Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 58

Climate change denial
Whatever any given sources say, this article is written in a POV, nonencyclopedic manner and needs to be reviewed for neutral tone. I just made two single-word edits and they were reverted within 3 minutes. There is severe ownership going on here. Please take a look.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * There is bo such thing as Climate change denial. Delete the lot. --DHeyward (talk) 05:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If I thought for a moment that you honestly believed that I would propose an immediate and permanent topic ban on the basis of WP:CIR. Guy (Help!) 15:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Threats of this nature are not in accordance with the requirement for civil discussion. Please not that WP:civil is a core WP policy unlike WP:CIR, which is just an essay. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not a threat. I found the comment amusingly meta: climate change denial denialism. It has a certain poetry. Guy (Help!) 20:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If you start a sentence with "Whatever any given sources say...", it's very hard to continue the statement to something in line with WP:NPOV. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * So you believe this is an WP:Ignore all rules matter where you are right and the sources are wrong and there are severe ownership issues there because the editors don't acknowledge that fact. Would that summarize your position? Dmcq (talk) 12:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The "two single-word edits" appear to be this, broadening the definition to any doubt and not specifically unwarranted doubt, and the prompt addition of a POV tag. When another editor removed the tag as unwarranted, Kindetsubuffalo started a talk page section with the same claim that "Whatever any given sources say, this article is written in a POV, nonencyclopedic manner and needs to be reviewed for neutral tone." As Jess pointed out in reply, NPOV requires consideration of sources: Kintetsubuffalo has failed to provide any. . dave souza, talk 13:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

There appears to be edit warring around both the POV tag and the word "unwarranted". SageRad (talk) 14:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with User:Kintetsubuffalo that this article is written in a POV, nonencyclopedic manner and needs to be reviewed for neutral tone. This is not about about sources, it is about the polemical style of writing in the article. Biscuittin (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you an example of something that you like better but still is in line with the facts? Dmcq (talk) 12:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Biscuittin that the whole article is written in a POV, nonencyclopedic manner. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * To User:Dmcq. For a start, I'd like people to stop reverting when I change "unwarranted doubt" to "doubt". The word "unwarranted" appears to be a POV inserted by a Wikipedia editor. Biscuittin (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a clarification specifically made by the NCSE. . . dave souza, talk 18:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I also think the statement "the politics of global warming has been impacted by climate change denial, hindering efforts to prevent climate change and adapt to the warming climate" is misleading. The phrases "climate change denial" and "climate change scepticism" are used interchangeably in the article and this creates confusion. Climate change sceptics accept that warming is happening but have a different view on what is causing it. Because sceptics accept that warming is happening, they are likely to be very keen to propose adaptation measures, rather than prevention measures, because they believe that the prevention measures will be ineffective. Biscuittin (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * If you could produce a source which has the facts mainly right and which you think does the job halfway well, it would provide a much better argument for your point of view. Just writing a longer spiel spiel saying you don't like it is not the way to show it can be done better. Dmcq (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Look at the Bjørn Lomborg article: "In 2009, Business Insider cited Lomborg as one of "The 10 Most-Respected Global Warming Skeptics". While Lomborg campaigned against the Kyoto Protocol and other measures to cut carbon emissions in the short-term, he argued for adaptation to short-term temperature rises, and for spending money on research and development for longer-term environmental solutions". Biscuittin (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have added this to the article. Let's see how long it takes to get reverted. Biscuittin (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * To cheer you up, I've removed it from the lead, where you put it: a 2009 opinion piece in www.businessinsider.com isn't a good source for science, or significant enough for the lead. Try putting your case on the article talk page, rather than trying forum shopping here. . dave souza, talk 20:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Another sentence I object to: "Typically, public debate on climate change denial may have the appearance of legitimate scientific discourse, but does not conform to scientific principles". The same could be said about many statements made by climate change alarmists, particularly the "97%" claim. Biscuittin (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * An opinion piece is not a RS for anything that the opinion if the authors. On the other hand, there are several reliably published studies coming to numbers comparable with the 97%. Moreover, "they do it to" would not be a valid argument even if the premise were correct. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * My opponents are so predictable. First they ask me for references, then they claim that my references are unreliable. And I'm not forum shopping. I didn't start the thread on this page. Biscuittin (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)\
 * That looks rather WP:BATTLEFIELD – a pointy edit then "My opponents are so predictable" when it's removed for discussion. Not good. . . dave souza, talk 03:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There are now at least 3 separate, independent peer-reviewed studies supporting the approximately 97%, Doran/Zimmermann, Anderegg et al (published in PNAS), and Cook et a. You offer an unreviewed opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal. If you present shitty sources, people will reject them. It's nearly as predictable gravity, and I think that's a good thing. If you don't cherish the experience, bring good sources or just adapt your opinion to the evidence - a bit like a scientist. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I wish the IPCC would adapt its opinion to the evidence. When actual temperature readings disagree with the output of their computer models, they claim that the temperature readings are wrong and need "adjusting". Biscuittin (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The IPCC does not do original research. or do adjustments.There are several different independent groups that keep temperature records and assemble temperature series. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

