Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 53

Ukraine conflict
Almost every time I have attempted to edit articles related to the conflict in Ukraine, my additions have been removed. Certain users are constantly involved in edit warring over this issue. User:Volunteer Marek seems to be the most aggressive.

The main issue is the removal of well sourced material.

My recent edits (April 2015): diff, diff, diff diff

Removed (April 2015): diff, diff, diff, diff

This disruptive behaviour has been going on, and on, and on, and on... diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff diff. Diff speaks for itself (other editors, User:MyMoloboaccount, User:Leftcry, User:Herzen, User:Haberstr, and User:HCPUNXKID seem to agree with me)

And, of course, there is a blatant double standard: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff

For example, I've tried to add the latest Crimean public opinion poll, but was reverted by User:Volunteer Marek and User: RGloucester (see diff, and diff) − "not adhering to NPOV". And User:Tlsandy joined here − "Poll in wrong article because article about annexation exists".

Bloomberg article says:


 * "Ukrainian political scientist Taras Berezovets, a Crimea native, recently started an initiative he called Free Crimea, aided by the Canada Fund for Local Initiatives and aimed at building Ukrainian soft power on the peninsula. He started by commissioning a poll of Crimean residents from the Ukrainian branch of Germany's biggest market research organization, GfK. The poll results were something of a cold shower to Berezovets."


 * "The calls were made on Jan. 16-22 to people living in towns with a population of 20,000 or more, which probably led to the peninsula's native population, the Tatars, being underrepresented because many of them live in small villages. On the other hand, no calls were placed in Sevastopol, the most pro-Russian city in Crimea. Even with these limitations, it was the most representative independent poll taken on the peninsula since its annexation." —

Everything has been discussed here, and clearly no consensus was reached.

I am not a big fan of Putin / his authoritarian rule or Soviet / Russian imperialism (see some of my past edits:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ), but neither am I suffering from Russophobia.

Everything is not always black and white, and WP:NPOV says clearly include fairly all significant views published by reliable sources. This means the article should not be trying to argue for one view or another, but simply representing them proportionately.

I completely agree with User:Herzen: "It is impossible to avoid the impression that some editors of Ukraine related articles are not here to build an encyclopedia, but to avoid any mention in articles of anything that puts Ukraine in a bad light, and to insert anything into them that puts the rebels or Russia in a bad light. Editors are not even trying to maintain any appearance of being interested in trying to maintain NPOV."

Thank you for any help you are able to provide. — Tobby72 (talk) 10:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your great efforts in gathering up this huge mass of evidence. I agree on Volunteer Marek, obviously, though unfortunately there are about three other editors at the Ukraine-related articles that have a very similar perspective and are equally resistant to compromise, discussion and NPOV. He/she is the most ill-mannered, though. Hopefully we can eventually create balanced Ukraine-related articles that reflect all RS-based perspectives on the conflict/crisis. It's embarrassing to leave out key facts like the Crimean opinion polls and the alleged role of the US and Victoria Nuland in what transpired, just because that does not fit a preferred POV narrative.Haberstr (talk) 12:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is more forum-shopping by tendentious editors. Ignore it. RGloucester  — ☎ 13:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What RGloucester said. There was an extensive discussion about the proposed changes here . These were overwhelmingly rejected by consensus. Tobby72 and Haberstr then moved onto another, but related article, and tried to cram these same (or very similar) changes, which had already been rejected into that one (2014 Ukrainian Revolution). When they were reverted there as well they started running around forum shopping.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What RGloucester and Volunteer Marek said +1. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

At this point, there is ample evidence that Russia is both providing material support to the rebels as well as engaging its own regular troops. . Reliable sources report on Russian objections, but take the assumption that the overall conflict is driven by Russia as the ground truth. . Given Russian admissions of false denials and false flag operations, along with the well-known unreliability of Russian-controlled media , there is at this point no justification for any ongoing complicity of Wikipedia with Russia's maskirovka campagin. Any passage not specifically pertaining to conflicts between points of view should dispense with any qualifiers like "disputed" or "according to some". That Russia is involved with, controlling, and responsible for the conflict in Ukraine should be assumed and asserted.

That said, Russian denials are a significant point of view that we have a responsibility to report proportionately. Any editors that have an issue with the way in which that PoV is included, such as its wording or whether it belongs in a different section or different article, they should endeavor to WP:PRESERVE reliably sourced content and WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. If they feel unable to do this, they should present the problem and recommendations on the talk page rather than removing the material. Rhoark (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with this and the fact that Russia denies involvement is mentioned and discussed in these articles (the question as to whether this also needs to be in the infobox is a bit more tricky). But this is not enough for the editors above, who want to present "all sides" (sic). I.e. they want the articles to use Wikipedia voice to reflect the Kremlin point of view.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So long as the "Kremlin point of view" refers to public pronouncements by officials and not outlandish fringe theories, the articles should reflect those views, along with the changes over time, rebuttals, etc., in context.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 17:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's already in. Although putting in "rebuttals, etc." would violate WP:UNDUE. There's only so much space and time we want to attribute to these views, which is in proportion to the space and time they receive in reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Exceedingly well-put. I would have a problem with Russia's official pronouncements being deliberately excluded from these or any other articles where they are relevant, but that doesn't mean we need to treat Russian state media as a reliable "counterweight" to media outlets in the rest of the world; in fact, based on their verifiable unreliability and lack of editorial distance from the Kremlin, we shouldn't. And Russian denials of involvement should not be treated with credulous and undue weight, considering that the preponderance of reliable sources weighs against them. I find WP:GEVAL to be a very good guideline in situations like this. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Tobby72 tells that some materials were not included. What materials, exactly? For example, the Crimean opinion polls are currently included in a number of pages. I agree with Rhoark that annoying repeats "denied by Russia" should be removed from boxes on many pages. It is enough that denials are currently described in the body of these pages. My very best wishes (talk) 18:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

What materials, exactly? For example:

"For his role of a "super hawk" regarding the Russian military intervention in Ukraine NATO's top commander in Europe General Philip M. Breedlove has been criticized by European politicians and diplomats as spreading "dangerous propaganda" by constantly inflating the figures of Russian military involvement in an attempt to subvert the diplomatic solution of the War in Donbass spearheaded by Europeans."

Removed, Restored, Removed – "Kremlin point of view"?

"On 24 July, Human Rights Watch accused Ukrainian government forces and pro-government volunteer battalions of indiscriminate attacks on civilian areas, stating that "The use of indiscriminate rockets in populated areas violates international humanitarian law, or the laws of war, and may amount to war crimes." Human Rights Watch also accused the pro-Russian fighters of not taking measures to avoid encamping in densely populated civilian areas."Human Rights Watch: Ukrainian forces are rocketing civilians". The Washington Post. 25 July 2014."Ukraine: Unguided Rockets Killing Civilians Stop Use of Grads in Populated Areas". Human Rights Watch. 24 July 2014."

Removed, Restored, Removed – Kremlin propaganda?

"Crimea is populated by an ethnic Russian majority and a minority of both ethnic Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars, and thus demographically possessed one of the Ukraine's largest Russian populations.

A poll of the Crimean public was taken by the Ukrainian branch of Germany's biggest market research organization, GfK, on 16–22 January 2015. According to its results: "Eighty-two percent of those polled said they fully supported Crimea's inclusion in Russia, and another 11 percent expressed partial support. Only 4 percent spoke out against it." Bloomberg's Leonid Bershidsky noted that "The calls were made on Jan. 16-22 to people living in towns with a population of 20,000 or more, which probably led to the peninsula's native population, the Tatars, being underrepresented because many of them live in small villages.""

Restored, Added, Removed, Removed – Kremlin propaganda?

"The poll determined that 33.3% of those polled in southern and eastern Ukraine had considered Ukraine's interim government of Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk to be legitimate:


 * 16.6% Donetsk Oblast
 * 16.8% Luhansk Oblast
 * 33.4% Kharkiv Oblast
 * 35.0% Zaporizhia Oblast
 * 40.8% Odessa Oblast
 * 47.6% Dnipropetrovsk Oblast"

Removed, Removed – Kremlin propaganda?

"Mykhailo Chechetov, former deputy head of the Party of Regions, committed suicide by jumping from the window of his apartment in Kiev."Ukraine's former ruling party hit by spate of apparent suicides". The Guardian. 23 March 2015."

Added, Removed, Removed – Kremlin propaganda?

"On 10th February 2015, Amnesty International reported that an Ukrainian journalists called Ruslan Kotsaba was jailed by Ukrainian authorities for 15 years for "treason and obstructing the military" in reaction to his statement that he would rather go to prison than be drafted by Ukrianian Army. Amnesty International has appealed to Ukrainian authorities to free him immediately and declared Kotsaba a prisoner of conscience. Tetiana Mazur, director of Amnesty International in Ukraine stated that "the Ukrainian authorities are violating the key human right of freedom of thought, which Ukrainians stood up for on the Maidan” .In response Ukrainian SBU declared that they have found “evidence of serious crimes” but declined to elaborate."Ukraine: draft dodgers face jail as Kiev struggles to find new fighters". The Guardian. 10 February 2015."

Removed, Removed – Kremlin propaganda?

Relevant images - Removed – Kremlin propaganda?

-- Tobby72 (talk) 13:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * As you well know, because this has been explained to you before, you have a habit of mixing in very controversial changes with fairly innocuous ones, such as adding in images. Someone who's stock of good faith has been exhausted might suspect that you're trying to sneak in POV edits under the radar. Most of the images are fine and if you were just adding them in, that'd be one thing. But you try to use them as a cover for slipping in POV stuff, such as this "Kosovo precedent" or other unsourced, non-reliably sourced or UNDUE material. For example, the stuff about Ruslan Kotsaba was just inappropriate in the article it was being added to. There might be another article where it's relevant, but there's no reason to spam it into every single Ukraine related article. Etc. These changes have already been mostly discussed on talk and rejected, likewise for other venues. As stated above, here, you are just forum shopping.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * But you try to use them as a cover for slipping in POV stuff, such as this "Kosovo precedent" or other unsourced, non-reliably sourced or UNDUE material.


 * Where? Addition - 5 April (added link, source), Removal - 5 April. - Tobby72 (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I do not have time to examine all these diffs, but in general, the justification for such removals (your first diff) is very simple: these polls are not particularly relevant to the military intervention, which is the subject of the page. I agree that some results of the polls should be included in more relevant pages, and they are included. In fact, they are included in too many pages, for example, here, where I think they do not belong. And speaking about your last diff, I would not mind to include some of that after discussion, but there was no consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek continues his rampage: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff. What can be done to prevent such behaviour? -- Tobby72 (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , you seem to have forgotten that this is not the ANI. While you're about it, please desist from personal attacks. He is not a rampage, but is following consensus. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * There is hardly any consensus. -- Tobby72 (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, it most surely is. Discussions died in the arse a month ago. Stop gaming the system by throwing in another bit of bollocks in order to prevent these sections from being archived. This is the NPOVN, not a voodoo doll. Jabbing it when your contentious POV is being frustrated and obstructed by consensus doesn't make your subjective problems with NPOV real. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Continued POV-pushing – May 2015
Tendentious editing continues unchallenged. Same POV pushing, removal of sourced material: diff, diff diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff.

And, of course, blatant double standard: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff.

Further discussion here: Talk:War in Donbass, and here: Talk:2014–15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine.

Excuses for POV-blanking: diff, diff, diff, diff.

No clear consensus was reached. See examples here: MyMoloboaccount: Restored, Tobby72: Restored, Darouet: Restored, Volunteer Marek: Removed.

and here: Tobby72: Restored, Anonimski: Restored, Volunteer Marek: Removed.

Thanks for taking a look. -- Tobby72 (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd agree that "Tendentious editing continues unchallenged": Tobby72 keeps on posting the same cherrypicked content on multiple pages, over and over again, regardless of how many times the problems have been pointed out by other editors; and the same old lengthy arguments on talkpages - and this noticeboard. bobrayner (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Tobby72 here. These are highly reliable sources, with noncontroversial information. There is no reason for them to be removed.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed to death. Consensus is against inclusion. Both Toby72 and MyMoloboaccount know this as they participated in these discussion. Now they're just playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT games, wasting everyone's time and behaving disruptively in general.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Here we go again. Am I getting big whiff of WP:GAME here, or do Tobby72 and MyMoloboaccount keep cropping up with a comment per section each time the sections are ready for archiving in order to create the illusion that it's still something being hotly disputed. Notice when the sections were opened? Notice that any activity here (or above) died out here weeks ago? Notice how they pop up each time they try to resurrect the impression of disputed consensus when they suddenly pop up in numerous articles surrounding events in Ukraine on a fresh battleground crusade to POV push deploying their skills, or lack thereof, at cherry and synth? Time to drop it. Seriously: drop it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment on content, not on the contributor, please. I'm still waiting for a response to my question:


 * Please explain how my additions specifically violate Wikipedia policies on neutrality. Otherwise, this is just WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.


 * "NATO's top commander in Europe General Philip M. Breedlove has been criticized by European politicians and diplomats as spreading "dangerous propaganda" by constantly inflating the figures of Russian military involvement in an attempt to subvert the diplomatic solution of the War in Donbass spearheaded by Europeans."


 * Removed, Removed, Removed, Removed.


 * "A poll of the Crimean public was taken by the Ukrainian branch of Germany's biggest market research organization, GfK, on 16–22 January 2015. According to its results: "Eighty-two percent of those polled said they fully supported Crimea's inclusion in Russia, and another 11 percent expressed partial support. Only 4 percent spoke out against it. ... Fifty-one percent reported their well-being had improved in the past year." Bloomberg's Leonid Bershidsky noted that "The calls were made on Jan. 16-22 to people living in towns with a population of 20,000 or more, which probably led to the peninsula's native population, the Tatars, being underrepresented because many of them live in small villages. On the other hand, no calls were placed in Sevastopol, the most pro-Russian city in Crimea. Even with these limitations, it was the most representative independent poll taken on the peninsula since its annexation.""


 * Removed, Removed.


 * "The poll determined that 33.3% of those polled in southern and eastern Ukraine had considered Ukraine's interim government of Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk to be legitimate:


 * 16.6% Donetsk Oblast
 * 16.8% Luhansk Oblast
 * 33.4% Kharkiv Oblast
 * 35.0% Zaporizhia Oblast
 * 40.8% Odessa Oblast
 * 47.6% Dnipropetrovsk Oblast"


 * Removed.


 * Relevant pictures – Removed


 * Unfortunately, disruptive behaviour still continues.  Blanking of sourced content – 6 May 2015 - Removed, Removed, Removed, Removed, Removed, Removed. -- Tobby72 (talk) 20:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Every one of these issues has been addressed on the relevant talk page for editors interested in scrutinising the rationales behind consensus decisions made. As regards the 'relevant' pictures, several gratuitous images of the Black Sea Fleet, Euromaidan, unreliable self-sourced graphs and maps, etc., were creating image clutter. What is the point in treating a lengthy and convoluted article as if it were a high school project and slapping in an image per subheader? Also, perhaps you'd care to elaborate on how it is pertinent as opposed to pointy to plonk a stamp featuring Khrushchev bearing a description of "Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev transferred Crimea from Soviet Russia to Soviet Ukraine" in this article? There is already an article specifically dealing with the history of Crimea: which happens to be called Crimea. The text carrying exactly the same information is right next to the image. Please explain what you appear to feel is being censored by the removal of image clutter. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Again, there is NO CONSENSUS !


 * Talk:2014–15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine – Breedlove, Soros, Der Spiegel


 * Talk:War in Donbass – POV blanking of sourced material


 * Talk:Donetsk People's Republic – POV tag re-removed


 * More POV pushing and removal of sourced material – 7 May 2015 - Removed, Removed, reworded, Removed. -- Tobby72 (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Please explain how the diffs you've provided - pointing to one-off IP WP:BATTLEGROUND changes, followed by further refactoring of content, followed by a clean-up of content flying in the face of WP:WORDS - somehow reflects WP:CON? While we're about it, I'd be interested to have you clarify how this latest entry by you qualifies as being a response (according to your ES) to my response directly above. Are you simply ignoring my observation that the discussions are taking place on the relevant article's talk page, and/or are you ignoring the fact that you haven't responded to my query regarding the pertinence of the images removed that have riled you so? This 'discussion' smacks of being one-sided in your favour. Either you discuss the issues you are presenting as being problematic, or this is a completely disingenuous use of this noticeboard. You'd like to have your cake and eat it, too... but that's not quite how consensus or the NPOVN work. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Iryna Harpy is just trying to divert attention from the POV deletion of cited text and dishonest, intellectually disgusting anti-Russian propaganda (diff, diff). Pictures, though relevant, , are only secondary issue here.


 * "All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting." – George Orwell


 * AGAIN, there is NO CONSENSUS for removal of well-sourced material.


 * At least 12 editors: MyMoloboaccount, Tosha, Anonimski, Darouet, Buzz105, Jirka.h23, Herzen, Haberstr, HCPUNXKID, Leftcry, KoolerStill, Lunch for Two, seem to agree with me.


 * I find the -huge- double standard incredibly irritating :


 * Kudzu1: I disagree because it is reliably sourced. Volunteer Marek: However, again, this got lots of coverage in reliable sources which is why it's in here.


 * Kudzu1 – Removal of reliably sourced material – diff, diff, diff,


 * diff – rv - then find another source. RT is not reliable in this field.,


 * diff – Rv - Kyiv Post is a reliable source.


