,000 bytes) was described as "an outrage" by RGloucester on the talk page, and reverted en bloc by Volunteer Marek. Mention of civilian crowds in the page's infobox has been deleted as well. 

I have tried to reason with these people on the talk page, but to no avail.

How to apply NPOV policy to this page? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 10:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

, RGloucester is very difficult to argue. Previously, I had a silly argument with him about infobox information (I think on different subject, but similar), but the user simply goes and conducts edits when he or she requires others to reason with him. What you are talking about, I personally do not understand the term "Avakov's POV"? Arsen Avakov is a government official. Have you ever heard anything like "Putin's POV" or "Merkel's POV"? There is no split in the Ukrainian government, so "Avakov's POV" in fact is the official policy of Ukraine and thus should be treated. The Avakov's post was approved by the Supreme Council of Ukraine and his statements are official reflection of the government. Calling an information as the "Avakov's POV" just does not make any sense and it is somewhat disrespectful towards the government of the country (But I guess that is just my own point of view). Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 12:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * All this NPOV that RGloucester requests from everybody on the subject is getting way out of proportions. There never could be a true NPOV, but what wikipedia should do as an encyclopedia is to record facts. It is not a court room. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 12:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry if "Avakov's POV" sounds disrespectful. Do you prefer "Ukrainian interior minister Arsen Avakov explained..." ? NPOV is not only something that RGloucester requests, it is Wikipedia policy. And one implication of NPOV is that Wikipedia is not the mouthpiece of any government... For instance, if the government of China sent tanks into the centre of Hong Kong and destroyed a building there, and explained that they did it because 200 rebels armed with grenade launchers had just captured the building, how should Wikipedia handle that statement? ... Do we treat the "200 armed rebels" as fact, or as a Chinese government statement? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The world officially recognizes the obvious aggression of Russia against Ukraine, yet the article that is being policed by RGloucester tries not to openly recognize the fact and constantly makes careful circles. How is NYTimes more reliable than any Ukrainian media? NYTimes mostly reflects POV of the US. Considering the fact that the US, the UK and the RF collectively made toilet paper out of the Budapest memorandum and Geneva Accords, the US foreign policy goes into the same bin with all these documents and with them the POV of any American media. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 12:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I entirely agree with Kalidasa 777's remarks. I put equality between Russian and Ukrainian sources, both of them are biased. Some reports indicated civilian casualties, however I was accused of POV pushing when I tried to expose these reports. Some "more experienced" editors tried to ignore these sources and kept referring to NPOV. Fakirbakir (talk) 13:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The person who accused you of POV pushing wasn't being fair. He objected because you looked at amateur videos (which we can't use in a WP article, but can mention on a talk page), and then you checked what was said about this topic by sources which we can use in the article. Is there any rule against doing that? I certainly don't know of one. I think what you did is a totally valid way of contributing to WP. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Use western reliable sources. Display the information adequately. Do not use "according to" to minimise the significance of mainstream media reports. If you are edits are sourced, and if they don't use the construction of "according to, but", I won't care. It was quite clear that that was not a natural balance. RGloucester  — ☎ 14:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You say "Use western reliable sources". At present, over a third of the 35 citations on the page are from Ukrainian sources. Are you saying all of these should go? You object to the construction "according to, but". What sort of construction would you prefer, in a situation where (for instance) Associated Press reports that DPR militia have withdrawn, then a day or two later Radio Free Europe reports that DPR militia are still there? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article isn't neutral at the moment. For example every time information is added to the infobox that there were unarmed protesters involved, it gets removed, even if these sources are reliable western ones like The Guardian or the Human Rights Watch.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The video published by Radio Television Suisse seems to show that the APCs were opposed by crowds of very angry residents, mostly unarmed but there was also the guy they called "the gunman" (militia member? local guy with a handgun?) Perhaps the infobox could include words like "crowds of protesters" ? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Khawaja Shahudin
The article creator persists in adding lines such as "He set aside from everything other than Allah and drowned in the love of the Almighty All Powerful." Edward321 (talk) 03:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * More edits that violate npov. The SPA appears to be trying to turn this into a hagiography of the subject. Edward321 (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

POV description of the UN's Palmer report in Gaza Flotilla Raid inroduction
The article introduction uses extremely POV (and highly inaccurate) language, to discredit the UN Secretary General's report/Palmer Report. The article presently uses a UNHCR op-ed featuring hand-picked authors to claim that the report was "heavily criticized by United Nations independent experts" when in fact it was just a particular op-ed and particular authors. Two editors have simultaneously deleted any and all criticism of the (competing) UNHCR report that came to the opposite conclusion. The article also recently used non-reliable sources such as counterpunch and deceptively linked to an opinion piece in a journal(behind a paywall) claiming that it's (opposite) findings reflected the decisions of Palmer report (they don't, they contradict it).