We are straying off the point. The problem is not references but the style in which the article is written. There is far too much polemic and use of derogatory words to describe climate sceptics. Biscuittin (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Let me get this right, you think the business Insider article listing some people who deny climate change or in Lomborg's case want people to ignore it and leave it to their descendants and wrote a book full of twisted bits about it is a good model for what the Wikipedia article should be like when describing climate change denial? Wikipedia has a policy WP:PSCI which says "While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight." The Business Insider article only described a whole list of contrary views and had practically nothing in the way of criticism. Dmcq (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Alternative explanations of climate change (e.g. Piers Corbyn's solar cycle theory) are not pseudoscience. Why should an article about an alternative theory include criticism of that theory. You seem to think it is Wikipedia's job to tell people to ignore alternative theories. Biscuittin (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Per WP:FRINGE: "Additionally, when the subject of an article is the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear." I have been unable to find anything useful by Piers Corbyn via Google Scholar - a few false positives, and a short interview on a denialist blog. Where can I see that "not pseudoscience"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Where (apart from your own assertion) can you see that it is pseudoscience? Biscuittin (talk) 09:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Potentially a more useful source, Climate Change Denial in the Classroom, has an appropriate comment in its abstract: "While the principle of academic freedom remains paramount, it is nonetheless imperative that university students be presented with accurate scientific information." The same goes for Wikipedia readers. . . dave souza, talk 03:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This source is just a character assassination on Professor Tim Patterson. Supporters of the IPCC seem to be fond of doing character assassinations on people who disagree with them. Biscuittin (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Eh? The report, published in the Skeptical Inquirer Volume 37.3, May/June 2013, assesses misinformation from Tom Harris (mechanical engineer), of the so-called International Climate Science Coalition. See . .  dave souza, talk 18:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * If you want a description of various opposing theories which have been put forward see Global warming controversy. I did argue till a year or so ago that global warming skeptic should redirect to global warming controversy but it is pretty evident from the literature that by now the term 'climate change skeptic' is in practically all cases a misappropriated term by those denying the facts trying to claim scientific skepticism. The article about climate change denial is not about the science but about the denialism. I don't know if Piers Corbyn actually believes all the rubbish he spews or is just doing it for the money for his predictions but he most definitely supports denial in saying that CO2 has no effect on temperature and the earth is getting cooler. He hasn't actually written any sort of study on the business - he claims his methods are company secret or something like that. Why do you waste your time on that sort of stuff? He is criticized in secondary sources because of that, are you really saying we should ignore such criticism and say how marvellous his theories are that he hasn't written any papers about? Dmcq (talk) 10:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Piers Corbyn is not the only person who is proposing the solar cycle theory. Look at Professor Tim Patterson, to whom User:Dave souza has kindly drawn my attention. Note: "As of 2007, Patterson has published over 120 articles in peer-reviewed journals" and "In recognition of his research efforts Patterson was awarded a 2002-2003 Carleton University Research Achievement Award for 'outstanding research'". Is he a pseudoscientist? Biscuittin (talk) 11:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It is certainly true that he has much better scientific credentials, but he has not as far as I can see written any paper on the theory, all the controversial stuff he says is in meetings for the Heartland Institute or interviews for papers and things like that. Don't you find that just a little strange? Have a look at Global warming controversy which is about the science related to this, there are some people who have actually done a study of this there. As I said before the climate change denial article is about the denial rather than the science - but then again I suppose Tim Patterson has only contributed his reputation so that is not science. Dmcq (talk) 11:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, the climate change denial article is not about the denial. It is a criticism of the denial. If the title was changed to Criticism of climate change denial I would be reasonably happy with it. Biscuittin (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The article does describe what climate change denial is and the actions of the various organizations involved in it. You talk about Piers Corbyn and Tim Patterson is as if they were actually describing something that some peer review had found some grounds for. The article talking about what a genuine skeptic would be interested in is global warming controversy. The phrase 'Climate change skeptic' means the same as 'climate change denier' nowadays. That does not eliminate the possibility that there are some genuine scientific skeptics of climate change around but I do not believe you have found one in either Piers Corbyn or Tim Patterson nor does it mean the three word phrase 'climate change skeptic' means anything other than a climate change denier nowadays. If you want Wikipedia to talk about climate change denial in a positive light you need to change the section WP:Fringe theories and pseudoscience in this policy first. As the Neutral Point of View policy says 'Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance'. NPOV does not mean give equal weight to pseudoscience. Dmcq (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not reading every comment given in this discussion, however I think it's more productive if specific lines are addressed for NPOV concerns. A good example of this is the "unwarranted doubt" concern. Neither of the sources given use the word "unwarranted" when describing doubt. The Powell source does mention "unwarranted gloom" when speaking about the media's coverage of climate change, but this is not the same thing as "unwarranted doubt". So pending any counter evidence, I'd agree that "unwarranted" should be removed.Scoobydunk (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I would oppose that on the basis of Dunlap . Most descriptions are going from climate change denier to their signs but Dunlap goes the opposite directon from the signs to whether they are deniers or skeptics which is what the article has at its start. It says 'Those involved in challenging climate science label themselves “skeptics,” and in some cases this term is warranted, especially for members of the public who—for various reasons—are doubtful that AGW is a serious problem.' The three word phras 'climate change skeptic' does refer to denial nowadays but being skeptical does not mean a person should automatically be labelled a climate change skeptic. Dmcq (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Taking on board that point, I've added an inline cite to Why Is It Called Denial? | NCSE which makes the specific point that the NCSE "opts to use the terms 'climate changer deniers' and 'climate change denial' (where “denial” encompasses unwarranted doubt as well as outright rejection)." . . dave souza, talk 18:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Dmcq, you say "You talk about Piers Corbyn and Tim Patterson is as if they were actually describing something that some peer review had found some grounds for". Why are you so obsessed with peer review? Science is not about papers (peer-reviewed or not). It is about measurement. Biscuittin (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Biscuittin, for science to have credibility, peer reviewed publication is needed. Publication in BusinessInsider doesn't meed that need. . dave souza, talk 18:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Scoobydunk, for the focus on one phrase. This discussion should be at the article's talk page, except insofar as it works as an example of NPOV meta-issues.
 * The lede sentence reads:
 * "Denial" is hyperlinked to denial which is very important to the meaning of the sentence. This carries psychological and moral overtones that are desired, i believe, to the meaning of the sentence.
 * "scientific consensus on the rate and extent of global warming" is hyperlinked to the article Scientific opinion on climate change. This is also important to the meaning of the lede sentence.
 * The sentence cites two sources: National Center for Science Education 2010, and Powell 2012, each with extensive quotes.
 * My reading is that this sentence is solid and in line with the bulk of reliable sources on the subject, though in sharp opposition to a small minority of sources that show a strong POV in line with climate change denial itself. It's not that the two sources used to support the sentence do support it, but that the vast majority of reliable sources also support it. It's not enough to have just a couple sources to claim that a point of view is "denial" (which is to say that its claims are bunk) but rather that it's a widely accepted viewpoint without significant opposition except among a clearly delineated minority group who are pushing it. Ultimately, there is no "absolute truth" within Wikipedia, but rather a complex triangulation (sort of a cluster map analysis) of many reliable sources, with us as editors evaluating the positions and likely truth values of each source and doing a complex meta-analysis. In this case, it pretty much comes down to a picture of a group of sources that have been partly funded by huge vested interests (the fossil fuels industry) to create the illusion that there is significant doubt about the reality of human-caused climate change.
 * I would prefer the sentence to be simpler:
 * This simpler definition removes the fuzziness about whether there is valid skepticism about the rate or extent of climate change, or about the extent or nature of impacts, and such things. I do think there is valid skepticism on those fronts, and it would not necessarily be included in the label "denial".
 * I hope my contribution is useful, and can be fodder for meta-level discussion about what NPOV (neutral point of view) means in regard to this article. SageRad (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * One has to be very careful about the word 'is'. The word might be used as in 'a horse is an odd-toed ungulate animal', or 'a horse is the  domesticated subspecies of Equus Ferus' and there's a few others. You have said you are giving a definition as in the second meaning of 'is' but in fact you are using the first meaning. That is what I was saying was different about Dunlap - that was a definition whereas the others described characteristics of climate change deniers as in the first 'a horse is...'rather than defined what it  meant. You have included rhinos in your definition. Dmcq (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The trouble with the suggested simplification is that it becomes over-specific, and excludes positions covered by the taxonomy cited in the article. For example, cases where there is acceptance of the scientific consensus that climate change is significant and is caused by humans, but denial (or unwarranted doubt) that it's worth doing anything about it. The spread of coverage is well cited in the article. . dave souza, talk 18:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * While we're at it, perhaps we should ask: "Is a cow still a cow when nobody is looking at it?" Biscuittin (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's struck everybody dumb. Perhaps they didn't understand the joke. Biscuittin (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether it is their intention, but the IPCC cheerleaders seem to be presenting the IPCC as a religious cult. A peer-reviewed paper is the Word of God and anybody who disagrees with it commits blasphemy. Everything else is pseudoscience. Biscuittin (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's struck everybody dumb. Perhaps they didn't understand the joke. Biscuittin (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether it is their intention, but the IPCC cheerleaders seem to be presenting the IPCC as a religious cult. A peer-reviewed paper is the Word of God and anybody who disagrees with it commits blasphemy. Everything else is pseudoscience. Biscuittin (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