 * Volunteer Marek – Removal of reliably sourced material (May 2015) – diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff. -- Tobby72 (talk) 13:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "Iryna Harpy is just trying ... dishonest, intellectually disgusting anti-Russian propaganda". For someone who was just whinnying about how Iryna should "discuss content not contributors" you've managed to jump to making offensive personal attacks in record time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Iryna Harpy, I can't vouch for all of Tobby72's edits, but the repeated removal of their edits, often with nonsensical or highly dubious edit summaries, repeats Tobby72's vices in even greater excess. The immediate reverts that Marek themself describe as almost reflexive are a demonstration of WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, and they breed and perpetuate it on all articles relating to this conflict.


 * To be honest, looking through many of the edits discussed here, it doesn't seem to me that Tobby72 is editing from a "pro-Kremlin" perspective. Often, their edits are qualifying or simply represent the "other side," without removing material. By contrast, RGloucester, Marek, raynor, Tlsandy appear to view the mere inclusion of other perspectives, including from major politicians, news sources, or even public opinion polls, as intolerable. All of us have responsibility for maintaining a neutral point of view and a friendly editing environment. I'm afraid that by repeatedly sanctioning this kind of editing we've enabled behavior that wouldn't be tolerated anywhere else on this encyclopedia, and encourages only the most partisan editors to enter into the fray. That is *not* the decision we need to make. -Darouet (talk) 14:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Tobby72, and would like to add a complaint of my own. Several editors of Media portrayal of the Ukrainian crisis seem to consistently employ WP:SYNTH and WP:CHERRY in order to present Russia as the sole guilty party in the Ukrainian conflict and the propaganda war. This includes removal of RS that say that Ukraine and NATO also employ propaganda, downplay and one-sided portrayal of mainstream Western sources that criticize NATO's policies on Russia (like The Nation), addition of political blogs and lesser-known websites that probably fall under WP:UNDUE in comparison with most other sources in the article, excessive quotations and references to Euromaidan Press (which is also of dubious notability and known for several extremist publications), etc., etc. Buzz105 (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

"Comment on content not the contributor" - Toby72. Toby72, when an editor behaves so disruptively that they end up wasting endless amount of other people's time, it is impossible NOT to comment on the contributor. This has been discussed. Consensus was against inclusion. You are ignoring this consensus and trying to cram this stuff into multiple articles in order to push a POV. And you freakin' wonder why you get reverted? And you're trying to blame OTHERS here? Stop. Playing. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT games.

Darouet, what are you talking about? What "themself describe" (sic)? You are also insulting several other editors like RGloucester, raynor and Tlsandy without any basis by accusing them of trying to exclude "other perspectives". The exclusion of opinion polls was discussed. What's intolerable is the sheer tendentiousness of Toby72's (and a few other) editing style, as well as the not letting go of the POV pushing. There's no need to encourage and enable more of that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I should also point out Toby72, that all that your diffs above show is that you are constantly edit warring against multiple editors. You might want to stop that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * There is definitely a issue in these articles being edited by dedicated users who have certain POV. Tobby72 is right that this violates NPOV and other guidelines. There have been numerous examples where reliable sources and information has been removed time and time again under flimsy pretexts, and attempts to present a more nuanced view with neutral description have been opposed, at times very aggressive and with use of vulgarisms.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 08:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Double standard at Deaths in 20xx
There's a controversy at Talk:Deaths in 2015 that may interest some watchers here. In a nutshell, those called "Sir" or "Dame" are having their listings piped from the article name to include their title. Those with military, political, religious or medical titles are not. It's a longstanding practice, but seems unfair to hold one select group in higher esteem.

Had an RFC, opinions were split and it seems we've defaulted back to the way it was. Your input may help get a decisive answer, whichever one it is. Weigh in here or there, I guess. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * KEEP it as it is. It is a significant cultural difference. An honor bestowed, as opposed to a position attained.  There is no equivalent in the US, but highly revered in the UK.  It is inherently "unequal" in that sense - but I respect their right to have it. ScrapIronIV (talk) 13:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In all cases, someone has to attain a certain position to have a certain honour bestowed. Joe can't just unilaterally declare himself General Joe or Doctor Joe after putting in a certain amount of work. He likewise can't just do good for the kingdom and call himself Sir Joe. Always relies on a superior. Fine for individuals to consider one superior superior to all other superiors (I think my Queen's better than my Prime Minister), but when a global encyclopedia does it, it seems silly.
 * Not that silliness is terrible or anything. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As someone who does not live in a place where such honors are bestowed, I guess I would be affected more by the "inequality" of my culture not being included in this exception. Yet, somehow, I remain unoffended by it.  A general earns his rank; a private can earn and have a Medal of Honor bestowed upon him; these are things that would help define a person on my side of the pond. We don't use titles in the same sense. But we Yanks are an interesting lot, exceedingly casual as a rule, but taking far too much pride in accomplishments.  We are often both amused by and enamored with the pageantry of royal affairs - we are full of anglophiles waiting for the next royal baby, yet steadfastly insisting upon the equality of individuals.  I am more than willing to allow the cultural difference to explain the exception in this case, and let those who have been given that honor be treated in the way that their culture most deems fit.  Let these notable individuals have their "Sirs" and "Dames" - and choose to be content that there will always be some inequality somewhere.  Scr ★ pIron IV 17:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's definitely low on the list of offensive inequalities in the world. That royal babies can't vote is slightly more of an outrage. Just an annoying oddity, in my books. As fun as the British system is to explore (I like checking out Barons' estates), it just seems a rather antiquated one to base a guideline on, in 2015 Earth. Meh.
 * Congratulations on your new signature, by the way. Quite spiffy! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we should either use everyone's title (Mr., Ms. etc. are titles too) or just ignore them. Since the tendency is to not use titles such as Mr., I would ignore them.  I disagree that titles are highly honored in the UK.  In general they are only used where one would otherwise write Mr., Ms., etc.  So if your list has "Mr. Richard Roe", then if John Doe is a knight, he is referred to as "Sir John Doe."  TFD (talk) 01:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And for some reason, even accomplished knights call young boys "Master". InedibleHulk (talk) 02:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the difference here. Use them consistently or don't use them at all. Formerly 98 talk 13:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Sur Baher
Please comment at Talk:Sur_Baher. Debresser (talk) 19:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Abiogenesis - lack of neutral point of view
The Abiogenesis article lacks completely a neutral point of view and looking at what the NPOV policy means, some of its clauses are clearly broken by the current editors. Concretely, the abiogenesis is presented as fact and that is obvious starting with the leading definition: ...is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds Actually abiogenesis is a very controversial hypothesis, qualified by Encyclopedia Britannica as no more than an "idea" and along the time, many scientists questioned it. In no way it can be considered "a fact". In addition, the many critics in relation to this hypothesis are completely missing from the article.

In an attempt to fix this issue, I opened two sections on the article's Talk page, one called False definition of abiogenesis and the other, Need for presenting the abiogenesis in an objective manner.

Here I pointed the following aspects: Surprisingly I faced an open hostility and aggressiveness from some of the editors. None of them was willing to address any of my points, on the contrary they falsely claimed that my points were addressed in the FAQ section of the Talk page. Actually the FAQ section contains some false statements by its own (e.g. claiming that abiogenesis is proven because of an illogical and unscientific reason, namely No chemical, biological or physical law has been discovered that would prevent life from emerging).
 * why it is not correct to consider abiogenesis a fact; basically I showed that there is much controversy in the scientific world about this hypothesis and an hypothesis which is based only on some other hypothesis (that being obvious even from the article's content) cannot be considered a fact; I also pointed that by contrast, a theory like Theory of relativity, which is much more supported by measurements, tests and experimentation, is very clearly presented (even from the title) as a theory; finally I showed that even the citations provided by the editors for the current definition don't support the abiogenesis as a fact;
 * citations of reliable sources and scientific personalities, expressing serious doubts in relation to abiogenesis;
 * concrete proposals for improvements (e.g. changing the definition so that to reflect the fact that abiogenesis is a theory or just an hypothesis, adding a section with critics to this hypothesis)

After several comments, my section False definition of abiogenesis, in the Talk page, was closed, for false reasons (as can be seen in the content of my section) like no specific change to the article proposed, no attempt at actual discussion. The only justification that I got was that the consensus view of editors supports the notion that the abiogenesis article considers abiogenesis a fact, which in no case can be considered as a solid argument of why the abiogenesis is presented as a fact. My section Need for presenting the abiogenesis in an objective manner was closed very quickly after I got several comments related strictly to my supposed bad attitude (it seems that a second attempt to collaborative discussion was not something good, in the editors' opinion) but again not addressing any of my points. Actually, as can be seen in the history, the thread was initially marked as a hidden archive, then it "reappeared" as a closed thread.

Briefly, I consider that very clearly the clauses of NPOV are broken by the current editors, specifically:

The aggressive editors, behaving incredibly abusive, like they have the ownership of Abiogensis article, are the following: User:Apokryltaros User:Drbogdan User:BatteryIncluded User:Sarr Cat Epetre (talk) 12:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."
 * 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.
 * Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field.
 * AFAIK - all concerns presented have been appropriately considered on the "Talk:Abiogenesis" page - more than once it would seem: ie, considering the Abiogenesis "FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS" page, related "Talk:Abiogenesis" discussions, as well as relevant archival discussions and the main "Abiogenesis" article itself - also - all concerns have been considered consistent with Wikipedia policy (including that "All Wikipedia content ... is edited collaboratively", according to "WP:OWN") - a careful reading of the relevant Talk-Sections may present this as well (please see "Talk-1" and "Talk-2") - seems the "WP:SPA" may be using Wikipedia as a "WP:FORUM" and/or "WP:SOAPBOX" - perhaps, "WP:1AM" and "WP:WALLOFTEXT" may also apply - in any case - hope the above helps in some way - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Briefly looking at the talk page discussion about the definition of of Abiogensis, it's clear that you're here to argue your own point of view instead of demonstrating what reliable sources say. Sorry, but Encyclopedia Britannica is a tertiary source and is not to be considered over peer reviewed reliable secondary sources. The definition in the lead is supported by at least two peer reviewed secondary sources, so the Britannica definition is irrelevant. Thus far, I have not noticed you provide any sources of equal quality to support your position. Wikipedia is not a place to assert your own arguments into articles substantiated by nothing more than your own original research. Wikipedia represents what the strongest sources in the respective field have to say about a subject, not the logical conclusions, claims, and opinions of WP editors. If you want to be successful in changing the article, then you need to actually provide peer reviewed, scholarly, secondary sources that substantiate your claims. Then those sources will be considered along with the rest of the sources that are already presented to create a more comprehensive article. Scoobydunk (talk) 13:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , not bending over backwards to slavishly and mindlessly agree with your point of view is not abusive behavior, as well as trying to repeatedly point out to you that talkpages are not forum threads, nor soapboxes from which to repeatedly disseminate your own homemade synthesis of information is not abusive behavior, as well as pointing out that all of your concerns are already addressed in the Frequently Asked Questions is not abusive behavior, as well as trying to point out to you that Encyclopedia Britannica or any other deliberately cherrypicked tertiary source that you've put on your pedestal does not trump the consensus of the scientific community is not abusive behavior. Refusing to listen to anything anyone says because it's not what you want to hear, on the other hand, is abusive behavior.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Obvious attempt to push creationist POV is obvious. Epetre's use of the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center as a source tells us everything we need to know. I suggest closing this and referring it to WP:ANI if there is continued disruption. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, first-hand reliable sources are presented by me in the Talk page, I don't consider it is necessary to repeat them here, I only mentioned here Encyclopedia Britannica, because for any decent people it is enough to understand that there is a severe issue with the neutrality of Wikipedia's article. Besides, Encyclopedia Britannica has its own reliable sources behind and what is the most hilarious is that the Wikipedia's article itself doesn't present any reliable source for supporting abiogenesis as a fact. And reliability shouldn't be falsely understood. It might be a decent scientist, generally a reliable person, but any of his scientific theories must be demonstrated. A fact is observable and confirmed through measurements, repeatable tests etc and we are not in face of such situation in what concerns the abiogenesis. If I am mistaken, prove that! Overall, the aforementioned clauses of NPOV are very clear and the same it is very clear they are not followed in the abiogenesis article. Epetre (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This statement of Dover provided by me in the Talk page is enough to prove false your claim:
 * Is this a fact or a hope? I would have thought it relevant to point out for ‘biologists in general’ that not one self-replicating RNA has emerged to date from quadrillions (1024) of artificially synthesized, random RNA sequences (Dover, 1999, p. 218). Epetre (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not going to debate creationism with you, and you have zero chance of getting your creationist POV into any Wikipedia article. Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What exactly about that statement proves false Guy Macon's claim? That doesn't prove anything to me. Given that the only thing you have ever done on Wikipedia (at least, the last time I checked your edit logs) is start discussion threads on the abiogenesis talk page with long rambling walls of text to argue about the supposed bias in the article, combined with your use of creationist sources in an attempt to back up your arguments in said walls of text, I am suspicious of your motives here. The whole thing reeks of creationist POV-pushing Sarr Cat ∑;3 16:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Just more of your typical creationist nonsense. He is attempting to turn the fact that Gabriel Dover prefers Molecular drive to RNA world and pretending that this somehow supports his position, which is clearly Intelligent Design. Ignore him. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * This case is rather explicitly covered in WP:NECESSARY, which makes clear that articles about biology do not need to make mention of creationist ideas. In determining NPOV, publications by scientists are rightly weighed much more heavily than those by pseudoscientists, and to represent creationist ideas in this article would be WP:UNDUE. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Your problem is that this is not my view and is not creationist, Dover for instance is a reputed geneticist. The big question for you is: what does recommend abiogenesis as a fact? The definition given in the article is inspired from one book of Oparin, but if we go to the article Alexander_Oparin we find out that this biochemist is well-known for his untested theories about the origin of life. And further, on the same article, we find the section Theory of the origin of life. So far, it is clear that we are dealing with theories and not with facts. There is a clear inconsistency between two articles of Wikipedia. They cannot be both true in the same time. Actually, there is NOTHING to support abiogenesis as a fact. Epetre (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not going to debate creationism with you, and you have zero chance of getting your creationist POV into any Wikipedia article. Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

It might be more accurate for the lede to read "is the confidently conjectured natural process of life arising from non-living matter ..." (italic phrase added.) I would be against including criticism of the idea as this is a fringe view which is necessarily based on creationism. If life didn't naturally emerge from nonliving matter, aren't we to infer that it emerged supernaturally? This type of speculation does not belong in the article. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please provide the EVIDENCE that abiogenesis is a fact, this is what you claim and what the article claims. For a fact, evidence is mandatory. Evidence, please Epetre (talk) 17:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not going to debate creationism with you, and you have zero chance of getting your creationist POV into any Wikipedia article. Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What is the relationship between a creationist view and the fact that you don't have evidence for your non-scientific approach?Please provide the EVIDENCE that abiogenesis is a fact, this is what you claim and what the article claims. For a fact, evidence is mandatory. Show me in the article the evidence that abiogenesis is a fact Epetre (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The way science works is that scientific theories, themselves supported by evidence, predict phenomena for which there is no direct evidence (yet). That's what distinguishes science from just looking at things. I do support using the phrase confidently conjectured to avoid giving a naive person the misimpression that abiogenesis has been observed in nature, which of course it has not, as it probably last occurred over a billion years ago. On the other hand I don't support representing fringe views on creationism in this article, as this is an issue of undue weight. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have any problem with presenting the abiogenesis as a theory with its pros and cons. If we have to be rigorous (ant THIS is the way the science works), a scientific theory is confirmed through observations, repeatable tests and experimentation. The fact that abiogenesis is supposed to happen long time ago, shouldn't be a problem, that's why the scientists use simulations, models etc. and that's why we had the Miller-Urey experiment. Finally I wouldn't have an issue in presenting abiogenesis as a theory, just that from a theory to fact there is quite a distance, that requires EVIDENCE. Epetre (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem with that idea is that there are not adequate reliable sources for the idea that abiogenesis did not occur. Moreover I think you misunderstand what "theory" means. The Theory of relativity, for example, is fact. So is evolution. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The theory of relativity is a fact because it was demonstrated through experiments, measurements, shortly *there is evidence for it*. An unproven theory cannot be considered a fact, since in time many theories were proven false and logically a fact cannot be proven false. Still, the theory of relativity is mentioned in Wikipedia as a theory, while abiogenesis is presented as a fact, with NO EVIDENCE for that. Epetre (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I do agree the lede should be reworded to make clear that abiogenesis has not been observed and is not an ongoing process. That's as far as we can go, however. Reliable scientific sources treat the reality of abiogenesis as a given, and therefore, without adequate sources disputing this, the article should treat it the same way. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: User Epetre's campaign is focused in introducing the creationist propaganda technique known as "Teach the Controversy", that pretends that there is a scientific controversy where there is none. Epetre is a WP:Single-purpose account engaged in a chronic and disruptive campaign. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * How can your claim about any kind of fictional propaganda justify the fact that you don't have any support for your view introduced in a supposedly scientific article?!!!Please provide the EVIDENCE that abiogenesis is a fact, this is what you claim and what the article claims. For a fact, evidence is mandatory. Show me in the article the evidence that abiogenesis is a fact Epetre (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Query, rather than begin again with your incessant, impossible demands that the other editors kowtow to your opinion while using Shifting the burden of proof, could you, perhaps, explain exactly why all of the sources already sited in the article are not valid? I mean, not valid in addition to not saying what you want them to say?--Mr Fink (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Now listed at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Epetre - Our job as writers and editors of an encyclopedia is not to prove (or disprove) whether abiogenesis is fact (that is the job of scientists)... our job is to report what reliable sources (scientists) say about it ... and they say it is fact. OK, a few may say otherwise... but the nay-sayers are so few and far between that they are considered fringe.  Now... Let me take a moment to explain what having a Neutral point of view actually means:  It does not mean we treat all viewpoints equally... It means we present viewpoints with DUE WEIGHT (ie in proportion to how common each viewpoint is).  When it comes to fringe views, our policy is to avoid giving them  UNDUE WEIGHT... to avoid giving the impression that they are more accepted than they are...  and for very fringe views, this can mean not giving the view any weight at all.  That WEIGHT may seem like we are not being "neutral" towards those who advocate the fringe view... but in fact it is very neutral, because it presents the reader with the reality of the situation.   Blueboar (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

You will have to prove what makes you claim that I have a "creationist" POV. In the Talk:Abiogenesis I asked to have a neutral point of view (that is why I opened a NPOV, I never asked to state in the article that Abiogenesis is false and a creationist view is true. Epetre (talk) 19:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: We deviate from the purpose of this thread, it is an issue signaled by me in relation with a breach of NPOV policy. The debate should have been taken place in the appropriate Talk page. I have several questions and I expect logical, rational answer to them:
 * 1)  If there is no evidence for abiogenesis as a fact, why should it be present as a fact?
 * 2)  If the sources supposed to support abiogenesis as a fact are clearly labeled untested theories in connected Wikipedia articles, why should the abiogenesis be presented as a fact?
 * 3)  If the theory of relativity, demonstrated, supported through observations and repeatable tests is called "theory", why should the abiogenesis be presented as a fact, knowing that it is not proven by anything?
 * 4)  If I didn't suggest for a moment to state that abiogenesis is false, while am I accused for trying to push my point of view? There is no evidence specified in the article for abiogenesis as a fact, still some editors claim it is a fact, why should be acceptable their personal view in an article supposed to be neutral? They are the ones pushing their point of view, misinforming the reader.
 * 5)  If there is so much controversy around this topic, why don't they mention a thing about that? Reputed scientists, geneticists expressed their doubt concerning the abiogenesis or even the experiments described in the article (some relevant references were provided by me), why shouldn't they be mentioned briefly in the article? Epetre (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The problems with this are many: among other things, to state that "abiogenesis is not a fact" would be to directly imply the opposite of abiogenesis, i.e., that life arose due to supernatural forces beyond the view and purview of science. Not that you'd care since it's not grovelling agreement.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Epetre has been blocked, so we can close this as a W.O.M.B.A.T. (Waste Of Money, Brains, And Time). --Guy Macon (talk) 12:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Continuation of Souther Strategy Neutrality Dispute
All, Sorry I was unable to post for a while. The neutrality issue associated with the Souther Strategy article is still on going https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_51#Southern_Strategy_-_removal_of_sources_which_don.27t_support_opening_section.