Additionally, User:Engelo, who is one of the editors dominating the article along with User:Tecspk@aol.com, deleted a section about the IHH members being "ready for martrydom" posted by User:Tecspk@aol.com stating "no it doesn't help." [] User:Tecspk@aol.com had, when inserting the information, stated "Unclear if this helps"

User:Engelo similarly displayed a WP:Own attitude to the article stating that edits made by User:Tecspk@aol.com "will stay put" as opposed to relying on the wikipedia community. []

There is additionally reason to believe there is a conflict of interest with User:Tecspk@aol.com, which I've detailed at []

Drsmoo (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Which article? Where? If you are referring to the Gaza flotilla raid article, the introduction does not mention Palmer Report, but in the Palmer Report subsection it mentions only criticism from Turkey. Some more diffs of the problematic edits would be helpful, perhaps someone has edited the offending material out already? - Wikidemon (talk) 01:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)`


 * Yes, the Gaza flotilla raid article. The section of the introduction describing the Palmer report begins "On On 2 August 2010, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon announced that the U.N. would conduct an investigation of the incident." In fact, there was no mention of the two UN reports in the introduction at all until User:Tecspk@aol.com began a string of POV edits on May 20th, 2014. [] I think the article would benefit from being rolled back to before that point.

POV edits:

[] (Initial edit which adds summaries of UNHCR and Palmer/UN reports. The UNHRC description is presented matter-of-factly, while the UN/Palmer Report is presented in a way intended to diminish the report)

[] (Edit summary indicating non npov editing)

[] (Non npov revision of a neutral paragraph)

[]

[] (Inaccurate information sourced behind a paywall that contradicts/misrepresents the primary source)

[] (Removal of information pointing out controversy with the UNHRC)
 * Yes, those edits are clearly POV. It's no contest, although some of the content added was not POV. Whatever the truth may be behind any matter, language such as "although", "despite", "even though", etc., is by its nature not encyclopedic tone. So is introducing a thing or fact by saying that it was heavily criticized or accused. Some of the material these edits removed is comparably POV, apparently on the other side of the issue. Pointing out that victims of a shooting said they were ready for martyrdom, for example, or introducing a report saying it was accused of this or that. Any public reaction to a thing should be stated matter of factly, not to rhetorically discredit the thing. I can see that this article raises a hotbed of feelings among editors, some of whom may be here just to edit on this subject matter or who are editing in line with a strong opinion about it. That always makes things more difficult. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * POV edits: The information in quotes under the Palmer report comes from the Palmer report. We would be happy to continue to quote that report and source it. The Palmer report has engendered lots of criticism from academics, historians and international bodies. We believe we have the responsibility to counter its claims. Tecspk@aol.com (talk) 07:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments and insights, I have reformulated the text and tried to remove POV's identified to the best of my ability. There is still an issue of a quote I used from a RS, which Drsmoo claims is "dubious". Unfortunately, Drsmoo isn't clear about why he thinks this resource is "dubious" and why its inclusion amounts to a breach of NPOV. I am waiting for his explanation. Kindly report any remaining issues on the Talk page Engelo (talk) 11:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Statements like "We believe we have the responsibility to counter its claims" demonstrate exactly the kind of POV editing I'm referring to. Additionally, no edits or reformatting have been made to to the article. I've also been clear about why it's Template:Dubious, as what Tecspk@aol.com and Engelo claim it says (or claim that the primary source says, while linking to this secondary source) is in direct contradiction with reliable secondary sources, along with the article being behind a paywall, so the claims are unable to be verified. Drsmoo (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Americans: Albert Einstein
I noticed the other day, that on the Americans page, on the right-hand side of the page where there is a list of notable American's there was Neil Armstrong, Ben Franklin and ... Albert Einstein. As a physics student, I had a laugh over this, but changed it anyway knowing full well that while during a SMALL 15-year period of his 76 year life he had an DUAL american-swiss citizenship, that he is NOT considered American but considered by anyone who knows something on the subject, German, or perhaps even Swiss-German. But by no means of the stretch of the imagination was he considered an American alongside Armstrong, Washington and Franklin. This is completely ridiculous and clearly there is a one-sided view on this page, as later Einstein was added back to the list. Please can someone with some authority clear up this nonsense, thank you. Dirac740 (talk) 17:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You will find any changes to that article a bit of a hard job. The images in the lead infobox are just horrible...no women - no natives - lots of rock stars etc.. The whole infobox should be reworked. Even simple fixes are a problem. A few times I have tried to fix the lead that says " Americans do not equate their nationality with ethnicity, but with citizenship" despite the fact the article tells us American ethnicity is the 4th most reported ethnicity  and the fact we  have the article American ethnicity. I  suggest you use the Requests for comment method to get others to that talk page for a discussion. -- Moxy (talk) 18:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * RfC seems definitely the way to go regarding images. Maybe a two-part RfC, the first to determine what sort of images to include (rock stars, actors, authors, politicans, scientists, ethnicity) and number of each type, and then second to determine which individual(s) seem most appropriate for inclusion as a representative of one such grouping as above. John Carter (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Never say that page before. Yes, the photos at the top are not representative even of the racial and ethnic groups listed in the article although those sections have photos. We could replace some of the ones at the top (starting with Einstein) with ones representing the rest of the article. Dougweller (talk) 14:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * (Ben Franklin spent most of his life as a British subject.) I see no reason why a naturalized citizen cannot be considered an American, particularly when they renounced their previous allegiance.  TFD (talk) 02:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That misses the point a bit, IMO. He had American citizenship, so of course he can be considered American. But is he one of the twenty or so people whose faces best represent the topic "Americans"? Given that he didn't become an American until he was in his 60s, there may be a good case for saying that he could easily be removed in favour of someone from the various American ethnic groups not currently represented. Or maybe we could identify the second most important woman in US history and put her in. Formerip (talk) 21:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Waubra Foundation - toning down attack article
The Waubra Foundation is an Australian organisation, casting itself as one supporting independent medical research into the health effects of low frequency noise from wind turbines, the so-called "Waubra disease" reported by residents of this small Victorian town which is home to a windfarm.