... yawn... Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh good. They are learning to ignore me. Biscuittin (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is, as with several other articles, that 'climate change denial' is rehotric and therefore unsuitable for use in an encyclopedia, even if it is used in reliable sources. Whatever the arguments for or against people who question climate change we should state them here in plain language.  We should not use vague and emotive terms like 'climate denial'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The terms I prefer to use are "CO2 hater" for climate change alarmists and "CO2 lover" for climate change sceptics. However, I'm sure there will be objections to these. We really need to find neutral terms to describe both camps. Biscuittin (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Another problem is the ownership of climate change articles. A small group of editors act as owners of the articles and refuse to allow people outside the group to edit them. Biscuittin (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Another problem is "health warnings". I have no objection to it being said that CO2 lovers are in a minority, because this is true. What I do object to is warnings saying "and you must not believe them because they are charlatans and pseudoscientists". It is not Wikipedia's job to tell people what they may, or may not, believe. Biscuittin (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * But it is Wikipedia's place to point out to these people that their view is not consistent with the scientific consensus and to point out that the scientific consensus it the best model of objective reality that we have at this time. Everyone is welcome to their own opinion just not to their own version of reality. J bh  Talk  19:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You are imposing your point of view but you seem unable to recognize this. Biscuittin (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Jbhunley, it is not WP's job to point anything out; 'state' yes but 'point out' no. We should, of course state what 'the scientific consensus' is so long as that is properly sourced.


 * Some organisations do use the term 'climate change denial' as rhetoric precisely because it is their job to try to change people's behaviour. Their job is to 'persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations' and so they should use the term as it is 'the available means of persuasion'. That is not our job; we should just state the facts.


 * My complaint here is not with stating all the facts but with the language used. The phrase 'climate change denial' is an emotive, pejorative term in that it intentionally draws an improper link with things like 'Psychiatric patient denial of mental illness'. Beyond that it has no clear meaning at all.  What is wrong with using a strictly factual term like 'climate change criticism'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Hogbin (talk • contribs) 20:21, 24 January 2016‎ (UTC)

"Point out"/"State", essentially semantics but I do see your point. On your disagreement with the term because it "is an emotive, pejorative term; The current sources use the term 'climate change denial' it is not our place to make up 'more neutral terms'. The article is pretty clear in defining the term Climate change denial - they are not criticizing it they are denying it. If the conclusion readers draw from this is that the 'deniers' are not fully grounded in reality then that is fine because that is, in fact, the case. Any other claim would be WP:FRINGE because the overwhelming scientific consensus is that what is being denied is in fact true to the best of the experts'  ability to know.  J bh  Talk  20:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It is you, Jbh, who is deciding "that the 'deniers' are not fully grounded in reality". You are then trying to impose your view on readers. I believe that readers are quite capable of making up their own minds what is, or is not, reality. They do not need "guidance" from you. Biscuittin (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Nor do they need POV statements which would 'guide' them to consider the scientific consensus to be less solid than it is nor to believe that the views of 'deniers' have validity or support which they do not. See WP:FALSEBALANCE for a more detailed explanation. J bh  Talk  22:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I may be making such POV statements on talk pages but I am not making them in articles. Lack of criticism does not mean support. Biscuittin (talk) 23:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well I don't know if you intended it but you've certainly convinced me you support some strange ideas about climate change. It certainly is possible that some of the many bits of pseudoscience or conspiracies that are detailed on Wikipedia actually are true and the people who say they are just silly will be proven wrong. However even so Wikipedia has to go with the established science and it is not going to start calling people CO2 haters or CO2 lovers because that is not what the sources say. And if it was supported by the sources I get the feeling you would object to climate change deniers being called CO2 lovers. Using sources gets around personal ideas like that.
 * The neutral point of view policy is based on treating the sources with due weight and you just don't seem to have any sources that are of halfway decent relevance never mind weight that support anything like what you want to do. I really wish you'd get to a more source based argument and show how some source says something more in line with what you want to put in. Otherwise this is all just a waste of time. You need to change this policy or appeal to a different policy to do anything much different. Dmcq (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've produced lots of sources but, each time I do, one of your gang claims that the source is unreliable. Here is another one. How long will it take you to declare this one unreliable? Biscuittin (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You found something said by somebody. How representative is this of reliable sources? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Anthony Trewavas FRS, FRSE, is a very distinguished professor. Does this count for nothing? Biscuittin (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Dr. Anthony Trewavas (whom God preserve) of Edinburgh (age 76) appears to have had a distinguished career in Plant Biology, Plant Behaviour, Plant Intelligence and Plant Physiology. He may of course have published something climate related in a reliable source, but his statement to the HoC is essentially self-published by a non-expert, with no editorial oversight. As is evident from the flatly false statements he puts in about the supposedly "Misleading 'Hockey Sticks'." If you like, we can discuss how he's blatantly wrong on the topic, but I'd suggest any such discussion should take place on the talk page of any article where you propose it as a source. In general, statements to the HoC really need a secondary source for evaluation on confirmation whether or not they have any significance. . . dave souza, talk 21:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem Biscuit, is not that people are actively trying hard to prove your sources unreliable, its that the sources you come up with are really really bad. They dont need to *try* to declare them unreliable, they declare themselves. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, in a search for objectivity, as per the scientific method (say), you might consider looking for articles that do not support your preferred hypothesis. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this is the first source you've mentioned which has a bit of relevance for the article. That he has no weight as far as the global warming controversy article is not really relevant, what is relevant is that he has given an opinion on climate change denial. In that he would be weighed against social studies works and science academy statements and secondary news reports. Climate change denial is in essence a social phenomena rather than something to do with the science of climate change. Bringing up Galileo gives him 40 points in the crackpot index but we should be clear on what is the basis for the article. Dmcq (talk) 22:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * To Isambard Kingdom. This is precisely the point that Trewavas has made: "Sceptical assessments form the basis of scientific progress. Models are only as good as the information put into them. Questioning climate models is an essential part of progress on understanding". How many of the pro-IPCC gang have questioned climate models? Biscuittin (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Biscuittin: Understood. But I'm asking about your efforts .... are you searching, searching until you finds something, finally, that agrees with your hypothesis? Just asking. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * @ Biscuittin, if by "pro-IPCC gang" you mean IPCC WG1 authors, almost certainly all of them have questioned climate models. The questioning procedure is called peer reviewed publication. What peer reviewed publications has Trewavas authored on the topic? . . dave souza, talk 22:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Peer review again. You should read "The peer review fairy tale" by Donna  Laframboise. She found that, in a 2007 IPCC report, about 30% of the references were not peer reviewed and included "newspaper and magazine articles, unpublished masters and doctoral theses, Greenpeace and World Wildlife Fund documents, and press releases". Of course, you won't believe this because you probably regard Laframboise as an unreliable source. Biscuittin (talk) 23:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You're evading the question. IPCC authors are scientists who have properly published detailed critiques of climate models, Trewavas is obviously ignorant about climate science and lacks expertise to critique these models, and Laframboise's fairy tale suggests she, like yourself, doesn't seem to know the difference between WG1 and WG3. So how do you justify giving any weight to their fringe views? . . dave souza, talk 23:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "Fringe views" is your opinion, which you keep pushing. Trewavas may not be a climate scientist but he is qualified to speak about the scientific method and that is what he is doing. Biscuittin (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Trewavas makes obviously false statements about climate science, repeating common denialist misinformation. To the extent that he makes valid comments about scientific method, no-one disagrees and climatologists follow that method: the problem is that he seems to have been misled about practice in climatology. For example, this nonsense about questioning climate models. Climatologists do that all the time in peer reviewed publications, all he seems to have done is complain vaguely about it in an unedited text he's posted to the HoC committee. . . dave souza, talk 23:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