I would like some moderation input from others. It's clear that we have some who are not happy about adding a more balanced POV to the article as can be seen in the above link. How do we bring this topic back to the front page? Thanks Getoverpops (talk) 14:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Obviously the archived discussion is much too long for non-masochists to read. Would you care to *briefly* summarize the reliable sources which state that the Southern Strategy was not racist, and explain why you believe these are not fringe views? --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Every peer reviewed reliable source that was provided spoke to the racist nature of the Southern Strategy. Some emphasized other factors, but still ultimately admitted that an appeal to racist attitudes played a part in it. Even the peer reviewed sources that analyzed other factors in the south admitted that the mainstream view of the Southern Strategy was one that acknowledged an appeal to racism.Scoobydunk (talk) 23:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Good and accurate summary. No support has developed for the POV that is being pushed by one editor. The purpose of this board is to bring other people's eyes to an article that they don't normally watch.  Thanks for participating. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a dishonest claim and you SHOULD know it. If you can't be honest please don't bother posting.

Sadly, Scubby seems unable to provide a non-baised review of the information that was provided. Sammy, please forgive me but your opening remarks sound biased from the word go. I will leave it at a few things. The article and the editors who are trying to protect it are unwilling to add a section which disputes several claims associated with the article. The biggest issue is the idea that there was some racist southern plan that is why the southern states changed from blue to red. Many of the pier reviewed articles I provided show evidence that the transformation was not related to any racist appeal but instead based the socio-economic outlook of many southern voters better aligning with the GOP. The "racist" part appears to be the notion that the GOP wanted to avoid offending moderate souterners rather than appealing to hard core racists. Scooby, a come lately editor to the article, refuses to allow such information into the article. He also seems to demand a high standard for any source that doesn't fully embrace yet is perfectly OK with low quality material in other parts of the article. Getoverpops (talk) 00:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I can't lie: that does sound like revisionism to me, and it's obviously a minority view. So you can call me biased. But what are the reliable sources that articulate this idea, which you would like represented in the article? --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You got that right. The previous discussion generated no serious support for GetOver's position. It's really time to end this.  Everyone who wanted to comment had ample time before. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Speaking of biased editors... I can see why people don't want to fight with editors like you who are interested in maintaining liberal biased articles regardless of the facts.  I'm sorry that real life kept me away for a bit.  We did have some voices of reason who were supporting my arguments.  It's not surprising that you would try to forget those.  I have to admit, I don't blame others for wanting to stay away.  I fear that I will put effort into this and biased editors such as you and Scooby(never posted before I came to the article)dunk.


 * The specific articles were previously mentioned. I would simply cut and paste the articles.  If you read the original dispute request, you will have filter through those who seem to want simply block anything that mitigates the racist telling of the story, you will find that a number of credible sources dispute the claims that the success of the GOP in the south was due to a plan to appeal to racism.  Note that on a some level racist claims were made but this would likely be true for both sides at local levels (when you expand the scope too all politicians of either side who have said something dumb, both sides look really bad).  Also, the article seems to go back and forth on the extent of this southern strategy.  Is it just a short term thing for the Nixon years or all the way through H Bush?  It's true that some of the peer reviewed sources I presented said that yes, some appeals were made with the intent to not alienate mildly racist people (there are specific notations about hard core racists) but none said it was a master plan that lasted into the 80s.  The reputable sources on the other side also don't support that claim.  Part of the issue is the soft, fuzzy nature of what they claim are racist "code words".  Is a "code word" really proof or simply a convenient way for one political side to "prove" the other side is racist?
 * Anyway, I believe the wiki article should have a section that disputes the claims that this was a wide spread strategy that lasted over a number of election cycles. Those are claims which can be backed via the academic articles and writers I have cited.  I also think the claims of the other side should be subject to the same level of scrutiny that is expected of my sources.  If opinion articles against don't count then opinion articles for shouldn't count either.  Getoverpops (talk) 02:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Nothing new here. Three people have responded and you have insulted all of us. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * After looking over some of what was written in the original discussion, it seems like you rely heavily on opinion pieces. Can you clarify whether you want the article to state that some individuals have this opinion, or whether you want Wikipedia's voice not to assert unconditionally that the Southern Strategy appealed to racism? The latter requires a reliable source, such as one with editorial oversight, to dispute this idea. For the former it would also be better to have a reliable secondary source discussing these individual opinions. Can you point to such sources? --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking a look. Perhaps I was to quick to assume you were one sided.  Three comments:  First, the article seems to cover the strategy as a proven fact and as something that had a wide ranging impact on elections.  Thus I would like to call into question some of the assumptions that previously the article took for granted.  Prior to my earlier edits the article was getting a number of facts out of op-ed articles.  I've tried to clean that up but the "what it was/is" stuff still reads like a conspiracy theory.  Very questionable statements are taken as proof.  At the most basic level we (the article) should be able to tell us what the strategy was, in precise term (specific examples of how it was used, over what time period etc).  Currently we have a Nixon aid who claims it was a thing and another who disagrees.  It's hard to judge why each feels as they do and what there motivations were for speaking.  But the article and some sources imply this was a strategy that was used through H Bush.  Well where is the proof?  That's were we get a conspiracy theory type answer.  It was "code words".  These code words included things like welfare reform.  If wanting welfare reform is the "proof" then we need something better since it's possible one wants reform to harm minorities who use the system or because they feel the system wasn't working well.  If that is an issue important to southern voters is it racist or simply appealing to the voters?  The point is the article needs to be more concrete about what is alleged so that the reader can better judge the facts.  The articles I've found seem to suggest that Nixon's aids did talk about crafting a message that would avoid offending conservative southern voters but it's not clear there was a racist message.  Thus is that a "racist southern strategy" or just a "southern strategy" that was sensitive to the voters but didn't promise anything racist?
 * Second, things get more confused when you factor in local and state elections vs nationals. At the local and state level it's harder to say if some state GOP'er didn't say or promise something that was directly or obliquely appealing to racist voters.  Thus if a sources says, "yes there was a southern strategy" can we really take that to mean a racist one or just a plan to be sensitive or what?  What is the scope of the thing the writer is talking about?  Does it mean when Regan talked about welfare reform he was actually using Nixon's "racist southern strategy"?  Basically the vague claims need to be replaced with some concrete statement around which the article can hang it's hat.
 * Third, my sources are largely from academics in the field (thus expert opinion) or peer reviewed articles. Much of the "pro" work is based on opinion articles and really is no better in quality.  I've tried to police the article to some extent by demanding page numbers for some sources and asking that opinion articles in the media be cited as such.  I've had some luck with that.  Anyway, I feel that my list of references is at least on par with the quality of sources used in the existing article as "proof".  Note I'm not evaluating the long and unnecessary section of the article which discusses the rise of the solid south etc.  It's an excessively long history section but aside from too many words (a flaw I sometimes share) it doesn't detract from the quality of the article.  (ASIDE NOTE:  I will be gone starting tomorrow through the end of the week.  That doesn't mean I don't want to continue with the improvements to the article, like before sometimes we have lives outside the web).  ThanksGetoverpops (talk) 04:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The sources in the article are mostly aligned with the academic consensus among peer reviewed literature that the Southern Strategy was an appeal to racism. Your sources are not aligned with this mainstream consensus and your peer reviewed sources actually support the narrative of an appeal to racism discussed in the article. It is very clear that there was a racial message and here are diffs with direct quotes from peer reviewed reliable sources that discuss the appeals to racism and racial attitudes utilized by the Southern Strategy. Scoobydunk (talk) 07:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

You don't even understand the point I'm making. As someone who was never an editor before I posted here why are you even in this discussion? So on to your "points", some sources say the points were appeals to racism. Other peer reviewed sources say the points were attempts to avoid upsetting voters but were not appeals to racism. Furthermore, you need to scope the duration and extends of this souther strategy. If one politician does something that could be seen as racism is that enough proof for you? I addressed your references last time. It seems your intent this time is to again so muddy the waters as to make this neutrality dispute all but unreadable. That was the extent of your contribution last time. Please don't try to cloud the issue as was your previous strategy. Getoverpops (talk) 07:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * All of the peer reviewed sources discussed the racial aspects of the Southern Strategy and none of them claimed that it was not an appeal to racism. It's not our responsibility to question reliable sources and to try and refute them with our own arguments, which is what you're trying to do with questions like "If one politician does something that could be seen as racism is that enough proof for you?" It doesn't matter what's "proof" for me, what matters is what strong reliable sources say. So it's actually questions like this that "muddy the waters" because they are irrelevant when considering what reliable sources say. Also, providing and quoting peer reviewed sources is not "unreadable" for most people with an interest in the perspective held by scholars. Lastly, I ask that you cease with the false accusations and personal attacks.Scoobydunk (talk) 13:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not exactly true. They all state that at some levels appeals to racism were used.  It is not clear that at the presidential level they were used.  For example the current Wiki claims even Reagen used appeals to racism.  However, the quoted Atwater interview is truncated in the southern strategy article.  If we look at the Wiki entry on Atwater that contains more of the interview we see something different [].  Atwater says Regan, " But Reagan did not have to do a southern strategy for two reasons. Number one, race was not a dominant issue. And number two, the mainstream issues in this campaign had been, quote, southern issues since way back in the sixties. So Reagan goes out and campaigns on the issues of economics and of national defense. The whole campaign was devoid of any kind of racism, any kind of reference. "
 * So currently the Wiki entry is trying to imply this was a policy that extended into the H Bush years yet one of the key references that "proves" the strategy says it was not a strategy later. Also, even as he states it, we are talking about something that anti-GOP people will try to spin as clear racism yet a reasonable reader can see as political reality, capturing votes by avoiding inflaming and the like.  Getoverpops (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Talk about "muddying the waters" you assert that the Southern Strategy didn't appeal to racism, were proved to be incorrect, and now try and shift the argument to which Presidents used them and to what extent. This is the type of red herring argument you previously made and, by definition, red herring arguments detract from the actual conversation/argument.Scoobydunk (talk) 00:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You seem to be arguing a position, which is not what this noticeboard is for. NPOV is about proportionally representing the positions of reliable sources, not being right. Having looked through your references from the previous discussion, I did not find any reliable secondary sources which endorse the idea that the Southern Strategy was not an appeal to racism, or address your other concerns. You cited Gerard Alexander, who is an academic, but you only cited his opinion pieces, not his peer-reviewed publications (and you pointed to WP:NEWSORG as saying that these should be taken as the reliable opinion of an expert, but the policy only says "The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact.") If you think there is something I missed, please bring it to attention here. To your point about the article's existing references being low-quality: that's a good reason to clean them up, but not a good reason to introduce more low-quality references. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The issue I have is that the liberal biased editors who are guarding the article have been unwilling to add references that, as I have shown ARE the views of peer reviewed authors and experts in the field. A number of these authors have stated that the "southern strategy" was not responsible for the defection of the south from the Dems to the GOP.  That information isn't in the current Wiki and should be.  I think several of the objecting editors, certainly the vocal ones, fail to see what I want to add thus they are arguing from a false position.  I have made this clear but to little avail.  I also would like to note that several editors have been critical of this article in the past but I think few want to fight a group of liberal biased editors who want to undo any edit that doesn't fit their narrative.  Getoverpops (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * To answer your earlier question, this diff represents what GetOver wanted to add.  The problems are (1) this is the article lede and the body of the article does not discuss the minority/fringe opinion (2) there is a WEIGHT problem -- GetOver wants to treat the minority/fringe opinion with the same weight as the majority/consensus (3) the sourcing (i.e. Pat Buchanan and a book review rather than the actual book) and (4)he reverts a well documented apology for the GOP pursuing its Southern Strategy. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I wish you would stop lying about what you THINK I want to add. While I previously added that text you have convinced me that it wouldn't be correct.  What I want to add, and ask if you agree, is a section covering the views of historians who say that the scope of the "racist appeal" was not as wide spread as some sources claim and that it's impact was not significant.  Do you agree to adding something along those lines?  As for your claim of weight, that would be valid if I wanted to replace the current view with a new one.  Instead I am insisting that the second view be represented in the article.  Currently that is not the case.  Sadly I feel I will have to edit the article, put up with you trying to revert those edits then return to dispute resolution to get them to stay.  Remember I am basing my views on peer reviewed sources and expert opinions (I established this previously)Getoverpops (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If there are reliable secondary sources which take this position, then yes. "Peer-reviewed authors" are not sufficient. Peer-reviewed articles are what we're looking for. (Of course there are other types of RS's as well.) It would also be helpful if you could list here the sources you would like to use, as this discussion is much too abstract. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, several of the sources I linked to were books published by university presses and peer reviewed articles. I listed a number of sources later in the original neutrality dispute.  Getoverpops (talk) 15:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you list them again? --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay.
 * Dan McLaughlin, This is clearly an opinion article.  However that puts in on the same footing as the Herbert articles mentioned above.  This is a blog quality source reviewing a book (mentioned below).  The book in question "The Lost Majority: Why the Future of Government Is Up for Grabs - and Who Will Take It" by [].  The reviewer contends the book first supports the notion that pandering to racism was not the reason for the south to move the GOP.  This is consistent with several other articles and probably should be mentioned in the southern article as a point in and of itself  Given the detail in the Wiki entry it would seem appropriate to include sources that discuss the reasons voters changed parties.  If the evidence is the majority didn't move for racial reasons then that undermines the significance of any southern strategy to appeal to racism elements.

Gerard Alexander: This is an opinion article by an academic researcher in the field. The article questions the GOP's need to court southern voters at any cost. Thus the same candidates who were fighting for civil rights in the late 50s and early to mid 60s were unlikely to quickly change their tack to appeal to a segment if the need wasn't as critical. This supports the claims by other sources that claim the GOP was race sensitive to the south but did not (at least at the presidential level) play to racist fears or make promises that would specifically target racists (the general thrust of some tellings of the southern strategy). Wallace voters ended up supporting Nixon, Reagan and other Republicans, but much more on the national GOP's terms than their own. The Republican Party proved to be the mountain to which the Deep South had to come, not the other way around. This explains why the second assumption is also wrong. Nixon made more symbolic than substantive accommodations to white Southerners. He enforced the Civil Rights Act and extended the Voting Rights Act. On school desegregation, he had to be prodded by the courts in some ways but went further than them in others: He supervised a desegregation of Deep South schools that had eluded his predecessors and then denied tax-exempt status to many private "desegregation academies" to which white Southerners tried to flee. Nixon also institutionalized affirmative action and set-asides for minorities in federal contracting.

Sean Trende: Author is opinion writer. Includes the claim that McGovern was too liberal to get strong southern support and hence Nixon got much of the vote by default. This again supports the notion that a southern strategy was one which avoided antagonizing rather than appealing to racial feelings.

Kevin Williamson: Another article supporting the theory that GOP successes in the south started prior to '68 and during a time when the GOP was pushing for more civil rights protections than the Democrats. This is yet another source that says the shift wasn't based on race. That doesn't prove no racist plans were laid but again, it supports the idea that the GOP was more likely to try to walk a fine line (not antagonize) vs appeal to. Note that in searching the reliable source archives I've found that NR is considered a reliable source even though it is a right leaning source.