I first noticed the article in April - as this version - and noted that it was an attack article on the talk page. Discussion began on 30 April under the heading "Attack page" and has continued since. There's been a lot of improvement, but it has now reached the stage of two editors arguing and edit-warring back and forth, which is hardly a satisfactory situation and I'd like some wider eyes on the topic.

My major problems with the article as it currently stands is that it is centred around a "criticism" section, and there are sourcing problems. The Waubra Foundation attracts some steady attacks from the Greens, mainly through attempting to link it with fuel-mining interests. There are some links, but only through the Chairman, Peter Mitchell, and it is unclear how strong those links are. In any case, the WF doesn't claim to be independent, and attacking it through Wikipedia for a perceived lack of independence seems to me to be a strawman.

The Waubra Foundation is a registered not-for-profit group. In 2013 a Greens Senator made a fuss about seeking a review of this status. He claimed in December 2013 that a resolution was expected "this month". It is now six months later, WF retains its tax-free status, and it is a reasonable assumption that the review requested by the Greens failed to have any effect. In a short article, I fail to see how devoting a paragraph to what is a failed political stunt is anything but giving the incident undue WP:WEIGHT. If the tax-free status changes in future, we might include it, but realistically the incident is just a politician thumping his tub to no effect.

If I could get some comments and advice on how to proceed from editors with some experience in current NPOV policy, that would be a big help. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I've taken a quick look and there are NPOV issues over and above those Pete/Skyring describes, such as highly selective profiles of the board members, which i've raised on the talk page. However Pete's comment above that "it is a reasonable assumption that the review requested by the Greens failed to have any effect" brings Pete into disrepute, given that the WF's own website carries the Commissioner's February 2014 letter to them stating that she intends to revoke their registration as a health promtion charity, with tax consequences, and their April 2014 response. I fear Pete's description of this as "a failed political stunt" and "realistically ... just a politician thumping his tub to no effect" may be typical of his arguments on the article talk page. NebY (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, NebY! That does indeed change things. I was unaware of the letter - I tend to leave primary sources such as correspondence and court transcripts out of my consideration, give that Wikipedia discourages their use as cites. There was no mention of this in the media sources brought forward to support the inclusion of the statement. On further reading I note that WF responded to the ACNC saying, "you have assured us that this request for us to “show cause” is not related to Senator Di Natale’s complaint.", though the ACNC's letter stating this is not provided. If we accept the ACNC's reported position, then the Greens' complaint was indeed a failed stunt, though the coincidences in timing and subject raise doubts. I described the actions of the Greens as a stunt, because that is exactly what politicians do - they highlight their own actions and downplay or conceal any negative effects. Anyway, this is probably best pursued on the discussion page. Thanks again for your contribution. --Pete (talk) 22:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Misandry, a clear case of WP:CIVILITY
Link to discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Misandry#The_Myth_of_Male_Power

Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misandry

Specific change proposed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Misandry&diff=610462023&oldid=610461203

Perceived problem: 'He focuses exclusively on what supports his POV. Not an encompassing view. Jim1138 (talk) 08:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)'

The article's subject is on the 'ingrained prejudice against men and/or boys', yet some concise examples like in the proposed change is POV? It is allright to critique the comparison with societal misogyny like the article does under the same header:

'In the 2007 book International Encyclopedia of Men and Masculinities, Marc A. Ouellette dismissively contrasted misandry with misogyny, arguing that "misandry lacks the systemic, transhistoric, institutionalized, and legislated antipathy of misogyny" though acknowledging the possibility of specific "racialized" misandries.[9] Anthropologist David D. Gilmore argues that while misogyny is a "near-universal phenomenon" there is no male equivalent to misogyny. He writes: Man hating among women has no popular name because it has never (at least not until recently) achieved apotheosis as a social fact, that is, it has never been ratified into public, culturally recognized and approved institutions (...) As a cultural institution, misogyny therefore seems to stand alone as a gender-based phobia, unreciprocated.[10]'

But like this, it is mostly critique, leaving out the basis of the comparison which is crucial for an understanding of the concept of misandry. Furthermore, the source of the proposed edit is very reliable, he does have an encompassing view on the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Farrell

Leaving this crucial information out is a clear case of WP:CIVILITY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snuffie18 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, way to fail WP:AGF. Just posting WP:CIVILITY over and over doesn't mean that anyone actually violated it, except maybe you with your false accusations.  WP:Civility says nothing about us having to give you your way just because you cited it, it's not a magic word.  Did you read Dialectric's point that giving that author a full honking paragraph when most everyone else gets a sentence is WP:UNDUE weight?  Did you even try to consider that just flat presenting Farrell's views like they were the word of God might not be perfectly neutral?
 * If you were trying to expand all the views in there to a full paragraph, you'd be in the right. But you're only giving one author way too much weight.  Ian.thomson (talk) 14:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * agreed, the last edit gave the author too much weight. Look at this edit however: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Misandry&diff=610522232&oldid=610503305 The wording is neutral, it has the same weight as the other authors in the paragraph. It does not predispose Farrels views over the others, in wording nor in weight. Yet it is reversed because NPOV? According to someone who engaged in multiple edit reverses in the same article all in the same biased direction (see talk page and edit history of the article). A case of article ownership? And yes I failed AGF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snuffie18 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You're still completely failing with due weight and neutrality. Multiple editors are reverting you and you're only making the minimal changes to try and get your way -- it's not not the other editors who are displaying ownership tendencies here. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Snuffie18, I don't see any problems with civility, but there are obvious problems with the neutrality of your preferred text which assumes that Warren Farrell's analysis is widely accepted as correct and accurate, rather than challenged and contradicted. Funny you should take a perceived civility problem to this noticeboard where your non-neutrality would be highlighted in relief. Binksternet (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure its challenged, that can all be reflected in the article. Just dont supress information that you think is wrong, please. Also, as you've seen in the edits, There are plenty of editors that agree with me. (Snuffie18 (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC))

Please help determine consensus about NPOV issue
I am asking for editors to weigh in on this |this RfC. It involves whether we can include a mention of the subject's discipline problems in school. There is a dispute about the content, and you can help determine consensus. Thank you. Useitorloseit (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