"...questioning climate models. Climatologists do that all the time in peer reviewed publications..." Could you give me some examples of this questioning please? Biscuittin (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * For your entertainment. Of course "questioning" does not mean "denying their usefulness". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep jumping off into irrelevancies? The article is climate change denial. What you are asking about is global warming controversy. The bit in the piece you pointed at which is relevant to the climate change denial areticle is
 * "8. The term Denier or Denialist to describe sceptics is indicative of the closed mind and a term of abuse for the scientific process. It is reminiscent of Galileo’s problem with the inquisition in the 16th century and politicians of all kinds should have slapped the term down."
 * I can't see anything else relevant there. Dmcq (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We can go on like this for ever but it's a waste of time. What we need is input from a wider range of editors. I assume this is why Kintetsubuffalo brought the discussion here. Biscuittin (talk) 00:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you see something else relevant to the article? And if so why is it relevant? Dmcq (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This has descended into a points-scoring game. I am not going to play this game and I propose that the discussion be closed. Biscuittin (talk) 09:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Heh! Since all the points are against you, I can see why you'd want it to stop, but it's not going to until you drop the stick, and I see no signs of you doing that yet. Guy (Help!) 13:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

"Climate change denial" is a thing. Not everyone believes it is a thing, but it's a thing. So is "commodity status of animals" (to use another disputed concept, currently discussed at Talk:Veganism). Both of these are concepts that are well-defined in a huge number of sources, but they are also controversial in that there are groups of people who don't believe they're real things but who believe that they're rhetoric that "the other side" is using to attack them. This the nature of points of view. Wikipedia can document this, as it is. Wikipedia doesn't have to necessarily "endorse" that climate change denial is real, but can point out that it's a phenom observed by a huge number of reliable sources, and denied by a vocal and politically-aligned minority. Same, with slightly different details and demographics, for "commodity status of animals". There are those who deny the reality of that concept, and Wikipedia can document that. SageRad (talk) 14:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I was going to comment on this, but SageRad covered every point I would have, perfectly and in half the space I would have used.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sadly SageRads reasonable sounding post above completely ignores Fringe, NPOV, undue etc which are quite explicit that not only are not all viewpoints equal, but that unless specificially relevant, they may not be given significant space in an article and in some cases may not be documented at all. Failure to understand due weight is a problem SageRad consistantly has. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It sounds to me like saying whether the earth goes round the sun or not is just a point of view depending on morals or the law or social values. Or am I missing a point somewhere? Couldn't he just advertise his dispute straightforwardly somewhere if he wants to draw attention to it instead of drawing comparisons like that in unrelated discussions? Or is this some sort of allegation that scientists all round the world are involved in some conspiracy so it really is just a moral social or legal question? Dmcq (talk) 15:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * SageRad I cannot work out whether we agree or not. I am not trying to state an opinion on either climate change or veganism or the status of animals.  My point is about the use of rhetoric (please do follow the link) in articles, particularly as a title.


 * The facts about cimate change are that the political/scientific consensus is that humans are causing climate change. It is also a fact that some people dispute that statement.  Whether you or I agree with those facts is irrelevant, there should be plenty of sources supporting them.  The problem is with the language.  The word 'denial' is rhetoric.  It is used to imply that anyone who disputes that humans are causing climate change is crazy or delusional.  It is intentionaly ambiguous.  At one extreme it can be defended as being plain English, so 'climate change deniers' are simply people who deny that human created climate change exists.  At the other extrem it can mean that these people are mad, evil or both.  People defend the term using one meaning knowing full well that other people will take it to have another.


 * The 'property status of animals' is similar rhetoric used to promote the opinion of vegans.