Gerard Alexander: I have been accused of cherry picking from this article. However, if the wiki article is about presidential campaigns only then, no, no cherry picking here. The author (same as WP author above) says that the repubs in the south had to engage in nasty politics to win elections, that was political expedience. "The mythmakers typically draw on two types of evidence. First, they argue that the GOP deliberately crafted its core messages to accommodate Southern racists. Second, they find proof in the electoral pudding: the GOP captured the core of the Southern white backlash vote. But neither type of evidence is very persuasive. It is not at all clear that the GOP's policy positions are sugar-coated racist appeals. And election results show that the GOP became the South's dominant party in the least racist phase of the region's history, and got—and stays—that way as the party of the upwardly mobile, more socially conservative, openly patriotic middle-class, not of white solidarity." The bolded text (my emphasis) hits the key point. What ever the "southern strategy" was the key point of the strategy towards the south at the time, according to a number of authors, was not to appeal to racism. It seems instead they were racially cognizant and crafted a message not to offend. This also aligns with the previous comments that Nixon was not interested in offering much to southern politicians in exchange for support.

[Later in the original discussion Neutrality dispute] Here is a peer reviewed article that denounces the idea, http://miranda.revues.org/2243, Michelle Brattain, Foretting the South and the Southern Strategy (Published in Miranda, author is Department Chair of History at Georgia State University) Wrapped up in this narrative of party realignment is the most “modern” article of faith behind Southern exceptionalism: the Republican “Southern strategy.” Richard Nixon and his advisors, the story goes, stole a page from the Goldwater and Wallace playbooks and wooed white Southern voters into the Republican party with appeals to festering racial resentments. ... Thus contributors to The Myth of Southern Exceptionalism frequently turn their gaze elsewhere—reminding us not only that whites rioted against housing integration in Pennsylvania, but that segregation (of the Chinese) existed out west, and that NY prisons could be as brutal as Mississippi's notorious Parchman Farm. ... To those who are tempted to draw a straight line from Goldwater, through Wallace, to Nixon and beyond as evidence of Republicans manipulating white Southerners through carefully coded appeals to their racism, the new critics of Southern exceptionalism point to other, less-well-known forces working at the grassroots of Southern politics and culture—namely, moderation. This was true, as historian Joseph Crespino shows, even in the “most Southern place on earth”: Mississippi. ... By 1970, Lassiter argues, white Southerners preferred moderate policies and candidates who employed a language of abstract principles over open defiance and political extremists—a lesson that Nixon learned the hard way. One of the few “genuine” incarnations of the Southern strategy, Lassiter argues, was Nixon's decision in the 1970 midterm elections to lend his support to the Southern Republican candidates who represented the most extreme racial backlash to court-ordered school desegregation and busing. In theory (Kevin Phillip's theory to be precise) such a strategy would have hastened Southern partisan realignment. However, centrist Democrats triumphed over race-baiting Republicans in several key gubernatorial and Congressional elections. ... The national success of Nixon's appeal to middle-class whites who disdained social engineering in the name of racial equality is an extraordinarily important historical insight that challenges myths about American racial innocence. The similarity of white responses to busing across regions, for example, and the hypocrisy of Hubert Humphrey and other non-Southern Democratic liberals who resisted the application of integrationist remedies in their own backyards has newly exposed the emptiness of distinctions between de jure and de facto segregation (Crespino 178-180).

And another book that doesn't agree... Matthew Lassiter, "The Silent Majority" Princeton University Press. Page 232: "The three-way contest allowed Nixon to stake out the political center, by design and by default, as the respectable choice for middle-class voters who rejected the Great Society liberalism of Hubert Humphrey and the reactionary racial populism of George Wallace. In the first national election in which suburban residents constituted a plurality of the electorate, the Nixon campaign reached out to disaffected blue-collar Democrats but aimed primarily at white-collar Republicans and moderate swing voters in the metropolitan centers of the Sunbelt South and West and the upwardly mobile suburbs of the Midwest and Northeast. '''Nixon forfeited the African-American vote to the Democratic party and conceded the Deep South to the Wallace insurgency, in recognition that the Goldwater debacle of 1964 had reversed Republican trends in the high-growth states of the Outer South."

Melvin Small, "A Companion to Richard M. Nixon", John Wiley and Sons. This "Southern Strategy/civil-rights retreat" thesis became the first, and thus the orthodox, interpretation of the administration's policies. It would be sustained in the years immediately after Nixon left office, by two groups of writers. The first were those who used the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal as their points of reference for understanding Nixon's presidency. ... This claim that Nixon's policies rested on liberal words and conservative deeds was exactly the opposite of what later scholars would argue.

...

There was other evidence that Nixon was not very interested in civil rights - he devoted ten pages of his nearly 1,100-page memoir to the subject. Yet, what he wrote suggested statesmanship, not sacrificing civil-rights enforcement for southern votes. Nixon expressed "justifiable price" in "peacefully desegregating schools in the South".

Many of Nixon's advisers agreed and emphasized the desegregation of school in their memoirs. "Nixon inherited a dual school system declared unconstitutional fifteen years earlier," the speechwriter Raymond Price noted in "With Nixon, "He quietly engineered its dismantling." With respect to politics, Price reiterated a line used by Nixon, that the administration had no Southern Strategy but a national strategy that included the South and that it had desegregated schools "cooperatively rather than punitively". In Before the Fall, another speechwriter, William Safire, described the president's approach to desegregation as genuinely moderate and extremely skillful - a policy of "make-it-happen, but don't make it seam like Appomattox."

...

In Nixon Reconsidered, Joan Hoff warned against "aprincipled behavior by purely ambition-driven politicians" in the United State, with its toxic mix of powerful government and superficial "media politics." In this setting, Nixon was no worse and, according to Hoff, a bit better in terms of what he achieved than other recent chief executives. She even insisted that, "most of his lasting achievements are in domestic, rather than foreign, affairs." Civil rights was a case in point. In a rejoinder to the orthodox school, Hoff defended Nixon's record as superior to that of Dwight D. Eisenhower, JFK and LBJ during the 1950s and as better than any candidate he ran against, save Hubert Humphrey in 1968. She dismissed Nixon's Southern Strategy as "short-lived"; praised his effective, albeit, "reluctant," desegregation of Southern schools; noted that it was Nixon, not Kennedy or Johnson, who put the "bite" into affirmative action; and chronicled the administration's efforts to expand opportunities for women, especially with respect to employment, despite the fact that Nixon's support of the Equal Rights Amendment was never terribly strong.

[some important points here]

The scholarly literature on the Nixon administration and civil rights has evolved in two directions. At one level, early students of this presidency established an orthodox interpretation of his policies , one that stressed the administration's conservatism and shortcomings in pursuit of a "Southern Strategy." As time passed, and as documentary evidence became available and passions cooled, scholars revised this argument and depicted the Nixon administration's civil-rights policies as complex, in terms of motivation, accomplishment, and affect. At another level, understanding of specific aspects of Nixon's rights policies has deepened, as they became the subjects of articles, book chapters, and monographs. As a result, the historiography on this subject has reached a high level of maturity and sophistication. And, yet, much remains to be studied.

So what is the bar to show that the "southern strategy" was an appeal to racism? Is being anti-bussing racism or people who feel like they put their tax dollars into their local school and they don't want to pay for kids who's parents didn't pay the local taxes to attend nor do they want their kids sent to a distant school? If we think Nixon's plan was to use racist policies can we point to any under his watch? Part of the Southern Stategy wiki article talks about the impact of the "strategy". The sources I've cited generally disagree with the idea of a southern strategy. They don't argue that some things said or done by the administration were based on race but if that is the standard do we really think any campaign is 100% clear? They also argue that the overall objective was to play the middle ground. The articles are far stronger in their idea that it was the average southern voter who's views were better represented by the Republicans and less by an increasingly progressive Democratic party that was the real cause of the shift. Hence any discussion of the "Southern Strategy" would, if they are correct, reach the conclusion that the strategy had at best a minimal impact.

Regardless, there is a clear body of evidence that does not support the telling in the current Wiki. I'm not saying the wiki needs to be changed to this version of events, only that we have enough to state this version of events should be included. --Getoverpops (talk) 04:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the article should handle this topic in two parts. First, we should have the Nixon era information. That should be followed with information supporting the claims of later elections. For example, as I mentioned earlier, Atwater talks about the GOP NOT using a "southern strategy" during Regan's election because it wasn't needed. Regan's message was the same as he would deliver to the southern states, a message he was using previously to win the governorship in his state. The article suggests this was a "strategy" that was carried on past the 80s but offers no real evidence of such. Even the claims that Nixon used such a strategy are questionable. Not that such a strategy was considered but when Nixon's records are reviewed (see my references above) it's clear he was not bending over to appeal to the racist voters. Note, one reference did say that the GOP did try a few racist appeals during a mid-term election during the Nixon presidency.

Finally, it should be noted that we are talking about a political topic. What is the motive for many of those who promote the "GOP won the south through appeal to racism" narrative? It would seem obvious that they are trying to taint the political waters. It also appears that they have some success. This is perhaps one of the largest flaws of the article. It seems to take the most negative telling of the narrative as gospel without acknowledging the motives of those who are telling the tail. This is why it's important that the article give space to reliable sources which argue the scope and impact of the claimed southern strategy was not what popular mythology has created. One last thing, I would ask that so long as this is an on going conversation, SD and NS refrain from provocation such as removing the article dispute tag.Getoverpops (talk) 02:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The vast majority of these sources are useless opinion pieces that don't stand up to the peer reviewed sources that confirm the Southern Strategy was an appeal to racism instituted by Republicans. The rest of the sources have basically been copy and pasted from the previous discussion and have already been refuted. Getoverpops is just rehashing the same arguments a second time and, again, is cherry picking information from those sources. The information he bolded doesn't even support his claim that the Southern Strategy wasn't an appeal to racism. At most one source says that it wasn't "sugar coated" but that's not a denial of its existence. Furthermore, in my refutation I quoted multiple parts from each source that showed that the authors recognized the Southern Strategy's appeal to racist attitutdes which directly contradict the implications Getoverpops makes from his irrelevant quoted/bolded material. Read it here Scoobydunk (talk) 22:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This was the same opinion you had last time. It was wrong then and hasn't improved.  I find it questionable that you are so particular about the quality of my sources yet you are OK with many of the low quality sources otherwise used in the article.  That, like your unprovoked attacks on me when you randomly decided to join a conversation about an article for which you had never contributed does draw your motives into question.  Anyway, I already addressed your claims.  Some of the sources are peer reviewed.  Others are expert opinion (academics in the field).  While those expert views are to a lower standard than peer reviewed work, they are considered reliable sources by Wikipedia.  Furthermore, before you start crying out about "weight" remember that I only want to add a counter view to the article.  As such it does not require that I show that these sources have more weight, only that they have enough weight to be included as a counter view.  So I will leave with this question for you, why did you randomly pick this topic to be all concerned about after I contributed to it?  Seems odd does it not?Getoverpops (talk) 00:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My claims weren't "wrong" it was directly supported by the very same sources you tried to cherry pick from and I provided direct quotes to substantiate my claims. You didn't refute my claims before and you failed to do it again just now. Instead, all you continued to repeat was "that's certainly an opinion you have" which is not constructive and, like I've said before, you've yet to provide anything new to this discussion. Adding a "counter view" to the article requires it to be represented by equally reliable sources. Unfortunately for you, your peer reviewed sources don't support a "counter view" that the Southern Strategy wasn't racist and actually confirm that it was an appeal to racism. On top of that, minority opinions, even if they are represented in an equally strong source, have to merit enough weight before they can be included in the article. Also, when you go onto a noticeboard looking for input from uninvolved parties, then it should be expected that uninvolved parties will give you input. This shouldn't be too hard to figure out and it's perplexing that you keep referring to seeking outside assistance and receiving said assistance as "odd". It's not odd, it's exactly what you sought. I've also given feedback on other topics in this board which is what many editors do. Also, I never said that I was ok with the quality of sources on the article and think they should be changed to reference the strongest sources. I feel if the article was written from peer reviewed sources from the beginning, then we could avoid POV pushers trying to force their incorrect narrative based on op-eds, and it would save time for editors who actually do care about quality sources and making sure WP reflects those sources. Cheers.Scoobydunk (talk) 03:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually they were wrong. The sources I have added are split between experts in the field and peer reviewed sources.  That makes them sufficient for inclusion as a POV in the article.  You of course are welcome to beef up the sections that support the other views.  As for the rest of your complaint... well if you had ever edited the article before you started trolling my account via the neutrality request board perhaps I would give your opinion some more weight.  I have taken the feed back I received in both this discussion and the previous one and made chances to the article.  If you don't like the changes we can take it to the talk section.  If you revert without taking them to talk section it will be clear that you are trying to start an edit war and I will report it as such.  If you think my references are of insufficient weight then I would suggest we move that to the appropriate board.  Your appeal to the edit war notice is all the proof one needs to see that you have no intention to carry out an open and unbiased discussion of the topic.  Getoverpops (talk) 05:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Your sources consist of four opinion pieces and a book published by a biased source, the Claremont Institute. There is a case to be made for including a sentence stating that conservative writers have questioned whether Southern voters' shift to the Republican party was primarily motivated by racism, and attributing this idea to them. However, because of issues of weight, that's about all that should be included. I appreciate your efforts and I would have liked to have given you more, but without peer-reviewed journals or the like to cite, Wikipedia's voice cannot be used to express these points of view. I hope this won't discourage you from editing on other topics, where the kind of energy you've obviously put into this discussion could be very fruitful. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Dru yoga
Hi all. On Dru yoga there's a whole bunch of new editors making edits that are in my opinion "activist" in nature. The sources added are all cult awareness websites. I re-wrote the Dutch article, after checking on anonymous changes, and then the English one. An extra pair of eyes is always welcome. Honestly, it may just be a cult, though I'm not certain the reliable sources support that enough to put it in the article. Our new colleagues are becoming a bit of a nuisance, since they don't participate on the talk page. Being accused of acting for the Life Foundation I can live with/laugh at. Thanks, Sander1453 (talk) 10:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm approaching 3RR, not much I can do now. Will someone help? Thanks, Sander1453 (talk) 18:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi there, my name is Hayrettin and I am helping Sander1453 on this Dru Yoga page at the moment. We are clearly facing some issues with lots of multiple editors reverting our work over and over again. I am quite sure all of these accounts are managed by the same person. The guy is adding plenty of unreliable sources to justify negative content and constantly deleting neutral content to make the organisation look really awful. Even though I might agree on objectivity for some of the facts, this clearly seems like an attack. Waiting for an answer. Best, Hayrettin Van Aken (talk) 07:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm suspecting sockpuppetry too. As for spamming of activist sites and POV pushing: is it? Or are Hayrettin and I stubborn and unreasonable? Multiple issues and we really need the extra pair of eyes. Thanks, Sander1453 (talk) 08:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Contentwise resolved by Sammy1339, nice and short. Disruptive editing (imho) continues, by some of the same users, over here and on Dutch Wikipedia, where a CU found a positive match between four of them. Will file an SPI later today, depending: my fellow Dutch admin Natuur12 thinks it's for the stewards. Regards, Sander1453 (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * See nl:Overleg gebruiker:Greetjematsesas/blockmsg. I blocked a couple of those accounts over there after a CU confirmed that they are sockpuppets. Natuur12 (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Once the edit-warring is under control, the article needs reworking, maybe a complete rewrite. --Ronz (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. With any luck an editor who's actually into yoga. I think Hayrettin might just be that. With the socks blocked, can I call this one resolved? Sander1453 (talk) 22:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Ford Pinto
The Ford Pinto article has been the subject of a long-simmering dispute over the amount of weight to give a paper by an attorney who says that the Pinto's dangerous reputation is overblown (and how to interpret that paper, since there's some dispute over what it says and what that means.) There haven't been very many users involved (and most of them only edit the article sporadically), which has, I think, made it somewhat harder to reach a resolution, but you can see a lot of the older discussions on the talk page. Describing the whole controversy is complex, but mostly the issue is that the paper has not been mentioned in many reliable sources (and those that do often seem to refer to it in a way that I feel implies that it's a WP:FRINGE view.) Regardless, it has at times had an entire section of the article devoted to it, been given equal weight in the lead with all alternative views, and so on. The Pinto is a very famous case and has had a huge amount written about it from various perspectives, so I feel that all of this is giving WP:UNDUE weight to the opinions and interpretations of a single attorney. --Aquillion (talk) 07:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking at the listed sources I would say you have three that are really strong. Those are the academic articles/books that deal specifically with the car.  Some articles seem to mention the car out of hand but Birsch, Schwartz and Lee are really the strongest sources you have.  These are the peer reviewed sources I see on the list.  If you feel the editor is misusing the information in the article then I would go for that angle.  I don't think you could call any of those sources or their views fringe.  I would be more inclined to question Mother Jones as a source of reliable information since it appears they got a number of facts wrong.  However, since they were an early source on the subject and framed much of the debate it makes sense to quote them.  I see a number of parallels between what you are looking at and the article I've been reviewing.  Getoverpops (talk) 00:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Butcher_of_Gujarat dispute
There is a Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_21 discussion going on here there has been alleged canvassing ,edit warring and claims of WP:BLP violation as it redirects to Narendra Modi which in turn is rebutted by claims of WP:RNEUTRAL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

COI Draft Review Request
User:FacultiesIntact has asked me to review their Draft for the article Honeywell. Their Draft can be found here. They have a COI on the topic and thus would like outside review and implementation of the draft. I've looked it over and it looks fine to me. There has been a significant expansion of the history section and the various divisions of the company. While there has been some minor reformatting of the Environmental record and Criticism sections, no content appears to have been lost, so no issues regarding the COI there.