More eyes needed at Dorje Shugden and related pages
There has been a recent fully of activity at the above page, Dorje Shugden controversy, and Western Shugden Society. Some of that editing has been seen by some, such as me, as being based on information supplied by many of those involved as being perhaps to a degree POV driven. It would be very, very useful if we could get a few more editors who do not have strongly held existing opinions on the subject involved. John Carter (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to take part in the current RfC at Talk:Dorje Shugden controversy. The RfC has been started because of what I perceive as the extensive NPOV violations in the current text (although I could be wrong there), and to allow editors from all sides a more equitable opportunity to develop the content in a what would probably me a more clearly NPOV way. And greater attention to that page and related pages in general would also be very welcome. John Carter (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Homeopathy
At the top of the discussion page on the wikipedia article on Homeopathy, we have, 'Q3: Is the negative material in the article NPOV?' which says that both positive and negative view-points should be included in that article. However, the article is an attack piece - there's nothing positive there! One can see a list of positive studies and clinical trials here: Can we have an NPOV tag on the top of that article please (I observed that some users are not allowing an NPOV tag to be used at the top of that article)?—Khabboos (talk) 16:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Science says "No." It is simple as that. This has been discussed at nauseam - the simple fact that one does not like the experimental proof does not make the article non-neutral. Every reliable meta-review has identified homeopathy as quackery. So: No, the article does not need a NPOV tag, as it summarizes the collective weight of scientific evidence. Rka001 (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Khabboos, if you know of any sources which meet the criteria in Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and conclude that homeopathy has value as anything other than a placebo then by all means mention them in the article talk page or here. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * One can see a list of positive studies and clinical trials here: . One 'Brunton' claims that that reference has been cited before in the Homeopathy article, but since I can't see it being mentioned in the article, it may have been removed without a proper reason (I saw his Talk page which shows that he is biased against Homeopathy). I therefore request that an admin allow an NPOV tag on the Homeopathy article. Thanks!—Khabboos (talk) 09:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What I meant was that it had been cited on the talk page of the article. I'm not sure that there was ever a consensus for it to be used as a source in the article.  The article currently uses the results of the systematic review papers published in  peer-reviewed scientific journals as sources, as far as the question of efficacy is concerned.  Brunton (talk) 20:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Your source is outdated and outweighted, as a quick google search does reveal its impact on scientific research was very low, and it is overruled by more recent meta-studies published in high-ranking specialised journals. It seems like the booklet you are referring to was published by Guna S.r.L., which describes itself as "Italy’s leading company in the field of homeopathic medicines." This disqualifies it as a valid source on its own. Furthermore, the booklet (which apparently never saw print in a reliable scientific context) just lists primary research, but does not evaluate if statistically, which is why we should always prefer metastudies which do exactly that. Wikipedia is here to report the scientific consensus, which is that Homeopathy does not work. Therefore, there is no need for a NPOV tag. /end of discussion. Please try to spread your nonscientific views elsewhere. Rka001 (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The point I'm trying to make is that there are so many doctors practising Homeopathy with good results (please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy#Regulation_and_prevalence). However, the wikipedia article is an attack piece - every sentence is criticized (and words like pseudoscience, nonsense, quackery or a sham should not be used in an encyclopedia - which wikipedia claims to be). I therefore wish to place an NPOV tag on the top of that article, if a consensus can be reached here.—Khabboos (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ......and there are positive studies and clinical trials which prove that homeopathy work - if you don't want the Guna S.r.L. publishers to be mentioned, I'm sure we can find other sources for the same studies.—Khabboos (talk) 08:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If there are any studies and clinical trial results that support the efficacy of homeopathy, you ought to bring them with your edit proposal to the article talk page. There, your proposed edit will be discussed and incorporated into the article in the normal way, assuming your sources are reliable, of course. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 08:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Inherit properties of the underlying statistics demand the positive outcome of some studies dealing with HP (around 5% that is). Modern science has developed tools to analyse populations of similar studies to identify the mean and the outliers of such a study distribution. In Wikipedia, we are encouraged to cite only this so-called secondary research (meta-analyses, review articles, etc). For homeopathy, we see the secondary research overwhelmingly consenting that homeopathic remedies are not working better than placebo. Additonally, a good chunk of reliable, citeable sources have identified HP as quackery and pseudoscience. This is what the article states. Therefore, the call for a NPOV-tag is not justified. Also, "so many doctors practising Homeopathy with good results" is not a scientific proof of efficacy. In medical sciences, we are trying to prove experience with randomly controlled, double blind studies. Which brings us to the beginning of my post. I hope this helps you drop the topic. Rka001 (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

POV paragraph on William Lane Craig accuses him of defending genocide
The following paragraph: is a phrase taken out of context of a speech, apparently to justify the WP:EXCEPTIONAL accusation that WLC is a defender of genocide. The paragraph is being defended and reverted by 2 users. I have explained in many different angles why this paragraph shouldn't be there on the talk page. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 11:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Deepak Chopra: RfC: Move criticism up lede?
Talk:Deepak_Chopra

Should we move criticism of Dr Chopra up the lede? Right now it's in the second half of the final para.