 * Of course there is no reason why we should not have an article on 'Climate change denial' but that article must make quite clear from the start that that term is rhetoric used by a particular group of people to push a particular point of view. Whether that POV is the wrong one or the right one is of no importance. have a look at the essay wp:Rhetoric. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The use of rhetoric to subtly push POVs in WP seems to be on the increase. I would like to propose that wp:rhetoric is promoted to be policy. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It would be nice if it was as straightforward as Moon landing conspiracy theories but there's no industry funded denial of the moon landings. Unfortunately the closest is something like HIV/AIDS denialism where governments have tried to deny it exists and the terms used are the correct ones both by the literature and by meaning. You don't get denial in vegetarianism. Dmcq (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You would get denial in vegetarianism if they thought that they could get away with it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Martin Hogbin is right. Rhetoric is the problem. Biscuittin (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Martin, your essay looks like misuse of rhetoric, and your statement above misstates the facts. The topic of denial is well supported by reliable sources, weasel wording would give undue weight the fringe POV. . . dave souza, talk 18:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Industry funded denial. Not all climate change sceptics are funded by industry. I am no friend of the coal, oil and gas companies because I want to nationalise them. There is also the little matter that the IPCC receives massive funding from governments so it also has an incentive to give governments what they want. Biscuittin (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Biscuittin, you're going offtopic a bit here. The articles doesn't say that "all climate change sceptics are funded by industry", the IPCC gets along on remarkably little funding, and what governments want has commonly been denial of the unpleasant truth of scientific findings: for example, interventions over wording by Saudi Arabia and the USA have tried to minimise issues. . . dave souza, talk 18:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Dave souza, my essay? I was not a contributor to that essay.  What facts do I misstate?


 * I am not asking for weasel wording but plain encyclopedic English. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Biscuittin (talk) 19:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Your "political/scientific consensus is that humans are causing climate change. It is also a fact that some people dispute that statement." is wrong. There's clear scientific consensus that the main cause of current global warming is human activities, politics is irrelevant to that. Some people may "dispute" that, but groups and individuals promote denial of that consensus or of its implications, rather than agree to action to reduce the impacts of the warming. That's the focus of this topic. . dave souza, talk 20:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * These are vague generalisations, be specific and provide reliable sources to support your argument. . dave souza, talk 20:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I assume the above is addressed to Martin Hogbin. What I am trying to do (and I think MH is too) is to get the tone of the article changed. It is not wicked or mad to have a different view from the IPCC about climate change or global warming so the article should not use language which implies that it is. Biscuittin (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That is exactly correct. I have no 'argument' concerning climate change as Dave suggests. I agree that the scientific consensus is that humans are causing climate change.  There is also political consensus.  We also agree that groups and individuals hold the view that that consensus is incorrect and that those individuals and groups promote the view that they hold. I have no problem with stating those facts in this article.


 * My complaint is that, in Wikipedia's voice, we use the rhetoric of one of the sides of that dispute. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Another problem is inconsistency. I've been criticised for citing a paper by a biologist on the grounds that he is not a climate scientist. However, one of the references in the Climate change denial article is to a paper by R. E. Dunlap, who is a sociologist. Why is it OK to cite a paper on climate change by a sociologist but not a biologist? Biscuittin (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The article climate change denial is about a social or psychological phenomenom. The global warming controversy is the one about the science. I believe I've said this a few times before so I'll assume you've read it and dismissed it as wrong. Could you explain why you disagree? Dmcq (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As to Martin Hogbin's essay wp:Rhetoric it is just wrong for Wikipedia. Wikipedia should not be based on either 'rhetoric' or 'logic' as in WP:OR but on summarizing what is in reliable sources with the appropriate weight as in them - and not indulging in WP:FALSEWEIGHT like some TV shows do when they bring in some charlatan to 'balance' a scientist's findings as in . Dmcq (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I would expect an article entitled climate change denial to be about the views of climate change deniers. If the article is about sociology and psychology I would expect it to be entitled Sociology and psychology of climate change denial. Biscuittin (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Dmcq, WP:rhetoric is not my essay.  I have not dismissed your point; I think it is a very good one. If the article is indeed intended to be about the social phenomenon it should still use neutral language.  I would need to start with something like ' "Climate change denial" is a term used by X to refer to Y', thus making clear that WP is describing, as a third party, a social phenomenon.