Can I get some confirmation from 1 or 2 other people that the draft looks good? Then i'll go ahead and implement it. Silver seren C 16:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Giuliano Mignini
A Wikipedia administrator inserted a fly-by POV tag into an article. I thought that the POV tag cast doubt on the factual accuracy of the article and so I objected to it. Another editor removed it. The administrator reinstated it, and so on, resulting in an edit war. I took the question of biased use of a POV tag to dispute resolution but that got nowhere because all concerned where attacking each other's POV (not surprisingly in my POV). My straightforward question is, can a POV tag be placed in an article without subtstantiation and, if disputed, for how long and under what circumstances may it remain there?

My question is a general one but should you want background information in this specific case then please see the Giuliano Mignini article, its recent history, and its associated talk page.

Thank you. I want to know. JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * POV tags are not supposed to be permanent, whoever places it should immediately post on the article's talk page explaining as to why they have posted it there, the tag should then be removed after a resolution is found. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
I am writing to complain about the lack of neutrality in this article:

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

I have posted extensive comments on the article's talk page detailing multiple instances of bias, lack of fairness, and lack of proportion in this piece, but so far, this locked page has not been revised.

I will not repeat all the points that I posted here:

Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

But the main point is this: A wide range of hostile opinions about the organization are quoted, especially in the introduction and the two concluding sections. There are virtually no counterbalancing opinions from outside the organization's leadership, even though it has many, many prominent members and supporters. Also, there is no section currently about the group's rescues of animals from roadside zoos and other sorry facilities where animals are abused incessantly. This is a topic that is far more central to the subject than much of what currently appears on the page. A section that explores the group's substantial impact on changing public opinion and the way that many companies conduct their business would also be extremely appropriate.

Please ensure that this article is brought in line with your standards of neutrality and fairness. 174.22.190.144 (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I think there may be some bias in the article but the main problem is not so much that as the fact that it is badly written and focuses excessively on the controversies surrounding the organization without giving a clear idea of what the organization actually does. This style can give a negative impression, since it leaves the reader feeling that the only thing notable about PETA is the controversy it has generated. Some of that is deserved, and many of the organization's foibles and hypocritical actions ought to be covered. On the other hand we don't need its opinion on Lady Gaga's dress and a million other minutiae. There is also some pointy original research: "Their modus operandi includes buying shares in target companies ..." (not well-sourced), "PETA has been criticized for aiming its message at children." (not sourced, and in context violates WP:SYNTH), "The ads featuring barely clad or naked women have appalled feminist animal rights advocates." (maybe true, but again unsourced OR, and this paragraph then goes into excessive detail about a couple specific controversial events, which is again SYNTH.) The "Positions" section gives undue weight to PETA's positions on shelters and omits mention of many other topics that belong there. (Minor point: it also mistakenly says that the Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty campaign is ongoing, which it isn't.) And generally there is a completely excessive use of quotes instead of secondary sources. So basically it's a total mess and needs an overhaul. To get it to comply with NPOV, the first place to start would be replacing most of the primary sources with reliable secondary sources, and then trying to look at how much weight neutral secondary sources give to various topics. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It isn't "locked." It is semi protected. And for good reason; nine admins have semiprotected it because of excess vandalism over the years. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Should headings maintain neutrality?
Folks from this noticeboard may want to add their two cents at. Thanks! Skyerise (talk) 16:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Specifically Talk:Indigo children. And see related discussions at Talk:Indigo children/Archive 1. Sundayclose (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If the section about claims of attributes by WP:Lunatic charlatans, and the mainstream scientific assessment that there is absolutely no evidence for those attributes (and a more more parsimonious explanation for why parents would want to believe their kids have those attributes), "claimed attributes" is a fairly neutral heading. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * As mentioned on the article Talk page, "claimed" is entirely appropriate for an article about children alleged to have paranormal powers, per WP:FRINGE guidelines regarding pseudoscience. Creation science, Parapsychology, Water memory, Holocaust denial, and Moon landing conspiracy theories all use the term "claim" dozens of times each. The argument that the word "claimed" is OK in the text but must be kept out of the headings is sadly misinformed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The section doesn't actually list any paranormal attributes though, just attributes that anyone could have. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Attributes that are no more common to purported indigo children than the rest of the population, or which have more parsimonious explanations (like, being raised by a parent who thinks that new-age-woo is more plausible than ADHD). Ian.thomson (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course they have to maintain neutrality; but it's important to understand what neutrality means in the context of WP:FRINGE topics like this one. Specifically, since the concept is universally rejected by the scientific community, NPOV requires that section headers (like everything else) be carefully worded to make it clear how much weight and credibility each position has among reliable sources. WP:CLAIM warns to be cautious about using those words because they call the subject's credibility into question; however, in contexts where the overwhelming majority of reliable sources agree that the subject lacks credibility, using words like 'claimed' in that context is not only appropriate but sometimes required (because other terms would be giving a fringe viewpoint undue weight.) --Aquillion (talk) 08:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

NPOV issues at Nina Rosenwald
A new editor, User:Gregcollins11, has been adding material to this article in what I believe is a violation of NPOV. I tried to explain on his talk page but to no avail. He's referring to two people, a medical doctor and a journalist who is also a senior distinguished fellow at Rosenwald's [{Gatestone Institute]] as "Practicing Muslim scholars and journalists affiliated with the Gatestone Institute" (at least he now makes that clear). However, it is still only 2 people, one not a scholar, and there is no evidence that Khaled Abu Toameh is a practising Muslim so this is a BLP violation. You can see at that he removed the fact that Toameh is a fellow at the GI and that Jasser (whose name he changed in the link so it's now red) received funds from GI. It's still better than his original edit, but as I seem to be the only person commenting and reverting this new editor, rather than edit again I'm bringing it here. Doug Weller (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Craig Unger
The section titled "Career" doesn't really discuss the subject's career, but rather a back-and-forth exchange (built on primary sources) between Craig Unger and Michael Isikoff regarding criticism and defense of actions George W. Bush may have taken in regards to the Saudi royal family around the time of 9/11. I'm hoping a fresh set of eyes can take a look at this section and find an appropriately worded title. Thanks! - Location (talk) 21:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

United States and state-sponsored terrorism
Contras are rebels not terrorists and want he TERM REBELS to be used for them further 1973 Chilean coup d'état is not terrorism but a coup.United States support to non-state terrorists has been prominent in Latin America, the Middle-East, and Southern Africa implies that all those mentioned in the article are terrorists which is wrong.Praguegirl (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The article does not say they were terrorists, merely that they used terrorist tactics, such as assassinations. TFD (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Ned Touchstone
I'm quite concerned about the article on Ned Touchstone. It cites no reliable sources at all, and contains a large number of statements that seem quite biased in favor of Touchstone, including that he published "the most detailed, fact-proven essay on the conspiracy that planned and hid the truth of Kennedy's murder in Dallas" and many similar, some of which seem to defend or explain away Touchstone's inflammatory views on race. Rewriting this article neutrally would require a fair amount of research, which I do not have time to do, unfortunately, so I am at a loss. Chick Bowen 22:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The obituary and the Institute for the Study of Academic Racism/Anti-Defamation League piece are likely reliable sources, but do not cite any specific statements. As you are the article's creator, I thought you should be aware of this thread. Thoughts? - Location (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Oral Roberts
An editor has argued for adding to the lead section of this article that Oral Roberts was seen as a "con man", based on a newspaper editorial that used that term. This article has been a subject of contention for a long time. Additional views about the lead, and perhaps about the rest of the article, would be helpful. See Talk:Oral Roberts. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I made some minor changes to cleanup the page and remove POV. The "con man" claim does not deserve to be included in the lead. It is sourced to a newspaper editorial and would violate WP:BLP. If the claim is to be included at all, further down the page, it needs to be verified in multiple reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the edits. I restored one small piece of that content, to correct a quote and to restore an item that I think is reasonably significant in his life story.  --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right, what you restored is notable. Page still needs some work. I've added it to my watch list and will try and make improvements if I can find the time. Best, Meatsgains (talk) 02:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The Feminism portal seems to brigading various suffrage articles with their sidebar
Sorry, if this is all done incorrectly, I've never had to come the the noticeboards before. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to cite specific users or just address the general nature of my concern. If I am supposed to cite specific users, I tried to read the instructions for doing so but don't really understand them. Help on this would be appreciated. I will be more than willing to bring this up to standards if it falls short.

I've notice across several women's suffrage articles (Women's suffrage, Women's suffrage in Switzerland, Women's suffrage in the United States) the Feminist Portal has attached their sidebar. While I can sympathize with the Feminist portal and what (I believe) they are doing, this seems entirely inappropriate for these articles. Perhaps I am wrong, and I hope the discussion of other Wikipedia editors will help resolve this, but it seems to me that any primarily historical article should not be linked in any way to a portal dealing with a political philosophy (another user used the term "ideology") that has obvious and inherent bias.

While I am not accusing members of the Feminist portal of exhibiting any such bias, my assertion is that linking this sidebar to Women's suffrage articles is no more appropriate than linking the Communism sidebar to these articles (while they are separate philosophies, both advocate for women's suffrage). In this, I mean that by including this sidebar in historical articles not directly related to Feminism (such as the history of Feminism itself, or the history of some particular Feminist theory) it colors the article in the same way that linking the Communist, Libertarian, or Anarchist sidebars would; i.e. it implies that the article is told from or related to a certain ideology or a particular political point of view. I believe if we allow the feminist sidebar on this article, we can only maintain WP:NPOV by adding all sidebars of all ideologies that advocate women's suffrage.

I discussed this with another user on the Women's suffrage talk page who effectively stone-walled me and engaged in a revert war until an admin showed up and basically decreed that the sidebar will remain a part of the article. If the community feels this is appropriate and I am being unreasonable, that's fine. I am only here because discussion on this issue seems to have been shut down entirely.

Thank you. A dc zero (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. Our article on feminism begins "Feminism is a range of movements and ideologies that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, cultural, personal, and social rights for women". Are you saying that women's suffrage is not related to the rights of women? Seems about as feminist as it gets? &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 00:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the point I'm trying to make is that Feminists may believe in Women's suffrage but not all those who believe in Women's suffrage (or any issue on Women's rights for that matter) identify with or agree with Feminism. I don't have to be a Christian to be a Monotheist, and it would be inappropriate to but a Christianity sidebar in Monotheism. This one reason why I disagree with the inclusion. The second is that (as mentioned) these are historical articles. Not ideological articles or articles on the history of an ideology. I find the sidebar inappropriate in these articles in the same way that I would find a Judaism portal sidebar inappropriate in Circumcision. An article about Circumcision may (and should) include any and all references to Judaism and it's role in the religion as appropriate but the article should be written from, or portrayed as being from a Jewish perspective. This seems to violate WP:NPOV. A dc zero (talk) 01:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not about ideology; it's about the subject. Feminism the subject is not something you "agree" or "disagree" with any more than you agree or disagree with "ethics" or "politics". The sidebar is about that subject, not feminists. The women's suffrage article is about the subject of women's suffrage, not people who "agree" with women's suffrage. If something has to do with the rights of women, it has to do with feminism per the definition of feminism, regardless of any particular ideologies you associate feminism with. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 02:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Suffrage seems to me like one of the most iconic and unambiguous elements of feminism. Rhoark (talk) 05:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree with the assessment that the presence of the Feminism sidebar in a handful of articles closely related to feminism means that feminists are "brigading" or pushing some political agenda on Wikipedia. The sidebar is a convenient list of links, and it quite rightly tells the reader that the topic is relevant to feminism. Binksternet (talk) 05:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a strange anti-feminism backlash in culture, social media and Wikipedia where some people talk as if it is a dirty word. The fight for suffrage is often seen as the beginning of the modern feminist movement and to think of these two efforts for women's rights to not have a natural connection or that a sidebar would affect the neutrality of the articles shows a poor understanding of the history of feminism. I encourage the OP to do a little more homework on Wikipedia on the effort to secure women's rights across the world. Liz  Read! Talk! 02:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The basic concept (don't put unrelated or peripherally-related sidebars in articles) is good, but in this particular case they are closely related, not unrelated, so the sidebars should stay. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

As an aside (since I think numerous people have covered how centrally feminism and woman's suffrage are connected), what do you mean by 'brigading?' I'm only familiar with the term in two contexts (I believe it's Reddit slang for when people are directed to another reddit or comment to spam it with votes, a common problem when dealing with controversy-heavy or politically-active subreddits; it might also be a reference to the Web brigades employed by Russian government?)  Either way it strikes me as a fairly accusatory way to frame a dispute over whether or not a sidebar belongs on an article, and I don't quite see how it applies. --Aquillion (talk) 08:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

POV tag restored on one article, added to a fork/split of it also
I will not be back here; but posting notice here of my restoration of illicitly-removed POV, ESSAY and SYNTH tags on Chinese Canadians in British Columbia, which were removed almost exactly a month after a non-consensus block was imposed on me for getting in the way of the OWNership and POV behaviour and content created by User:WhisperToMe; and I have added them to his 'new' split of it, Chinese Canadians in Greater Vancouver, which has all the same problems, which include systemic bias and the scholarly sources fallacy. I argued myself blue in the wiki-face trying to explain all that is wrong with his 'contributions' and his ongoing AGF attitude and got blocked for it by people who refused to read anything I had explained about the POV and SYNTH problems. It's not just these two articles either; he's created others with the same biased tone and soapbox agenda as spin-offs and also on parallel ones like Indo-Canadians in British Columbia and related articles.

He's in violation also of SYNTH and ESSAY and TRIVIA and OWN, but NPOV is policy and per its own wording is not negotiable. It's also laid out in WP:NPOV and WP:POV fork that using behavioural guidelines against editors frustrated by POV edit/content disputes is against policy but that's exactlywhat was done to me. The upshot is that the Wikipedian who created vast amounts of British Columbia content was blocked by a newbie int he subject area who did not want to be 'interfered with' and asked for me to be blocked without an ANI so he could 'get on with it'. No don't ask me for edit-links I've wasted too much of my life and energy pandering to instruction creepery and won't be back. but if there are responsible admins and editors out there capable of and willing to undertake reading the arguments since last fall on this page and others he's created (the Indo-Canadians one just one of many; he'd wanted to call it "Asian Indians" and argued against Canadian English irrespective of ENGVAR) then please do; I have no more time for this and was condemned for being 'controversial' and confrontational - but what else to do with lies and distortions and gamesmahship than confront it? Go along with it??

Talk:Chinese Canadians in British Columbia and various links in now-archived sections on my talkpage and around those of the "interfering" admins/editors can be found by reviewing my usercontributions; I will not name them as though they have a lot to do with giving his POV carte blanche as they have done, they each one refused to read anything I said, but listened to anything he said; and condemned me for the length of my talkpage items while ignoring thet length (and illogic and contrarian nature) of his, or of the NOR and RS discussion board 'rants' he engaged in whiel trying to end-run me and not have to address the issues of content I raised.

There was a lot he could have learned from me about BC history and about Chinese history in BC; instead he sought to ahve me blocked to protect thte POV content he was building, and has been allowed. Part of the problem here is also systemic bias as noted, and his own treatment of obscure academic opinions in the course of building POV essays. Note the difference between teh two "Hongcouver" sections on both pages; he may have amended mine, so go back into March to see what I had added to balance the biased, hate-mongering POV tract he composed using single-adjectives condeming the term and/or white people (he uses "White" which is against ENGVAR but he uses cherrypicked sources to do that).

I'm done, done, done; my block happened to end today, but I don't care; Wikipedia has shown itself inept and inadequate in policing its own policies, and too many rankly POV editors are free to game the system including blocking editors who point out their violations of policy.

Maybe there is one editor out there who will take me seriously instead of like the French knights in the Holy Grail, "blow snot in my general direction" as so many have done. Too many.

I should have posted the POV issue here long ago, long before an admin who wouldn't even research the background to the dispute singled me out as the problem without ever lifting a finger to understand or read up on the content.

Maybe one of you will. I doubt it, but I'm posting this as 'one last try' to see if there is any decency left here. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS has been used to condemn my responses to; but that essay doesn't mean that great wrongs should bd perpetrated much less mollycoddled and encouraged. There are other POV disputes out there I could have posted about in the past, I have never come here before with any; I dislike the wiki-bureaucracy, being so much victimized and harassed by it.