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Whitehouse Institute of Design WP:WEIGHT problem
The Whitehouse Institute of Design article consists of two sections. The first, of six lines, is an unremarkable summary of a small educational institution. The second, of ten lines, discusses one student, who happens to be the daughter of Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott. I see this as an example of undue WP:WEIGHT, particularly as Frances Abbott has no BLP, and the Tony Abbott BLP does not mention the story. The problem has been discussed on the talk page, but there seems little point in continuing when comments such as this one enter the discussion. --Pete (talk) 17:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * This is bizarre when there is no dispute here. We agree that there is an undue weight issue, and both of us think that having half the article on this incident is way too much. That said, when you're engaging with someone who's so preoccupied with getting a rise out of you and engaging in the Wikipedia equivalent of hair-pulling that they can't even work towards a useful outcome when you're practically in agreement, you're never going to be able to get very far. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 18:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say "getting a rise out of you", The Drover&#39;s Wife, so much as getting you to consider pertinent questions. Wikipedia is something extraordinary, a creation that is recognisably greater than any one of us in the way it has evolved to allow so many to coöperate despite diverse attitudes, opinions, skills and knowledge. That's why I always refer back to wikipolicy. It works, and it works in a way that enables all differences to be resolved. Instead of attacking another editor, don't worry about their motivations or their opinions - just find a way to apply wikipolicy and you will have the backing of the community, regardless of your own personal opinion. If I seek to guide you to addressing a point or answering a question, it's not with the intent to annoy or upset you. It's to get you thinking instead of acting through habit or some interior knowledge.
 * Feel free to use the same tactics with me - or anyone. No one of us knows everything or is perfectly right or infallible. But we can all read and think and find wisdom. --Pete (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Elizabeth II
Page:

Should the article about Elizabeth I say in the lead that she is
 * the constitutional monarch of 16 sovereign states known as the Commonwealth realms, or
 * the consitutional monarch of the United Kingdom and 15 other sovereign states?

The Queen is generally known in the world as the "Queen of the United Kingdom" or the "Queen of England." When she travels outside her realms she represents the United Kingdom. Her own website says, "The Queen is Head of State of the UK and 15 other Commonwealth realms." The Royal Style and Titles Act, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, says that her title in Canada is "Elizabeth the Second...of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen."

The Queen's title derives from reigning over the United Kingdom, and she is called "Queen" in other realms, although they are not kingdoms. While she is called Queen of St. Lucia in St. Lucia, Queen of Barbados in Barbados, etc., she is never referred to by those titles outside those countries.