 * I am not sure what you mean by 'psychological phenomenon'. Do you mean 'How some crazy people refuse to believe what we all know to be true', or something else? Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * See the article denialism about the phenomenon. 00:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not asking for false weight. I'm just asking for non-IPCC views to be given a little weight, rather than being dismissed as pseudoscience. Biscuittin (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * For example, take the Solar cycle. Unless you believe that it has no effect at all on the climate, you can't claim that it is pseudoscience. Biscuittin (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Biscuittin, it's been a while since I looked through the IPCC report, but I recall that solar effects were considered there. They are also discussed in the literature fairly often, but they are certainly not the mainstream explanation of recent global warming. Note that the relevant subject is not the solar cycle per se, but, rather, slow secular change in solar output over the past century or so. This secular change is very difficult to measure, but it is less than the 11-year solar-cycle variability in output, and solar-cycle variability barely affects global temperature, so most researchers conclude (reasonably) that secular solar change in output is insignificant for recent global warming. If this subject interests you, then it should be taken elsewhere, and you might consider reading up on the subject, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * As I pointed out before the article global warming controversy talks about that. The pseudoscience is in telling people that somehow it is a full explanation and carbon dioxide has no effect when the studies on it indicate no such thing. The climate change denial article is about the phenomenon of people wanting to believe things like that and industry obfusticating the science. It isn't about any rational argument about the facts. Dmcq (talk) 00:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I only raised the solar cycle as an example of a real phenomenon which affects climate and is therefore not pseudoscience. Other examples are other greenhouse gases, such as water vapour and methane, which rarely get a mention because there is so much focus on carbon dioxide. Most climate change sceptics do not dispute that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. They just question the relative importance of CO2 compared to other climate drivers. Again, this is not pseudoscience. Biscuittin (talk) 13:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, but it isn't the solar cycle that affects long-term climate, as I explained. I think you're off track. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Biscuittin, your arguments would have more credibility if you familiarized yourself with what climate scientists actually study rather than of working from assumptions. For example, far from "rarely getting a mention" non-CO2 greenhouse gases are studied in enormous detail as even a cursory view of the literature will show. And as for not disputing that CO2 is a greenhouse gas -- it's nice that "skeptics" accept the state of science as it was in 1859, but we really have learned a few things since then. If you want to familiarize yourself with what climate scientists work on I'd be glad to point you to some clear, readable sources. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not claiming to be an expert on climate science. I'm simply pointing out that the article Climate change denial is written in unencyclopedic language and supports some anti-scientific views, such as the claim that climate change sceptics/deniers are pseudoscientists. I can't think of any other branch of science where scientists who disagree with mainstream opinion are labelled pseudoscientists. Biscuittin (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "Scientists who disagree with mainstream opinion" is a very vague term. But people who maintain repeatedly refuted positions in opposition to the available evidence are regularly called "pseudoscientists'. See e.g. creation science or Detoxification (alternative medicine) or HIV/AIDS denialism. If you look at Climate change denial, it's not defined as "disagreeing with mainstream opinion", but as "involv[ing] denial, dismissal, or unwarranted doubt about the scientific consensus on the rate and extent of global warming [...]". It's a phenomenon that is well-defined in the referenced literature. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Biscuittin, you "can't think of any other branch of science where scientists who disagree with mainstream opinion are labelled pseudoscientists", so apparently you're unaware of intelligent design. In case you think there's no connection, see the signatories to statements issued by the Cornwall Alliance such as "We believe Earth and its ecosystems – created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history." . . dave souza, talk 17:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm comparing one scientific view with another scientific view. I'm not comparing a scientific view with a religious view. Biscuittin (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This article reads like tabloid journalism. I very much doubt if it is peer-reviewed but it is cited in support of the "pseudoscience" claim in the Climate change denial article. Biscuittin (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * @ Biscuittin, Your rhetoric looks like unencyclopedic language which supports some anti-scientific views, such as the claim that intelligent design proponentsists are pseudoscientists: signatories of Cornwall Alliance statements include some prominent in climate change denial: Richard Lindzen, Robert M. Carter, Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, David Legates, Joseph D'Aleo and Roy Spencer (scientist). You're the one who asked about what other branch of science has scientists who disagree with mainstream opinion being labelled pseudoscientists: evolution has the ID example, and lo, the same scientists deny climate change science. . . . dave souza, talk 19:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, phys.org/news published by Science X looks reasonable as a reliable source, the NIPCC is a fake organisation with a very poor reputation for fact checking and accuracy. You can of course raise that point on the article talk page. dave souza, talk 19:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "Your rhetoric looks like unencyclopedic language which supports some anti-scientific views, such as the claim that intelligent design proponentsists are pseudoscientists". I don't understand this sentence. Are you claiming that I do, or do not, support intelligent design? Biscuittin (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Climate change denial by Cornwall Alliance supporters is a religious view regarded as pseudoscience: doesn't that answer your [rhetorical] question? Above you were "just asking for non-IPCC views to be given a little weight, rather than being dismissed as pseudoscience", these ID views are clearly non-IPCC views which you seemingly want to give some weight. . . dave souza, talk 21:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't introduce intelligent design into this discussion. You did. Biscuittin (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Biscuittin, you said you "can't think of any other branch of science where scientists who disagree with mainstream opinion are labelled pseudoscientists" – evolutionary biology is such a branch, where creationists "disagree", and the Cornwall Alliance neatly combines climate change denial with a declaration of support for ID creationism. . . . dave souza, talk 12:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Closure
I think this has gone on long enough. Biscuittin, you have rather obviously failed to persuade in two venues now. I suggest that you do one of two things: (1) drop it or (2) start, and abide by the outcome of, an RFC on the article talk page. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. RfC done at Talk:Climate change denial. Biscuittin (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not exactly what I'd call an RfC... it's more like a list of vague complaints. We had an RfC on some of those complaints just two months ago, and consensus was quite clear. This has been to BLPN, RSN, NPOVN, ANI, and spanned across a great many talk pages, and everywhere the consensus has been in favor of following the academic sources currently used in the article. After all this bickering and hopping from one venue to another, I don't see any concrete proposals ("change X to Y") which are backed by reliable sources we can use. I don't think it's time for an RfC. I think it's time to drop the stick.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 00:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't got a stick to drop and it was Guy who suggested the RfC. Biscuittin (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no WP policy requiring users to stop discussion because other editors disagree with them. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * See Tendentious editing, WP:LISTENWP:Disruptive editing and WP:FORUMSHOP. All of which boil down to editors who do not get the message when consensus is against them will sooner or later exhaust the community's patience with predictable results J bh  Talk  18:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I see no consensus against which Biscuittin is arguing. A quick look at opinion here shows that a total of 6 editors here support what Biscuittin says and 5 editors oppose it. What I see here is bullying and ownership. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Biscuittin and yourself are welcome to produce reliable secondary sources to support your arguing, remember WP:NOTAFORUM. . . dave souza, talk 12:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, your "quick look" seems to be rather selective and/or wrong. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Biased addition at Magyarization
Please check this addition. Radezic (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Cecil Rhodes – identification in opening sentence as "white supremacist"
IP 158.143.212.121 and I have been having a disagreement at Cecil Rhodes and Rhodes Scholarship. He thinks Rhodes should be identified in the opening sentence as a "white supremacist" and thinks this description of his obituary on the Guardian website is a weighty enough source to support that. I have neither the time nor the inclination to get into a pointless edit war over this so I'm bringing the issue here for discussion. Cheers, —  Cliftonian   (talk)  11:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 158.143.212.121 has not taken up invitation to enter discussion here and repeatedly restores the wording. See Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  11:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm 100% against included this terminology. The Guardian is a centre-left newspaper, so of course it would use that terminology. This should be removed from the opening sentence. — Calvin999 12:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The characterization of Rhodes as a white supremacist strikes me as a tough call. It's probably a little inflammatory for the first sentence, particularly stated as baldly as IP 158.143.212.121 has put it. At the same time, it's a legitimate critique that should probably be included somewhere near the top, particularly since the second paragraph talks about the opposing "hero/villain" views of Rhodes. Would you be ok with me trying to come up with a phrasing that takes it out of the first sentence but leaves it in the first couple of paragraphs (above the contents box)? (I've had an account for years, but am just getting started editing, so apologies if my formatting here is not up to standards.) MikeDunford (talk) 12:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with something along the lines of "His expressed views have led detractors to condemn him as a white supremacist."—have a look at how I handled this in the lead for the Ian Smith article. Cheers Mike. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  12:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable to me, and thanks for the pointer to how you handled this issue elsewhere. I'll see if I can find a place in the lede to work a change in that's along those lines. (I'm guessing the change might be better received coming from someone new to the issue.) Cheers. MikeDunford (talk) 12:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I'd thought too. Cheers Mike. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  12:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and pulled the white supremacist from Rhodes Scholarship. If it's reverted, I'll try to find somewhere more appropriate in the article for it. MikeDunford (talk) 12:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Cheers Mike. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  12:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, all! Since the first user posted this, I added additional sourcing including the original quotations in which Rhodes calls whites the 'supreme race' and blacks barbaric, etc. Mike, I like what you've done with the page--rather than culling the term from the top. Rhodes' racial ideology can't really be separated from his views on colonialism or imperialism, as it was at the foundation of his political career in South Africa and his beliefs on the expansion of the British empire.