So many specific lines in WP:NPOV and WP:POV fork have been violated that it would take all day to write them out, nevefr mind find the diffs to demonstrate them; but my provision of cites and sources were all ignored too, and anything I said; so looking up diffs that will also be ignored seems pointless; read the Talk:Chinese Canadians in British Columbia talkpage and 'listen up'. If you don't, don't fire in my general direction, I don't care; but someone here should.Skookum1 (talk) 02:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

RFC regarding political positions
Unrelated to the immediately preceding section that I started, FYI, there's an RFC here about whether to summarize each present political position (of candidate Jeb Bush) before giving a chronological discussion of how that position may have evolved or changed over the years. I'm mentioning this RFC here because there are weighting issues, such as whether to give primary placement to views that are the most outdated.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Continuation of continuation of Southern strategy neutrality dispute
Getoverpops has recently returned from a one-month topic ban after failing to get consensus for proposed changes to Southern strategy aimed at discrediting the idea that the GOP made appeals to racism in order to win over Southern white voters who were disaffected by the civil rights movement. The relevant discussions are [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_51#Southern_Strategy_-_removal_of_sources_which_don.27t_support_opening_section. here] and here. After coming back from the break he has several more sources which may support his position. I'm trying to give the subject a fair treatment, however, it's just too much for me to read and I am not an expert. This could use more eyes. The affected articles are Southern strategy, Southernization, and Solid South. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you look you will see the issues in question are different then vs now. Previously, I was arguing against the overall SS premise.  However, I'm now asking about more specific changes that came to light as part of those discussions but were not the original focus.  That was a large part of the confusion in the first neutrality discussions.  The others were right, as I later admitted, to say that there was enough evidence that there were appeals to racism by the GOP in the south so we can't just say the entire view is wrong or in dispute.  However, what is in dispute, is the scope and impact of the SS.  The Solid South article specifically says the Southern Strategy was the reason for the GOP success in the region so it should both align with the Southern Strategy article and include references that both support and dispute that claim.  The Southernization article is related but not actually the same as the other two.  That is why I have pushed for you and others to discuss those changes on that article's Talk page.  Either way I would welcome more outside views.  I strongly feel the entire Southern Strategy article is heavily slanted in it's presentation and needs help.  Getoverpops (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC on the placement of GMO safety consensus - should it be located in the Controversy section?
Here is the RfC.  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   23:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

More input sought

 * I was looking at old discussion on the College_tuition_in_the_United_States talk page, and noticed this discussion, in which 3 editors, ElKevbo, 71.101.54.88, and Flyte35 all agreed that if credible sources could be found to support a claim that college loan forgiveness was not inflationary, it could be included in the article. However, one of the prior editors decided to refuse to abide by the community consensus, and it has created an edit war. The other 2 editors can not be reached: One is unregistered and the other is taking time off due to vandalism and ill will. The 3rd, remaining editor, Flyte35, decided to violate community consensus (with edits, such as this one), and thus when I arrived on the scene to edit, in accordance with the consensus previously reached, and when he (or she?) deleted the post, I marked it as vandalism, but tried to talk about it in the talk page. That did not work, so we are in need of your intervention.96.59.137.142 (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Procedural note. This IP has only made two edits: here and to WP:RSN. On top of other issues, this looks like forum-shopping. —C.Fred (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, Fred, My IP address is dynamic: I am not a newbie: I have made a few more than 2 edits. But, why is the number of edits an issue? Should not the merits of the complaints be the main issue?96.59.137.142 (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * With regard to the forum-shopping concern, was I not told by more experienced editors to come here? See the links above. Moreover, when consensus can not be reached, what do you suggest? Is this not the proper protocol to resolve disputes and get consensus when none exists?96.59.137.142 (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Having looked over the edit in question as well as the relevant discussion, I agree with Flyt35 that that text is unnecessary, poorly sourced and WP:UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * How many sources do you want? I found 4 sources, and 3 are very-credible... even the 4th one was cited in the NY Times. What more do you want? God, Himself/Herself to personally weigh in!?96.59.137.142 (talk) 16:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * My apologies, Fred: The link where I was asked to come to this page was not mentioned above. My bad - here it is: Per this suggestion, I am asking for help settling our dispute with regard both to the sources as well as the view, in general. OK, I've done what I was asked, and, moreover, what else would you suggest?96.59.137.142 (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Just to lay things out a little more succinctly, 's edits which OP has a problem with are:
 * "Undid revision 663776659 by 96.59.168.147 (talk) No, we've been over this before. Those are not policy recommendations to keep tuition from rising. Doesn't belong here." - Removed two recommendations which are not proposed solutions to the problem of increased tuition but rather advice for students on how to save money (attend a cheaper school, work part-time). I agree these should be removed here.
 * "→‎Recommendations: That's still wp:synth, and unnecessary to include anyway." - Removed a portion of the bulletpoint that starts with "The federal government should enact partial or total loan forgiveness for students who have taken out student loans...". The use of the Watts source does not appear to be SYNTH at all - in fact the usage of that source here is limited to a direct quote. The sentence that begins "Other advocates" references a Tumblr blog, and so whether it's synth or not is less important than its clear unreliability.
 * Yes, I was mistaken. The problem with the line was not that it was SYNTH; it was that it was an unreliable source. I discuss this in the talk section. Flyte35 (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * (a series of edits removing the Watts source) - If the reliability of the Watts source is what this hinges on, this should probably go to WP:RSN.
 * Done! At this link.96.59.141.200 (talk) 10:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The source is an amicus brief, which isn't good/neutral enough to make a definitive statement about the law, but seems perfectly appropriate for a "recommendations" section if it comes from a reliable source (the issuing individual/organization). So certainly the amicus briefs issued by, say, the Berkman Center, ACLU, or Stanford Law School are perspectives worth including in a section like this, but I frankly don't know about Watts.
 * As an additional point, I think this "recommendations" sections needs to do a much better job of attributing the recommendations in the article text. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 20:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

General question
Suppose Wikipedian "A" says that NPOV requires treating reliable sources according to their prominence, but Wikipedian "B" says that the degree of reliability should also impact how reliable sources are treated. What is the proper response to Wikipedian "B"?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Please note that in the context that Anything is asking this about, "prominence" means comparing two differing individual sources by their circulation and fame, on the one side, and reliability on the other. It does not mean anything about a preponderance of multiple sources. And the question is also not about whether the sources should appear at all, but about the proportion to which each source's opinion should be described within an article. And just to be clear, none of the sources that we're arguing about are particularly well informed, but the prominent one is inarguably prominent, and both have been deemed to be reliable as sources about their own opinion but not the subject. An analogous question: suppose Justin Bieber and an associate professor of mathematics state contradictory opinions about the existence of life on Mars. Both sources are published in ways we would normally consider reliable, and the mathematics one specifically and clearly refutes what Bieber has to say. Do we treat these sources according to their prominence? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What a ridiculous framing. In David's rendition, "Justin Bieber" is the full editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, who together have excellent academic and journalistic credentials, are veterans in the field with a couple Pulitzers between them, and are writing in the name of their publication, and the "associate professor of mathematics" is in fact a blogger who has no science credentials whatsoever, has very little experience, journalistic or otherwise, and is barely old enough to grow a freaking beard.


 * It's also not correct to say that WSJ is only being argued as "more prominent", as if it were a mere argument about circulation or readership; those aren't irrelevant, but the WSJ authors also have much stronger credentials pretty much any way you look at it. Also, when David suggests that one of these pieces is more "reliable" than the other, all he really means is that that's the source he agrees with and finds more persuasive.  That isn't what "reliability" means in the context of WP:RS and WP:IRS, AFAIK. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)   (talk)  (contribs) 11:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not see how the NY Mag piece should even be in the article. It looks to me like it is used simply as a way to call the WSJ piece "silly". It is not commenting on the issue, rather it is commenting on the comments about the issue. This is entirely too meta to be included in the article regardless of how "silly" the WSJ piece is. And silly or not what the WSJ, or any other major newspaper editorial board has to say, is a valid opinion to cite. I am also a bit concerned about 's ability to maintain an NPOV in this situation. The reason for this is the his comment "...insisting on adding a long paragraph based on a Wall Street Journal editorial to our article ..." [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:When_contact_changes_minds&diff=666111674&oldid=665955441] (emp. mine) . This declaration of ownership is in the same edit where he tries to justify exclusion of content because he says the Wall Street Journal is WP:FRINGE. The WSJ may have gone through the looking-glass in the last decade or so but it is still considered a respectable mainstream paper and calling it WP:FRINGE is not supportable. The [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=When_contact_changes_minds&oldid=667334579 current version of the article at this time] seems OK with the exception of the NY Magazine bit I noted above. J bh  Talk  14:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What a stupid misreading of my remark. Here "our" refers to all Wikipedia editors. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Not based on my reading of the conversation and I remind you to remain civil and strike your first sentence. Thank you. J bh  Talk  16:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If you apologize for your good-faith-violating misreading of my comment, I might consider apologizing for my unintended implication that the stupidity of your misreadng extended to you personally and not merely to that comment you wrote. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Conditional apologies. Wow! Great response! Based on this exchange my reading of your prior comments were correct you can not maintain an NPOV, you can not even engage with the issues I have raised. Next time try simply saying something like 'That is not what I meant by our.... I consider WSJ to be FRINGE because... and the NY Mag article should be in the article because...' That is how collaboration is done not by throwing off rude one line comments insulting an editor who you have never interacted with. So care to try that again or should we just continue being rude to one-another? J bh  Talk  17:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, since obviously the commentary above is based on the specific case, and others here may wonder, it is:Talk:When contact changes minds. In a nutshell, we have a case about a technical issue (a case of academic dishonesty) that has been used as the jumping-off point for at least one prominent editorial by a group with no particular expertise in this subject. Because of the lack of expertise, this editorial makes some obvious mistakes in its description of what happened and jumps to some unlikely conclusions about why it happened. We also have a reliable but less-prominently-published editorial pointing all of this out and offering a more likely explanation. Factchecker and friends want to use NPOV as a cudgel, to include these sources "in proportion to their prominence", which is to say to include much of the uninformed editorial but significantly cut back its refutation. Is this an appropriate reading of policy? Additionally, Factchecker seems to be unwilling to accept reasoned argument for why one source might be presenting a more accurate view of the case, instead repeatedly insisting that the only bases for choice among sources is prominence and mischaracterizing all argument to the contrary as being purely personal preference. Obviously, NPOV favors prominence and disallows personal preference, but does NPOV require us to blindly ignore all other characteristics of a source (such as how mistake-ridden it might be, how much sourced criticism it has come under, or how plausible it is) and use only prominence as the criterion when choosing editorial opinions to include in an article? —David Eppstein (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Just because you think the explanation in the NY Magazine blog is a "more likely explanation" does not make it so. My issue with the NY Mag piece is that it is an article about the WSJ piece and it seems to be used only to call the WSJ piece "silly". This is quite simply POV. If the article has something useful to say about the subject that is not covered elsewhere fine if not it should go. It would also be possible to use it in a section dedicated to the social and political fall-out of the misconduct but as a source for an inappropriate one-liner with no context it fails NPOV. J bh  Talk  17:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The useful parts of what it has to say, in my mind, are its pointing out the factual errors in the WSJ and its supplying a more likely hypothesis for why this paper was published. However, most of this has been repeatedly removed by Factchecker and company, in favor of leaving in the "general sillyness" quote which I agree is more purely opinion. That is to say, the reason it has no context is that the people who think it should be included have already selectively edited its inclusion to make it look like it has no context. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmmm.... Can you point me to a revision of the article which has what you think should be included? The WSJ article reads like two articles grafted together, one a commentary on the academic fraud (albeit from a layman's POV but it is a newspaper) and the other a right-wing rant. When I read the NYM piece I saw it as almost entirely a reaction to the 'right-wing rant' rather than the 'academic fraud' part of the WSG editorial. If the WSG piece is used for more than a brief quote the NYM piece is a good counter-balance. If only brief quotes are going to be used would you suggest a better on than the "sillyness" quote that would better show the essence of that piece? I think there is some nuance between why the article was published by Science and why the press and others latched on to the purported results. In my opinion that is pretty important. There is a huge difference between how right-wing ideologues, scientists and "normal" people consider science, evidence and the purpose and results of scientific investigation. This article is not the place to go into that in detail but that difference needs to be recognized when we consider media reactions and how to balance viewpoints. It is key to remember that much of the population does not understand science, and so many people now think that ideology trumps facts that they are starting to make it so. Where we are writing about public reactions those people's point of view matters too.  J bh  Talk  19:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This diff gives my preference for what to include from the NY Magazine. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I see no real problem with that version of the paragraph. I think it would be better if there were a footnote which gives at least one of the "factual errors" to avoid the problem of a vague assertion and to give a reader some idea of the error(s). For instance is it a technical point easy to misunderstand or something blatant, possibly for the purposes of framing the issue. I am not familiar enough with the material to judge 'facts' so I am just the type of casual reader who would look as that sentence and say 'such as?' so I think a very brief footnote would help others as well. J bh  Talk  21:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As I recall, there was only one minor factual error raised, which Singal cites and then proceeds to assert as the basis for non sequitur conclusions, presumably because he either has no clue what he's talking about or is not skilled at logical reasoning. (Questionable reasoning, innuendo and glib sarcasm can be found throughout the piece—always hallmarks of good science writing amirite?)
 * So as an immediate matter, the prose "pointing out factual errors in the Wall Street Journal" has got to be stricken as POV-pushing and unsupported
 * And, it's simply false to say I've insisted on excluding the Singal piece. I merely objected to giving it 4x as much weight as the WSJ ed board piece, without any basis whatsoever.
 * Only after David and/or Nomo started trimming the WSJ prose and expanding the Singal prose did I raise the objection that the WSJ ed board piece is actually entitled to more weight than the Singal blog piece, and even then I didn't actually propose eliminating the Singal prose, but I was merely raising the weight issue to point out that there was zero justification for amplifying Singal while suppressing WSJ ed board, solely on the basis of the views and personal preferences of WP editors.
 * Anyway, just to clear things up, Jesse Singal is no John Rennie, competently explaining scientific topics to the masses. He's every bit the partisan hack the WSJ eds are accused of being, and has extremely weak credentials relative to them.  He's being presented as an expert, but he's not.  Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)   (talk)  (contribs) 23:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Then I propose the text columnist Jesse Singal responded, pointing out factual errors in the Wall Street Journal and theorizing instead that the main reason for the article's publication was its contradiction of prior research. It is a simple counter-point that does not lead the reader to ask an unanswered 'such as?' and does not implicitly frame the WSJ article as defective. I would, however, support re-addition of the stricken text, using error or errors as appropriate, if a factual error(s) can be articulated in a footnote. J bh  Talk  11:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If two sources simply conflict, editors shouldn't fill in the blanks; however, if a source explicitly criticizes another source, that's eligible for inclusion in the article. Whether or not to do so is up to editors' judgement of the sources' relative merits in terms of expertise, credentials, and reasoning. Rhoark (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

History of Kombucha = POV?
I sourced the following:
 * In 220 BC, during the Tsing Dynasty, the tea was valued as an energizing and detoxifying agent.

to this reference: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0963996900000673

which states:
 * It also originated in China where the "Divine Che" was prized 220 BC during the Tsin Dynasty for its detoxifying and energizing properties (Roche, 1998).

another review that says the same thing is http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1541-4337.12073/full

which states:
 * Kombucha originated in northeast China (Manchuria) where it was prized during the Tsin Dynasty (“Ling Chi”), about 220 B.C., for its detoxifying and energizing properties.

It was reverted as being a violation of NPOV. I wanted to get the views of a wider group of editors. Thanks,   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   21:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The source prefaces this entire section by stating "When we study the development of civilization and the role of food and folk medicine, we often discover that many foods and beverages were used for their assumed beneficial effects on health" (my bold). The source is not WP:MEDRS for health claims and indeed the concept of "detoxification" is pseudoscientific. Thus it needs to be made clear these assumed medicinal properties were merely thoughts of a past age, rather than true objective properties which were at that time recognized. Something like: "In 220 BC, during the Tsing Dynasty, the tea was thought to have medicinal properties". Alexbrn (talk) 21:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * How does During the Tsing Dynasty..." not serve this exact purpose: it needs to be made clear these assumed medicinal properties were merely thoughts of a past age?    petrarchan47  คุ  ก   21:47, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Then you'd have no objection changing "valued as" to "thought to be" just to made it extra clear it's their assumption? Alexbrn (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Alexbrn here and also the comments at the article Talk page here that this edit Alex made, changing the wording to the tea was highly valued because it was thought to be an "energizing" and "detoxifying" agent solves the problem. 02:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That's almost exactly what I wrote, but it was called POV, and changed to "the tea was thought to have medicinal properties" by Alexbrn. My question is whether the claim of POV and his version represents a correct read of the guidelines. I got an edit warring notice for reverting his text once.
 * To say the the "Tsing Dynasty valued the drink as ..." is the exact same thing as saying it was "thought to be ..." except that we are loosing some context - both sources say it was "prized" - that indicates a certain value placed on the drink that is missing in the toned down "thought to be". Why not stick to the source?
 * Alex also claims the source is not MEDRS for health claims. This is not a health claim; it is a claim about history. Is it true that historical claims need MEDRS sources?   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   05:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a subtle but important distinction. Writing that kombucha was "valued as" a detox agent implied it actually was one; by re-wording we can rule out that untoward implication. Anyway, fixed now. Alexbrn (talk) 06:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with above consensus. Tweaking the wording does not significantly alter the content and satisfies all parties. DaltonCastle (talk) 00:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Koch Industries brief, in-text description in Americans for Prosperity
Thank you for the comments and advice. Hugh (talk) 05:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Current article content of the Founding and growth section of article Americans for Prosperity :

"The founding of AFP was funded by businessmen and philanthropist brothers David H. Koch and Charles Koch of Koch Industries."

(Supported by multiple, highly reliable source references.)

Proposed additional clause shown in bold:

"The founding of AFP was funded by businessmen and philanthropist brothers David H. Koch and Charles Koch of Koch Industries, the largest privately held energy company in the U.S."

Supported by reference already in the article (no new refs needed):


 * 1)  emphasis added

Talk page discussion: Koch Industries is the largest privately held energy company in the US, owned by the founders of the subject of this article

Our manual of style at WP:LINKSTYLE says "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so", "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence," and "Don't assume that readers will be able to access a link at all."

Koch Industries is not a household word. Every reliable source that mentions Koch Industries includes at least a few words of description, and usually more, see for example:



Multiple reliable sources even report one of the owners of Koch Industries stating the obscurity of Koch Industries, see for example:



Summarizing arguments in opposition of inclusion: Some editors seem to be invoking WP:UNDUE in support of the position that while we may mention in the article that David and Charles Koch, the founders of the subject of the article, are from Koch Industries, it is non-neutral to offer our readers any context, even to the extent of including a very few neutral words on first mention saying what Koch Industries is, and that the appropriate level of detail with respect to the nature of Koch Industries is none. Some editors express the view that a wikilink is sufficient context.

Collaborative work-shopping on the consensus wording of a brief, neutral, in-text definition of Koch Industries is currently stymied by a misapplication of WP:NPOV to frustrate compliance with our manual of style WP:LINKSTYLE and clarity.