TFD (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Popularity equals neither accuracy nor neutrality. Separating the UK out gives the UK an importance that reflects your personal opinion, but contradicts dozens of scholarly sources that affirm the Commonwealth realms are all equal to one another, and so it violates WP:NPOV. Further, your supporting "evidence" holds no water: The claim Elizabeth only represents the UK and only uses her British title outside her realms is false. Wikipedia is not a British website and, thus, does not have to reflect a British website's emphasis on Britain. And Elizabeth's titles derive not from the UK but from separate laws in each of the Commonwealth realms, thirteen--the vast majority--of which give no mention of the UK. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  18:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Twice in the 1950s, while visiting Canada, the Queen made side visits to the U.S. under her title of "Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada and her other Realms and Territories." (Notice Queen of the UK comes first.)  She has made no other state visits on behalf of any other country except the UK.  (See List of state visits made by Queen Elizabeth II.)  And while all the realms are equal, she does actually spend most of her time in her full-time job as Queen of the UK.  Neutrality btw does not mean that we treat all countries equally, but that we represent sources faithfully.  You need to show that reliable sources regularly refer to her as "Queen of 16 Commonwealth Realms" rather than "Queen of the UK."  And there is nothing inaccurate by noting that she is Queen of the UK and 15 other Commonwealth Realms.  TFD (talk) 19:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "Travels outside her realms" is not limited to state visits. (Don't change the goalposts.) She has acted as Queen of Canada in France and in the UK a number of times. She is queen of all her realms "full time". The title(s) issue was just addressed in my comment you replied to.
 * Neutrality means not letting your personal biases govern Wikipedia content. How many sources call Elizabeth II "Queen of the UK" is irrelevant as it disregards context (why does the source call her "Queen of the UK"?), Wikipedia needn't mimic a bias just because it's popular, and it's a phrase used neither in the lede now nor in your proposed alternative (to turn your own question back on you: how commonly do sources refer to her as "Queen of the UK and the other Commonwealth realms"?). What this is about is a neutral (and succinct) way of describing what Elizabeth II is and the best way to do that--the way that has, over years, been hashed out, edited, re-edited, honed, and finally settled on--is to say she is the constitutional monarch of 16 countries known as the Commonwealth realms, as, within the context of the Commonwealth realms, the UK does not (as affirmed by many scholarly and even legal sources) hold the separateness and prominence your proposal implies it has.
 * In fact, your proposal doesn't even address the argument your evidence is trying to prove, namely that the lede doesn't acknowledge that Elizabeth II is most commonly referred to as "Queen of England" or "Queen of the United Kingdom". Even if you could prove that, what you'd be looking for is the addition of a sentence saying "Elizabeth II is most commonly referred to as 'Queen of England' and 'Queen of the United Kingdom'." -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  20:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We do in fact "mimic" usage because it is popular. That is Wikipedia's neutral point of view's "Balancing aspects".  TFD (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, you're all for "Elizabeth II is the Queen of England" then, are you? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  15:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Elizabeth II's Canadian Website simply states "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada. She has dedicated her life to public service and continues to serve Canada and Canadians after 60 years." I don't then use that reference to argue that the lead should state that "Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada and 15 other Commonwealth realms". Using a Canadian website to push a Canada centric lead is POV, just as using British websites to push a British centric lead is POV. "16 Commonwealth realms" is neutral, simple, factually correct, and non-contentious.
 * Second, you continue to twist the difference between a title and a style in an attempt to back your own POV. "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories" is not a title, it is a style based on historical and cultural norms/roots. "Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith" are titles. Your continued insistence on twisting the Canadian Royal Style and Titles Act to state that 'even in Canada the Queen is titled Queen of the UK first', is simply plain wrong, and is further evidence of 'POV pushing'. trackratte (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It has to be admitted, though, that, as a human being (this is not an article about the Commonwealth or the British (etc) monarchy), she is most associated with a particular country, so I can understand that some reader will find it odd that "United Kingdom" is not in the first sentence of the article. I'm not sure "UK+15" is the right answer to this, though, because the UK is formally equal within the Commonwealth (in spite of its obviously central historical role), and I'm not sure what is.
 * We could add "...and British Overseas Territories" to the end of the sentence. I'm only really suggesting that as a sort of sop, really, because it doesn't directly address the issue raised. But it is arguably missing - if none of the countries she reigns over is more important than any other, why do some not get a mention? Formerip (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think your point is addressed at the outset of the article (fair point that these countries should be mentioned). The third sentence in the article states "...of seven independent Commonwealth countries: the United Kingdom, Canada,...". Immediately below the picture within the infobox you see a list of all of the countries in chronological order, with the UK listed first, followed by Canada, Australia, and so on. I think that the UK being the first country to be mentioned in the lead, as well as the first country on the list in the infobox, is due prominence, without giving the impression of being elevated above the other states (all of these states being equal). It is precisely for this reason they are listed as they are, and not in alphabetical order for example. trackratte (talk) 00:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying this is not a valid answer, but the relative importance of the first sentence within an article shouldn't be downplayed. Sometimes, a deficiency in the first sentence simply cannot be compensated for elsewhere in the article. I'm not sure if this is one of those times, but maybe it should be given some thought.
 * The point about British Overseas Territories probably should be addressed, though. These don't even seem to be mentioned anywhere in the article (!). Formerip (talk) 00:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The UK is one of the sixteen realms. It may be "first among equals", but it is just one of many. I can well understand the confusion - to many, HM is "Queen of England" and anything else is just flummery - but the distinction is a supremely important one in terms of the independence of the other fifteen realms. The UK may be the respected parent at the head of the table, but the others are grown adult children, in no way dependent or subordinate. The Queen is Queen of New Zealand every bit as much as she is Queen of the United Kingdom. --Pete (talk) 00:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This is all 100% true, but it doesn't address the wording issue. Formerip (talk) 00:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I was trusting too much in other editors to appreciate my support of the first wording choice. Thanks for the heads-up there. --Pete (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * trackratte, that is not "Elizabeth II's Canadian Website", but a Canadian government website explaining Canada's head of state, 'the Queen. The Queen's own website however mentions her role as "Head of State of the UK and 15 other Commonwealth realms."  Obviously a Canadian government website explaining Canada's head of state will emphasize the Queen's role of head of state of Canada.  But the Queen's own website explains her role throughout the Commonwealth.  If it emphasizes her role as Queen of the UK, that is because it is the most significant aspect of her work.  Or are we supposed to believe that because she lives in the UK she is "UK centric" in describing her role?  TFD (talk) 01:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * That site is not the personal webpage of Elizabeth II independent of state or government, as you are attempting to portray. The website is titled "Welcome to the official website of the British Monarchy". Not 'welcome to the personal website of Elizabeth II'. canadiancrown.gc.ca is the official website of the Canadian monarchy. Evidently, the "official website of the British Monarchy" is going to be British centric. Your use of a British website does not prove anything, beyond a British POV. In the same way that my use of the Canadian Crown website is no reason to accept nothing but "Canada and 15 other realms". trackratte (talk) 01:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The site says, "This is the official web site of the British Monarchy. Written and managed by the Royal Household at Buckingham Palace, the site aims to provide an authoritative resource of information about the Monarchy and Royal Family, past and present." Of course it is independent of the "state or government", except to the extent that the Queen is head of state of the U.K. and fifteen other sovereign states. The Canadian website on the other hand is a Canadian government website and does not pretend to be otherwise. And you distinction between "royal style and titles" is false. It is one term. Anyway, rather than continuing to make unsupported assertions, could you kindly provide sources. Your reasoning is just original research, personal speculation. TFD (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You're right, the "official website of the British Monarchy" is actually about 'fifteen other sovereign states'. So, when I say that the "official website of the British Monarchy" is a British website, that must be original research and not verifiable information.
 * And you must be right once again, there is no distinction between a royal style and a royal title. I guess that's why it's called the 'Royal Title Act', instead of the Royal Style and Titles Act. So, when they say it is a specific style and multiple titles, they really mean the whole thing is just one title. My bad.
 * I hope you'll forgive my unverifiable original research that the British monarchy website is, in fact, a British website, and that the Royal Style and Titles Act is actually referring to a Royal Style and Titles. trackratte (talk) 02:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Dispute at Indian general election, 2014
The section entitled "MPs with pending criminal charges", was initially added by User:Manchurian candidate. The information is the result of mandatory sworn statements that candidates have to submit to the election officials that is naturally made public. After the election, the information has been the subject of analysis by some NGO specialising in governance, and has received coverage in the press