From the NPOV page, neutrality means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." For contentious labels such as racist, "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." Rhodes said explicitly that whites are supreme, blacks are inferior, and he is widely and exclusively described as white supremacist and racist in the academic literature. There is no academic dispute or disagreement as to these adjectives. By using sentences like "detractors allege" he is a white supremacist, it implies that there are some who don't think he is--which is not true. Ultimately, this makes it sound like there's a dispute on whether he was a white supremacist when there isn't one (instead, the academic dispute is about whether his contributions outweighed all this.

If there is a dispute as to whether he's a white supremacist, I'd understand your concern. But given there is no dispute (unless you can find a source saying some argue he wasn't a white supremacist), I don't see what the issue is.

P.S. This is the current definition of white supremacy on Wikipedia's page: "a form of racism centered upon the belief, and promotion of the belief, that white people are superior in certain characteristics, traits, and attributes to people of other racial backgrounds and that therefore white people should politically, economically and socially rule non-white people." The reason why no one disagrees with Rhodes being a white supremacist is because he has essentially said this, verbatim. 15:17, 15 January 2016 by 158.143.212.121 (talk)

(Above was unsigned so i found the diff and added signature of the IP user. If anyone can do this better than me please change it. IP user, you have to sign your comments by typing four tildes after them, please.) SageRad (talk) 13:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to state your views here.
 * Yeah, I'm not disputing the characterization (I'm not a scholar in this area, and have no strong views one way or another) of Rhodes as a racist or white supremacist. But the term is very loaded, particularly given the modern context - as an American, when I read "white supremacist," the first image that pops to mind are violent, heavily tattooed white prison gangs. Transposing that terminology to the 19th Century is a bit difficult for me, because there was a different cultural context at that time. (NOTE: I am not saying that this excuses the conduct or reduces the impact of Rhodes beliefs/acts, just that it's a relevant explanatory factor.
 * I am more concerned about the distraction impact of the loaded term in the use on the scholarship page than on the Rhodes page. I think the relevance is a bit less on the scholarship page, so there is less reason for the possibly distracting language. MikeDunford (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ...and the first image to pop to mind of a non-American...? Fortuna  Imperatrix Mundi  15:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * being an American, I can't speak to that, but I'd be curious to hear the answer. MikeDunford (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mike. Actually, Rhodes Scholars have been criticizing Rhodes for racism and white supremacist views since the 1960s, along with the rise of the Civil Rights movement. It's hardly a new flare up and I've updated the Rhodes Scholarship page to reflect that. It is our modern views that say that it's very loaded and an 'epithet' at all--Rhodes would happily have described himself as a white supremacist.
 * I do understand that it's a modern view to say that "white supremacist" is a loaded term or an epithet. But Wikipedia is read by modern readers, and I think it's reasonable to believe that many of them will have that understanding of the term. As I've said, I'm not opposed to having the information in the article, but I think that a cautious approach is reasonable under the circumstances. Along these lines, is there an existing consensus on how to handle the issue of cultural change and/or increasing awareness when it comes to issues of race, sex, and so forth? MikeDunford (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * All of the three citations provided thus far on this epithet or characterization are from the past 10 or 11 months. I therefore don't think it merits being in the lede (or possibly even in the article at all). It seems like a recent flare-up. If there is nothing substantiating this characterization from the 20th century, this stuff should probably be relegated to something at the end of the article that mentions recent criticism (or omitted entirely). In the lede it has way too much weight (WP:UNDUE), which is not justified by a few items from merely the past year. And yes it also violates WP:NPOV. Softlavender (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply Softlander. I updated the Rhodes Scholarship page to include a history of criticism of Rhodes for being racist and white supremacist going back to the 1960s. This is not actually a new criticism--it's widely discussed in South Africa. If anything, I'm surprised that pages describing him haven't mentioned it before....
 * I agree. This critique goes back to the Rhodesia/Zimbabwe revolution.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

On a meta-level, a few things: SageRad (talk) 13:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The IP user needs to learn to sign their comments, please...
 * If it's true then it's true and can be in he lede, in my opinion. If there are good sources and it's a solid label then it belongs. We call things what they are here -- no exaggeration but no protectionism.
 * This discussion really belongs on the talk page of the article, except for meta-level concerns about NPOV.
 * If the IP user was reverting without discussing then that would be edit warring, although the user is probably new and so people should go easy and carefully explain that to them, in a welcoming way to get them to discuss -- and they are now discussing, so hopefully this remains civil and no sanctions are needed.


 * RS do appear to adequately support "white supremacist", while including some "detractor allege" dodge runs into WP:WEASEL problems. We have a neutrality policy about handling major viewpoints found in reliable sources, not a "neutrality" policy of never saying anything unfavorable about article subjects.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Michael Greger
The issue has been discussed among a few editors on the talk page of the article and elsewhere but the person behind the piece that I'm trying to remove keeps putting it back in the lead of the article and giving it undue weight, even though the opinion pushed is far from being significant criticism (and it must be, according to WP:LEDE). Below is a copy of what I said on Talk:Michael Greger not long ago, with some links now leading to the actual discussions:

Back in April 2015 on Talk:Veganism and WP:NPOVN, Alexbrn argued for keeping the part that said "There is no good evidence that a vegan diet helps prevent cancer in people". The wording and how it didn't match what was in the sources cited is similar to "Greger's promotion of veganism has been criticized for including exaggerated claims of health benefits not backed by sound medical evidence". Alexbrn's version didn't end up in the veganism article at the conclusion of the discussion. Now it's even worse, because on top of the claims made by Alexbrn not being supported by the source, the source itself is questionable and the weight of this opinion is not enough for it to be presented at the beginning of the article. --Rose (talk) 06:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note this is being discussed at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn (talk) 06:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Not really. What's being discussed there is mainly whether the source that you use is appropriate, while it's only a part of all the issues raised by me. --Rose (talk) 07:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Move to close. Although I broadly agree with Rose on this point, this is not the right forum. It's a BLP issue (specifically WP:BLPSPS) and Alexbrn is correct that this smacks of WP:FORUMSHOP. There are broader issues about when WP:PARITY can be applied to use an SPS in a BLP, in overt defiance of policy. Alexbrn pointed out on Talk:Michael Greger that this is commonplace already in certain cases which he cited, and I suggested changing policy in order to allow it. --Sammy1339 (talk) 07:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This certainly is the right forum if what's in the lead has claims that aren't in the source, regardless of the quality or applicability of the latter. The presence of insignificant criticism in the lead also has nothing to do with whether the source is good. --Rose (talk) 07:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This is the right forum for disputes about neutrality of content. I have to agree there's an issue there. SageRad (talk) 07:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It is arguable it could be at BLPN, NPOVN, RSN and WTMED too. However the discussion has taken root at Alexbrn (talk) 08:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Neutral point of view concerns about Lavdrim Muhaxheri biography
During the latest weeks the Lavdrim Muhaxheri biography article has lost a lot of it's NPOV and would need a review. I've listed specific points at the talkpage that are related to NPOV, recentism, bias,libel/defamation under the section 'Review of article'.KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