I am seeking comment from editors experienced with WP:NPOV issues, less on the precise wording, but rather on whether:


 * 1) may WP:NPOV be used to over-ride our manual of style WP:LINKSTYLE,
 * 2) may WP:NPOV be used to reduce the provided context of a newly introduced proper noun to zero, and
 * 3) may WP:NPOV be used to support the view that a wikilink is sufficient context of a newly introduced proper noun.

Thank you for your attention. Hugh (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Why are we at the noticeboards? I thought this was being actively discussed by multiple editors at the article talk page. ? Capitalismojo (talk) 20:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is already being discussed on the talk page, and a consensus has been reached, Hugh opening this discussion might be construed as WP:FORUMSHOP. Or perhaps WP:IDONTHEAR. It definitely goes against consensus building. He's been blocked several times in the last few months for disruptive editing, at least once on this article, and continues to ignore consensus on the talk page. In addition,  has opened a discussion on ANI. Suggest this discussion be closed until at least the ANI discussion is closed. Onel5969 (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Hugh cannot accuse anyone of NPOV issues on these pages. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed -- this is being discussed on the talk page. Multiple editors have reached a consensus on the matter.  Cheers,  Comatmebro  ~Come at me~ 17:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Content-policy noticeboards are here for when someone thinks local consensus has gotten it wrong. ANI is for behavior. I see nothing wrong with raising the question here at this time.
 * NPOV is a strong policy. I'd say not as strong as WP:BLP or WP:COPY, but it certainly overrides the manual of style. That said, UNDUE is misapplied, unless there is a significant viewpoint that holds the Koch brothers are actually not related to Koch Industries. I think what people have in mind is WP:ONUS to provide a reason for inclusion. If the manual of style makes a recommendation for inclusion, that could be such a reason. Rhoark (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. Yes, NPOV is strong. Please consider an alternative but more neutral clause such as "a large multinational corporation." May NPOV be used to exclude ANY brief, in-text, neutral, characterization of an uncommon proper noun in a Wikipedia article? Perhaps with edit summaries of the sense of "too much detail" or "off-topic"? In other words, is it ever correct to invoke NPOV to reduce the context of a newly introduced, generally unfamiliar proper noun to zero? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 19:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC) In other other words, can the due weight of context of a newly-introduced, demonstrably generally unfamiliar proper noun be none? Thanks. Hugh (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, - I'm not actually sure that your comment regarding policy noticeboards is an accurate assessment in this instance. First, this noticeboard says nothing of that sort; second, it ignores, or actually seems to contradict WP:FORUMSHOP. Not only has HughD inserted this discussion here, simply due to the fact that he did not like the overwhelming consensus on the talk page (consensus which he has, and is continuing, to ignore), but he's placed similar discussions on other noticeboards, as well as ANI. Onel5969 (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The only source that holds the view that Koch Industries is independent of Americans for Prosperity is a spokesperson from Koch Industries, a minority viewpoint not widely held, but included in the article. You suggested MOS might be used to support inclusion, might a preponderance of RS also be used? In this case, as mentioned above, every reliable source that mentions Koch Industries recognizes it as generally unfamiliar to their readership and includes at least a few words of description, and usually more. Can we do the same? We are encourage to provide sufficient context for clarity. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 19:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Instead of explaining Koch Industries, we should drop it from that sentence. Isn't a violation of some guideline, perhaps WP:COATRACK, to use term B to explain term A, use term C to explain term B, etc.  That being said, I don't think  intended to be disruptive in bringing the matter here, even though he is the only editor commenting on the talk page who agrees with his argument.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The first part, the on-topic part, of your comment is not entirely clear to me. You seem to be defending the position that the appropriate weight of a brief, in-text background definition of Koch Industries, no matter how neutral, is none? A new, generally unfamiliar proper noun may be introduced into a Wikipedia article, with no context? A wikilink is sufficient? Hugh (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see a problem with including it in the article, but you should ask yourself "how does this improve the article?". On the surface, it seems an unnecessary addition to the article. However, if you can find a source that attributes part of the success of the AFP to the size/power/success of its backing companies, then the inclusion would have some relevance. I haven't read through the whole article or all the links given here, but if you can find a reliable sources that gives significance to the size of its backers, then it should be included in the article.Scoobydunk (talk) 20:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. To me it is very obvious that including a brief description of Koch Industries improves the Americans for Prosperity article. In support of please note that almost every reliable source that mentions Americans for Prosperity also mentions the Kochs and often mentions Koch Industries, and that the editors and authors of every reliable source that mentions Koch Industries found that their treatment was improved by including a brief description. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I suggest creating a distinct subsection of the article that neutrally but explicitly treats the apparently controversial relationship or lack of relationship between these organizations. That would be better than lots of MOS-based proxy disputes all over the article. Rhoark (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Proxy dispute. That is helpful; reflecting, you are right. The article until recently included a couple of sentences of reliable sources explicitly commenting on the obvious correspondence between some of the policy agenda of Americans for Prosperity and the financial bottom line of Koch Industries. Thank you for your advice. Hugh (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed in numerous sections on the talk page. Other articles regarding advocacy groups include mentions of their donor base, which was agreed to BY CONSENSUS, on the article's talk page. Numerous times. HughD has attempted to insert his non-neutral POV frequently, and is still currently doing so, in spite of consensus. Regardless of that, Koch Industries, as Hugh's own source points out, IS NOT A FUNDER of this organization.  According to HughD's source, David Koch is. And mentioning him is perfectly all right.  HughD's own quote shows the bootstrapping effort to get Koch Industries into the article.  It's not even a direct bootstrap, but through Charles Koch. Further, HughD's own source includes a table of backers for AFP, of which Koch Industries is included. Onel5969 (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, if people wanted to know more about the Koch Industries page, they can read about it there. The content proposed to be added does not speak directly about the organization Americans for Prosperity. While the Koch brothers maybe part of the organization, the company Koch Industries are not. Therefore I agree with on his assessment that additional information about the Koch brothers, and their companies in this article would fall under WP:COATRACK.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * A wl is enough context for a newly-introduced, generally unfamiliar proper noun? What do you take from WP:LINKSTYLE? Hugh (talk) 23:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Obvious coatrack. Even without the issue of Koch Industries and David Koch not being the same thing, clearly the choice of "...the largest privately held energy company in the U.S." and not "...the largest privately held paper manufacturer in the U.S." (Unless I got my numbers wrong in my quick search. both are true statements), is clearly designed to put Americans for Prosperity in a particular light. And mentioning the some supporters of a political organization will gain financially if the organization achieves its goals clearly fails NPOV. Name a political organization that accepts donations where this is not true. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Guy Macon. Yes this is becoming more obviously Coatracking. This user is continuing to turn this into an attack page. And will try every possible means to push their agenda. I guess I'll see you all on the next noticeboard! DaltonCastle (talk) 02:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

TransPerfect
Hi all, Please forgive me if this is not the right place for this question. I'm not that experienced in the Neutral POV rules and I've come here to ask for information after not finding what I wanted to know on the Help pages.
 * What are the rules in a case where a company is infamous in the business for treating its employees and contractors badly, but every published source is just a business piece? I am talking about TransPerfect, a major translation company, which frankly I know little about. I recently encountered a large group of translators and interpreters who were all apoplectic about TransPerfect's being invited to a conference. Apparently the company is notorious among translators. Curious about the reason for that, I searched for TransPerfect online and found four kinds of posts: news articles about the company's financial success and a couple about the current lawsuit between its co-CEOs; pages published by the company; and pieces by professional translators raging about the company, mostly on blogs.


 * On the first ten pages of Google, there was not one example of a translator who had a good word to say for the company; every post from a translator who had worked for TransPerfect was furiously negative, except on the reviews site Glassdoor. Two blogs were specifically devoted to giving examples of TransPerfect's mistreatment of its workers. (According to several of these translator blogs, the company pays sockpuppets to post glowing reviews, many in bad English.) It was also noted on several blogs that TransPerfect has been banned from the professional translators' web marketplace ProZ because of its ill-treatment of translators and that the initial ban was actually extended to a wider ban. I can't verify this as ProZ is subscription-only.


 * Several people on the TransPerfect talk page mention that the page seems to be written as a promotion for TransPerfect.


 * Under the circumstances, it seems non-neutral that the article contains no criticism whatsoever of the company. But all the criticism I saw comes from blogs and translators' group sites. So I am just curious: does a page like this have to be left pro-company until some news organization decides to investigate it (which several people mentioned would be a juicy article)? I'm sure other Wiki editors have come across business puffery from companies that treat their employees badly. Is there a policy about this aspect of business pages? If there isn't, doesn't that mean it's not really neutral?


 * Thanks for any answers. Listed below are the only translators' posts about TransPerfect within first ten pages of Google, all strongly negative. Except on Glassdoor, there were no positive reviews of TransPerfect from translators. Evangeline (talk) 06:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Translation Ethics "is a translators' group blog and Facebook group created to name and shame bad practises within the translation industry, low or late payers, unethical and unprofessional behaviour"]
 * No Peanuts! for Translators is a group blog promoting fair practices and pay for professional translators and interpreters. There were several negative posts on Transperfect, including: "Who are you calling a one-percenter?" and "Here's where the money goes that they're not paying you"
 * Transperfect Translations Concerns
 * Segno di Caino
 * Yelp, Transperfect
 * Scam.com "Is TransPerfect a scam?"
 * Transperfectnot


 * Translation Musings "Transperfect co-CEOs warned to make peace or else" An article about a current lawsuit
 * BizJournals "Expletive-laden emails"


 * This is a reviews site with both positive and negative reviews of TransPerfect:

http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/TransPerfect-Reviews-E32824.htm


 * This seems more of an issue for the reliable source noticeboards and the few sources I've checked show no editorial oversight whatsoever. So, in terms of NPOV, the Wikipedia page should represent what reliable sources have to say and a bunch of criticisms from open forums do not count as reliable sources. Therefore, there's no reason to include "negative" information, since it's not discussed amongst reliable sources.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Edward Snowden
Edward Snowden could use more eyes. There is an longstanding, ongoing dispute scattered across many discussions about whether the lead section is neutral and what specific material should be included or excluded. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Navajo Generating Station, Kayenta Mine
I hope there are some knowledgeable editors here who are willing to have a look at these two articles, which read like promotional pieces and have, besides tone, other serious problems with sourcing, much of which is from primary or otherwise associated/COI sources. Have a look at the history. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

IDF
The Israel Defense Forces article is bias and not neutral because it focuses on positive sides of the topic .To ensure the article is neutral i added links to other articles that are directly related to the subject .These links have been removed. the diff is : Line 703:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tariq Fadel (talk • contribs) 06:25, 25 June 2015
 * Massacres_committed_by_Israel
 * Muhammad al-Durrah incident
 * 2014 Gaza war beach bombing incidents
 * Looking over the pages of various military organizations, it seems to be standard practice to list major wars or campaigns they have been involved in, and endemic problems or controversies like United States military veteran suicide, but not controversies or scandals pertaining to isolated incidents. Those would presumably be linked from articles with a narrower scope around the particular battles. Rhoark (talk) 05:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

SEDAI

 * - PRODed
 * -- at AfD Articles for deletion/Discrimination in education in Norway
 * -- at AfD Articles for deletion/Discrimination in education


 * on one side we seem to have pro-SEDAI campaigners
 * (note, account was formerly named "Sedai2014"
 * please note Sockpuppet investigations/Sedai2014
 * please note Sockpuppet investigations/Sedai2014
 * please note Sockpuppet investigations/Sedai2014
 * please note Sockpuppet investigations/Sedai2014


 * on another side we have two users who showed up recently related to those articles:
 * please note: Sockpuppet investigations/Jonh-Los
 * please note: Sockpuppet investigations/Jonh-Los
 * please note: Sockpuppet investigations/Jonh-Los

So... there is apparently a group called Stop Educational Discrimination Against Iranians (SEDAI) and they have come to Wikipedia to advocate with regard to their issue. , have been trying to work with them. I've also left messages for all the editors listed above that Wikipedia is not a place for SOAPBOXing or campaigns of any kind. I just wanted to make sure the wider community is aware of this nest of advocacy and to get more eyes on the articles and deletion discussions, and make sure the people listed above can come here and get wider community feedback - this isn't personal. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 02:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

UNHRC's rebuttal of the Secretary General's (Palmer) report included in Gaza Flotilla Raid lead
There is a disagreement as to whether the the UNHRC's rebuttal of the Report of the Secretary-General’s Panel of Inquiry (the Palmer Report) on the Gaza Flotilla Raid should be removed from the lead.

Currently the UNHRC's rebuttal (http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?LangID=E&NewsID=11363 - note that the term "UN Independent Experts" is how the UNHRC describes individuals working on its behalf) is included as a rebuttal of the Secretary-General's Panel of Inquiry. However rebuttals of the UNHRC's report (from the United States and the European Union) have all been removed from the lead leaving a situation in which one "side" is permitted to have rebuttals in the lead, and the other is not. It is my opinion that all rebuttals should be moved to the relevant body paragraphs as they clutter up the lead, but to have rebuttals of one report and not the other in the lead is POV. Drsmoo (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * To the other editors. The statement under question is the following:
 * "The UNHRC later also set up a panel of five human rights experts to examine the conclusions of the Palmer report. The panel stated that Israel's blockade of Gaza amounted to collective punishment and was unlawful."
 * There is a discussion about this here. The RfC which discussed the earlier inclusion of EU/US role is here. My own view is stated in the discussion there, but I will repeat it here for completeness:
 * The statement is by five experts, the special rapporteurs. They are called "UN independent experts" because they are independent of governments. Moreover, their opinion on this matter (that the blockade was illegal) is absolutely standard, all the way from the Red Cross to the European Union. See the lead for the Blockade of the Gaza Strip, last paragraph. By contrast the EU/US statement was simply a political response by various governments to the UNHRC report, which was just weasel words, and it did not even include the reactions of the 30 supporting countries (the report passed 30-1, the US was the 1, some of the EU countries abstained.). It is simply improper to link the two as if they are somehow comparable. WP:NPOV does not mean false balance. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 16:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * For the sake of clarification, the "independent experts" are working on behalf on the UNHRC. Their rebuttal of the Palmer report is the UNHRC's rebuttal of the Palmer report, which has remained in the lead while the US/EU rebuttals have been removed. I would also advise Kingsindian to refer to the relevant article Legal_assessments_of_the_Gaza_flotilla_raid as most (or at least a substantial number of) law experts have described the blockade as legal. (That is just an aside, and not relevant to keeping the lead neutral, I am also aware that wikipedia articles are not reliable sources.) I'm not sure why Kingsindian is going with the argument that because he favors a particular point of view, that the article's lead should as well. Drsmoo (talk) 04:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Detroit Public Schools and University Prep High School
On the talk page I found Talk:Detroit_Public_Schools where an IP editor believes that the section on University Prep High School in the article Detroit Public Schools "reads as an ad". He made it back in 2013 and maybe things changed since then, but it would be nice if somebody can review it.