Three editors have raised similar objections to including the content. Since the discussion has been processing, the section has grown to include financial information relating to the candidates also derived from said affadavits. Aside from the behavioural issue, I would seek some further advice on the substantive issue of whether it is proper to include this information. The discussion can be seen at Talk:Indian general election, 2014 --  Ohc  ¡digame! 11:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Continued discussion on the article's talk page indicates that, given the context, there is solid, policy-based consensus for removing the entire section ASAP. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I see no reason why such a section cannot be included. It presents important information that is totally relevant for the article, is unbiased (mentions several opposing political parties, not just one), and is supported by valid, third-party references. Deliberately not including such information, repeatedly deleting it, etc. may be a violation of the NPoV guidelines. Users opposed to its inclusion are either going into too much detail about a minor aspect (e.g. excessive discussion about just one of the eight criteria used to determine what is a "serious" crime), or failing to understand that the information stated in the section is just facts, and uses the phrase "criminal cases", not "criminals". Nowhere in the section is it being implied or explicitly stated that those people who have criminal cases are criminals. --EngineeringGuy (talk) 12:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please restrain yourself with the use of bolding, italics, etc. This is understood to be WP:SHOUT, and shouting does not make it true. The only argument you've actually established so far is that you think it's important. Conversely, other editors have presented salient policy and guideline arguments as to why it should not be included. Affidavits, allegations unlikely to even make it to court being grabbed from tabloid press beat-ups don't belong in Wikipedia just because you're adamant that they're important. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)