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 05:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Countries in Europe
Hello all, There's a disagreement about whether our article on Kosovo belongs in Category:Countries in Europe. Like most Kosovo NPOV problems, the usual people on each side have said their piece and we've ground to a halt. Outside views would be very welcome. Any suggestions? bobrayner (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The status of Kosovo is a hot topic. Bobrainer has been for long time a partisan promoter of Kosovo independence on Wikipedia articles and his intentional unwillingness to understand the complexity is disruptive.  He behaves as if he is unaware of all, and he finds one source treating Kosovo as independent country and thinks it should be accepted as universal truth.  Obviously WP:UNDUE applies, cause roughly half of countries of the world recognized Kosovo independence, the other half didn't, some organisations accepted Kosovo, some didnt.  Bobrainer is an extremely problematic editor on Kosovo-related topics because he always does its best to present the pro-independence POV and ignore the other view or even the complexity of the issue. FkpCascais (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this says more about you than about me:
 * ...and so on. Let's try to avoid personal attacks, and stick to the point, please. Should our article on Kosovo be in Category:Countries in Europe? bobrayner (talk) 13:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Why are you mixing a comment I made long time ago to an editor who came to my talk-page promoting Greater Albania and I made fun of him? Do you personaly feel involved in it? (The second one you posted here, the first and third were indeed directed to you)FkpCascais (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the discussion you removed that comment from and you didn't even participated in it, the discussion was only between me and the other user. You wanted to mislead others here that I that I attacked you, such  low punch on your behalve, shame on you. FkpCascais (talk) 13:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's try to avoid personal attacks, and stick to the point, please. Should our article on Kosovo be in Category:Countries in Europe? Uninvolved editors would be welcome. bobrayner (talk) 14:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Until there's no longer a dispute over Kosovo's status either way, it shouldn't be placed in the category-in-question. by GoodDay. But i guess that you will ignore this outsider's observation, as you dont like it. Maybe it is time for you to drop the subject and leave. #JustSaying...-- Ąnαșταη  ( ταlκ )  15:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello Anastan! I'm glad you found time to comment.
 * You've been insisting that there are many reliable sources which say Kosovo isn't a country in Europe. If you'd like to retain some credibility, you really ought to provide those sources. Perhaps that's a higher priority than cherrypicking one comment which suits your current position. bobrayner (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I will, but on the relevant page, where you should be too. I could guess that you will mention "cherrypicking" for a comment that does not suit your current position, and actually is a . uninvolved editor's comment. -- Ąnαșταη  ( ταlκ )  16:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Since I have played a large part in the discussion and the editing, it is only right I state my case for outsiders. We know that there are sources that call Kosovo "a country" as it is recognised by over 50% of states. In fact many entities are called "countries" in many reliable sources such as the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic and Somaliland but the general pattern is that where sovereignty is disputed by the entity from which one is breaking away, these are not included in their respective "countries in" category. To date, nobody has provided an argument as to why Kosovo deserves an accolade denied to Republic of China which was before 1971 on the UN Security Council, and the State of Palestine which has 135 recognitions, a number I personally predict Kosovo will not reach given the gradual slowdown in incoming recognitions since 2008 (as with Libya, it would need pro-west revolutions to take place in dozens of countries before this became a reality). That summarises my view. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You've been insisting that there are many reliable sources which say Kosovo isn't a country in Europe. If you'd like to retain some credibility, you really ought to provide those sources. Perhaps that's a higher priority than cherrypicking one comment which suits your current position. bobrayner (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I will, but on the relevant page, where you should be too. I could guess that you will mention "cherrypicking" for a comment that does not suit your current position, and actually is a . uninvolved editor's comment. -- Ąnαșταη  ( ταlκ )  16:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Since I have played a large part in the discussion and the editing, it is only right I state my case for outsiders. We know that there are sources that call Kosovo "a country" as it is recognised by over 50% of states. In fact many entities are called "countries" in many reliable sources such as the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic and Somaliland but the general pattern is that where sovereignty is disputed by the entity from which one is breaking away, these are not included in their respective "countries in" category. To date, nobody has provided an argument as to why Kosovo deserves an accolade denied to Republic of China which was before 1971 on the UN Security Council, and the State of Palestine which has 135 recognitions, a number I personally predict Kosovo will not reach given the gradual slowdown in incoming recognitions since 2008 (as with Libya, it would need pro-west revolutions to take place in dozens of countries before this became a reality). That summarises my view. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Kosovo's inclusion in Category:Countries in Europe being in violation of NPOV. Many editors aspire to elevate Kosovo's independence status to equal with Romania or Germany, but that category is not the place to begin. If we cannot agree that the opening line should be "Kosovo is a country" for any reason then it is illogical to follow suit with other listings. For example, attempting an indirect precedent on a category page is like moving Kosovo from the second list to the first at Template:Vehicle registration plates of Europe. It would be pointless to do that unless you moved them all and abolished the "States with limited recognition" cell. --Vrhunski (talk) 00:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, Vrhunski. I notice that (a) this is the first time you've ever edited a noticeboard, (b) this is your first edit in two months, and (c) this topic area has long had problems with sockpuppets and onsite & offsite canvassing. What brings you here? bobrayner (talk) 20:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am free to edit where I so choose, and locating this discussion was not difficult since it is hardly obscure. You sought opinions from uninvolved editors and I gave you one, though clearly you do not appreciate it. If you suspect sockpuppetry, be my guest and do the honours of reporting me. Had I been one of those to have edited here then I could have extended my "original comment" with the points I raised. If my "other account" has not been used on this noticeboard then I am not in any contravention by editing here, right? As for what I have been doing these past two months or even past two years, the answer is none of your business. In the meantime, unless you can prove the rest of us wrong in our observations I suggest you keep your eyes and ears open, and you mouth firmly shut!! :) That way you might learn something :) Thank you! --Vrhunski (talk) 22:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In other news: Anastan has been insisting that there are many reliable sources which say Kosovo isn't a country in Europe. Anastan still hasn't provided any sources. Can Anastan provide these sources, or is it just another sleight-of-hand? bobrayner (talk) 20:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That comment has now become stale and you know very well that the arguments to oppose Kosovo appearing at Category:Countries in Europe does not rest on one or more statements from Anastan that state Kosovo is not a country. And what? Shall we just say Islamic State is a country because no source (at least on Serbian Google) finds no source to dispute this? . --Vrhunski (talk) 22:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Could it please be noted by contributors/editors that Bobrayner has requested input on the relevant article's talk page, not for subjective arguments to be conducted on this noticeboard. Relevant policy and guideline based discussions would be appreciated in the appropriate venue as opposed to spreading deliberations across various Wikipedia venues. Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Iryna Harpy. However, I am still concerned about the tendentious editing, and would appreciate more eyes on the problem; for instance, Anastan's claims to have lots of reliable sources saying that Kosovo isn't a country in Europe, and then complete inability to provide any of those sources. bobrayner (talk) 19:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Bob, stop with this awful editing attitude, and drop the subject here. Go to the relevant page where we are, and stop spamming this page only to keep it off the archive. New word for me, and it looks like to you too - STOP FORUM SHOPPING. -- Ąnαșταη  ( ταlκ )  09:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello Anastan! I'm glad you found time for some personal attacks and an irrelevant reference to forum-shopping. Perhaps, instead, you could find time to provide the many reliable sources which, you claim, prove that Kosovo is not a country in Europe? I haven't found them, and you still haven't provided them. On the other hand, lies about sources are not unusual on WP:ARBMAC topics. bobrayner (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, lies about sources are not ok, i agree. You should stop doing that then, as you may be blocked. Also, i do not plan to provide anything to you anymore, as there are more then enough opinions already. Also, i do not plan to further communicate with rude editors who misrepresent basic information's and comments. That very, very bad. -- Ąnαșταη  ( ταlκ )  00:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * At the end, why not, just to point how deep and one sided dispute with reality one editor can have. If you have one source, that is not a fact, thats just your view on the situation. Kosovo is not a regular country, but a disputed territory that want to be a country. One day. Maybe... "Kosovo government will never gain full control of the disputed territory", "The disputed territory of Kosovo", Quality of Life in Kosovo (Disputed Territory), "Kosovo is a disputed territory following the collapse of Yugoslavia", "Kosovo remains a disputed territory largely because of three conditions", "it has been a highly disputed territory", "from the still-disputed territory of Kosovo", Danish Ex-KFOR Soldier: Kosovo Is Not A State... etc, etc, etc, a lot, lot more... -- Ąnαșταη  ( ταlκ )  10:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Half (all?) of those sources are not even reliable, particularly with regard to this question (a graduate student essay, a Serbian news site, etc.) The fact that you trot them out like this only speaks to your own bias and POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As the discussion on the Kosovo page has only yielded another stalemate, would you prefer that the issue be referred to CfD (as in discussion as to how the category/categories be treated), or via the DRN? This is obviously not going to be resolved as a consensus decision on the article's talk page, therefore my preference would be to have a neutral sysop/neutral parties evaluating the policy and guideline based arguments. As you'd be aware, I have made a case for my own preference, but I'm a genuinely neutral party with arguments grounded in theory over other forms of RS.


 * As a plea to other parties involved, don't keep using this page as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. bobrayner brought it up here in order that uninvolved editors join in at the discussion is taking place on Talk:Kosovo. Personal attacks and WP:UNCIVIL interaction on this noticeboard is not productive. It is consensus that is being sought, not further division (and derision). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Someone should notify User:Future Perfect at Sunrise about this discussion. Anyway, I think this is a no-brainer. Yes, Kosovo is a country in Europe. That's how various international organizations, like the World Bank classify it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Those citations were indeed taken from publishers unlikely to be deemed reliable. Concerning the question of "various international organisations" that classify it as a country, this entire debate is about what makes Kosovo's case different from regular countries and more identical to other unrecognised entities. Now let me get this straight, despite those publishers being unsatisfactory, does anybody truly want reliable sources that confirm Kosovo is a disputed territory? Is there an editor that actually doubts that Kosovo has fewer recognitions than the State of Palestine? If so, I will gladly reveal proper sources. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 06:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If a similar issue arose with respect to the State of Palestine, then I'd take the same position; putting it in whatever "country" category is appropriate. But this is Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I've read WP:OTHERSTUFF so you don't need to fix the broken link. This one is on the knife edge. We've already established things need to be looked into case by case. But all parties are guilty of introducing OTHERSTUFF elements to the discussion (mainly at Talk:Kosovo, not here). I have likened Kosovo to the other entities featured in this list, those to support the category have been providing comparison with entities in that list. One need only see for himself where Kosovo lies, therefore to suddenly grind it into top level over all else (particularly of all on account of sources from recognising bodies) truly returns us to the seminal question, does the category violate NPOV?. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 08:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources say that Kosovo is a country in Europe. Hence, our article on Kosovo belongs in Category:Countries in Europe. It's not rocket science.
 * I notice that Anastan has dredged up some sources - terrible quality sources - but they don't even say what Anastan claimed. How long must we tolerate this tendentious editing? bobrayner (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Interesting points! Reliable sources call it a country in Europe and Anastan has never provided a source to claim "Kosovo is not a country". Therefore it belongs in the category. You may have mentioned these once or twice,, , , , , , , , , , . To save another rebuttal per WP:ONUS, WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:BALANCE all of which trump the ostensibly "reliable source" daydream, I suggest you read the following: , , , , , , , , , , . Feel free to read it back to yourself as many times as you wish until the information registers. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 06:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ouch! -- Ąnαșταη  ( ταlκ )  18:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm not sure what those diffs are supposed to show except that some users (well, the two above) engage in a lot of WP:IDIDINTHEARTHAT. So you know, things have to be repeated at them since they appear to have difficulties with comprehension.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I heard him the first time. Clearly if an editor cannot see that there is an issue that goes deep beyond the wording of one shallow source which has been addressed numerous times then you need to ask yourself who has difficulties with comprehension. Unless of course they understood it the first time in which case they would be the ones guilty of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 21:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem we have here is that we are talking about a category, not a passage, template, infobox or caption note. This is probably the one thing for which neutrality is in all honesty impossible. In the aforementioned circumstances, editors from two sides of a dispute have the freedom to dress the presentation so that all aspects are observed. For instance in mainspace there is the option of the Kosovo note template to reflect parity. But a category, well either it is there or it is not, sadly there is no middle road. In this case, the "reliable source" is taken by its subscribers to serve as some kind of trump card that ranks higher than all disputes, impartiality and objective editing. Yet if it were that simple, if an acknowledgement from the website of an organisation that has admitted the subject as a member was so reliable as to be conclusive then there would have been no dispute from editors because there would have been no dispute from the real life players. The governments of Azerbaijan, Venezuela, Bolivia and Belarus would only need to be delivered a reference from the source and all would realise they were wrong to refuse recognition and would subsequently reverse their positions. We would never have articles such as Kosovo status process, International recognition of Kosovo, 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence, International Steering Group for Kosovo, Ahtisaari Plan and Brussels Agreement (2013) if it were that simple as to behave in such a way as to ignore the problem. You do not have anything like this for South Sudan yet that country broke away three years after Kosovo. Curiously, this conversation is happening on the NPOV noticeboard though I'd question whether the OP has ever read the conditions. Per WP:WIKIVOICE (which would without doubt define a category listing since it is inflexible), there is one essential point relevant to this debate (the rest largely pertain to mainspace writing but even they could be said to be relevant):
 * 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.

"Category" is mentioned once in WP:WEIGHT and this says:
 * Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

Obviously there are no competing views since even a source to refer to Kosovo or Somaliland as "a country" would not do so in a way that would not address the wider issues of the dispute were they to be extended articles rather than fact-boxes.

So if 80 world states continue to recognise Kosovo as subject to Serbian territorial integrity, that cannot be classed as WP:FRINGE. As such, reliable sources do indeed cite the divided opinion over what Kosovo is according to which party. So I say finally, I have seen many editors accused of "Serbian nationalist fantasy" for their opposition to this category, and yet nobody has these past two months inserted, or proposed to include Kosovo in Category:Autonomous provinces of Serbia alongside Vojvodina, and this is the polar opposite to the country category.

Now you'll realise that balancing the scales is impossible and not simply down to the words of a source. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 22:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Note for admins/interested persons
Just a courtesy note to clarify that the matter is resolved. I as main opponent of the category have amended my position based partly on the discussions at Talk:Kosovo and partly on other examples as set on other articles. I believe this conversation can now be archived to make space for the newer issues. Regards to all. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 11:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * For those of us who haven't been following the discussions, would you be willing to write a brief précis for the benefit of future editors searching for outcomes on the various centralised boards before this section is archived? An advanced thanks for your input! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I'll give it a shot! Give me a bit of time to revise the two discussions which will undoubtedly caused readers to think WP:TLDR. At Talk:Kosovo a related matter has now come to RfC but this noticeboard subject is concluded. I will get straight on shortly. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 07:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I haven't had time to keep up with the discussions, therefore a summary would be informative (even if stretches to tl;dr for Wikipedians not involved/interested in the subject matter). It's really a 'for the record' request for future reference for those who are interested and involved who wish to know what the outcome was. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Précis
Opinions were sought here over whether wording within a reliable source warranted Kosovo's inclusion in Category:Countries in Europe. Arguments to oppose the inclusion were based on the practice across the site where other partially recognised disputed territories were concerned. Arguments, or should I say, the argument for inclusion of the category on the article rested solely on the source. Accepting the high figure of states recognising Kosovo (which is actually what led to the source in question, rather than the source being a conclusive reference) coupled with the realisation that other entities with slightly higher or lower recognition (and to some extent disputed territories also) had contained their relative Countries in categories, I stumbled across the rival entity Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija only to find it was drafted in asymmetrical contrast to Kosovo. I edited the article as best I could to rephrase the dubious lede and then proceeded to boldly restore the category I originally opposed, but only after consulting two or three of the editors to originally oppose the category. None objected. I believe that is the core explanation less the usual insults thrown about! :))) --Oranges Juicy (talk) 03:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . In order that this instance be closed off, and to avoid further disruption over the issue, I understand that Kosovo has been deemed a sovereign state/nation-state, and that the top level category of Countries in Europe has been applied reflect consensus (although it is further qualified by Disputed territories in Europe in order that the reader be aware that it also falls under the sovereign territory of Serbia). This discrepancy has, furthermore, been qualified by in the WP:LEAD and WP:BODY of the article.


 * Ultimately, the consensus for Kosovo doesn't set a precedent for other "claims", and every disputed territory must be assessed to meet the criteria for recognition on a case-by-case evaluation of RS and verifiability. As this has been hashed out thoroughly with consensus standing as the criteria meeting the requirements, for the sake of future challenges, an editor (or editors) would need to bring new sources and arguments to the table in order to overturn the consensus outcome. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The essential factor was the wording of the rival article. Obviously Kosovo is only as top-level and sovereign as it is an autonomous province. I must be clear that the editors to argue in favour of the category did so on the pretext of a World Bank publication which as you know is no more a reliable source for the subject than a statement from an ambassador to Serbia that does not recognise Kosovo. As a matter of fact, I can safely say we won't be seeing an identical source from the all-new AIIB with its 50 inaugural members, since this world bank is in China which does not recognise Kosovo and thereby will surely not grant it membership. Whereas the EU countries are almost certain to renege, China has given no such indications that it will follow suit - and China is the last country that is about to default, adopt the Euro or seek assistance from the ECB. Of course you are right that Kosovo cannot set a precedence for other disputed states, each must be assessed accordingly. That said, if anybody now wishes to raise the profile of other breakaway republics then I certainly will be unable to argue against it after this experience. We are still debating the opening line at Talk:Kosovo, but for now, the category is welcome by all sides. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 23:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for confirming my reading/interpretation of the discussion at this point. In fact, the status of Kosovo is, by no means, settled. The dispute is ongoing, therefore it cannot be understood that there is consensus decision. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * True, but on the bright side, it can be said that there is dissensus! :-) --Oranges Juicy (talk) 08:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

You should go back to your account (if its not blocked or banned). Its not ok to spam this many pages here on wiki per SHOPPING. Go back to Kosovo talk page, and go back to your account, so we can solve this chaos you made. -- Ąnαșταη  ( ταlκ )  11:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Kosovo is a country according to the definition provided at Country: "A country is a region that is identified as a distinct entity in political geography. A country may be an independent sovereign state or one that is occupied by another state, as a non-sovereign or formerly sovereign political division, or a geographic region associated with sets of previously independent or differently associated peoples with distinct political characteristics." Kosovo fulfills the criteria of sovereignty and therefore by definition is a country. Many editors confuse sovereignty with partial international recognition. For a state to be defined as Sovereign State, there needs to exist a recognition by at least one UN country (not by all UN countries). In the Talk:Kosovo there is a substantial clarification why Kosovo is a sovereign state, backed up by a majority of editors. The problem with Kosovo is that editors from countries opposing the Republic of Kosovo always oppose the factual existence of the Republic of Kosovo. I believe Wikipedia should take a bold move to prohibit further debates that aim at denying the existence of the Republic Kosovo. Despite Serbia's dispute, Kosovo is factually as a sovereign state, and naturally a country. 95.90.184.96 (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 95.90.184.96, can I kindly ask you not to spam this section of this page with your views. This is a précis which I have drafted for future reference on a matter that has been settled . This was about the category, the category is there as you wished it to be, nobody is proposing its removal. The reasons why both parties are in agreement with why it should be there despite earlier discussion is in the first paragraph. For the ongoing issues, please continue to use Talk:Kosovo, there you are free to suggest or oppose any Kosovo-related matter. Thank you. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Disqus
The article on Disqus may have been targeted to increase the amount of criticism in it. Currently, Disqus is abnormally long compared to the rest of the article.

Some groups of edits in time gone past, featuring lots of IPs and (at a brief check) possible SPAs:


 * (small)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * (big addition of criticism section)
 * 
 * (!)
 * 

Perhaps I'm making this overblown, but it seems a bit suspicious to me.

&mdash;George8211 / T 14:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposals for a Palestinian state
Would somebody please look over the recent actions regarding the article Proposals for a Palestinian state's former grammo/typo prone biased lead section (yes, that includes my actions ;) Why? I feel that a non-legitimate edit war accusation was forced on me through an involved non-contributing (probably uncivil) editor. I am calm and am open for constructive critiques, though. Plus, I feel that the two-sidedness of the article was not addressed properly, what I had documented in the ongoing TP discussion. I do not edit war and am not a vandal! There already is a constructive coop in effect between 3 contributing editors. Thank you for your help --Miraclexix (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want help here, you should be more clear about the content that concerns you and leave out conduct. Rhoark (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)