0.999... Academic and common sense POV
The article 0.999... promotes an academic point of view and disparages a common sense point of view. I added an external link to an article which defends this common sense point of view. My link was removed and the ensuing discussion is on my talk page. It was suggested that I bring the discussion here. My edit was made at 11:37, 8 January 2016‎. Kevincook13 (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: edit was this. Reverted here by user with warning on user talk. Further Discussion at User talk:Kevincook13. - DVdm (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The article in question deals with a mathematical question that requires a modicum of mathematical understanding. An external link to a deeply flawed pseudo-analysis is not useful, and the position that 0.999.... is different from 1 is as WP:FRINGE as the claim that 0.333... is "not a real number". NPOV does not mean that we have to include every opinion, it means that our article has to reflect published expert opinion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The article says, "Nonetheless, some students find it sufficiently counterintuitive that they question or reject it." That seems to be sufficient mention per fringe.  TFD (talk) 09:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Then the article needs to address it via reliable sources not via some non-RS external link. WP:ELNO#2 is very clear as is WP:ELNO#11 . The proposed link looks to be both.  J bh  Talk  13:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I mean that I agree with TFD. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I misread. J bh  Talk  13:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with TFD that the sentence on counter intuitiveness of the topic suffices. In any case, if you want more on this point, we would require reputable published sources (not sources self published on the author website like the provided article) to back any such claims. Also note that as a tertiary, encyclopedic work, Wikipedia should only refer to insights that have at least some substantial coverage in reputable published primary and secondary sources. If you think this point of view needs more attention in such primary and secondary literature, try to get the ideas published there. Arnoutf (talk) 14:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This noticeboard is supposedly not for discussing reputability of sources but rather for discussing neutrality of point of view. But with regard to reputability of sources, the only concern should be whether or not the author is who the website claims he is and whether or not the author wrote what the website claims he wrote. So far no one has questioned either of those assertions. There seems to be no real concern about reputability of sources. However, I am concerned about neutrality of point of view. The article acknowledges that the academic point of view is counter-intuitive but it gives the reader the false impression that those who espouse the common sense point of view are unschooled children. Kevincook13 (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What you describe as 'the common sense point of view' seems in fact just to be your own personal opinion. WP should only include what is shown in reliable sources.  If you can find a reliable source which clearly states that what you say on your web site is generally considered to to be the common sense view then we might be able to add some more on that subject to the article or include a link to a web site expounding that particular view.  If you cannot find such a sources then we cannot do either. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The common sense point of view is that "by adding more and more nines to 0.999...9, one can get as close to 1 as one wants, but not to 1 itself."
 * This common sense view can be mathematically formulated as follows: "For any number you name, as small as you like, we can find a number N such that the difference between 1 and 0.999...9 (with N nines in total) is smaller than your number." This statement can be rigourously proven. I don't see any discrepancy between the academic point of view and the common sense point of view.
 * Now, on your site I see a claim that "an infinite sequence does not have an end and is therefore not a sequence. An infinite sequence is a sequence variable." To me this sounds like nonsense rather than like common sense. But... whatever sense it is or is not, it could be taken onboard as an external link, provided other relevant authors use that term in the same context. As far as I can see, there aren't any. The author of a website that claims that the moon is made of blue cheese will never succeed at inserting a link to his website in our articles Moon or Blue cheese. - DVdm (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * My concern with the article is that it gives the reader the false impression that people who espouse the view that the term 0.999... refers to a variable are unschooled children. This is a subtle yet effective strategy for persuading people to accept the view that the term refers to a number. Wikipedia is being used to persuade people to accept a view of academic authorities whose success relies upon such acceptance. If you think that conflict of interest is unlikely, then you might be interested in reading about the experience of a graduate student who recently posted a paper entitled "A proof of the inconsistency of ZFC" on his personal academic website. The website was shut down. Subsequently, the student wrote: "Why hide? If you are interested in the truth and in teaching the truth then come out in the open. Say who you are and how you think the quest for truth benefited from your actions." Kevincook13 (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * To me personally, "people who espouse the view that the term 0.999... refers to a variable" are worse than unschooled children. They are more like a certain brand of unschooled children who, when repeatedly being told what it actually refers to, cover their ears and suffer from the illusion that they know better than ordinary people and schooled academics. Wikipedia does not care what the student (i.e. you) wrote, and that is by design. I already told you (twice now) that you have come to the wrong place. Speaker's Corner is over here. - DVdm (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * To me personally, "people who espouse the view that the term 0.999... refers to a variable" are worse than unschooled children. They are more like a certain brand of unschooled children who, when repeatedly being told what it actually refers to, cover their ears and suffer from the illusion that they know better than ordinary people and schooled academics. Wikipedia does not care what the student (i.e. you) wrote, and that is by design. I already told you (twice now) that you have come to the wrong place. Speaker's Corner is over here. - DVdm (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Kevin, you are most welcome, as far as I am concerned, to carry on your mathematical argument, but not in Wikipedia please. For all I know you might even be right, I am not qualified to decide. The point is that editors at Wikipedia do not make decisions on mathematics that is done by mathematicians who get their opinions published in reliable sources.  If you can get your opinion published in a reliable source, or find a reliable source that agrees with you, then we would have to include it here.  If you cannot produce a source then we cannot include what you want to say, even if we think you are right.


 * You may think that the acedemic system is somehow stacked against you. Unfortunately there is nothing that we can do about that. You will have to take up that fight elsewhere. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I understand what both of you are saying. One of you thinks that the proposal by Kevin Cook is not worth reading. The other asserts that unless his ideas are published in a reliable source of academic thought, his ideas cannot be referenced in the article. However, I feel that my comments are not understood. You write that I am welcome to carry on my mathematical argument, yet my concern is much more about people than it is about math. Yes the article is about math, but it is also about people, what people think about math. One way to resolve my concern may be to remove from the article any suggestion of what people think about the ideas presented in the article. Kevincook13 (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * As fas as I can see, everything in the article is backed by reliable sources, including what it reports about what people think about the ideas. If you find something in the article that is not properly backed by relevant sources, you can flag it in the article with a or  tag, or—preferably—bring it up on the article talk page Talk:0.999...,. - DVdm (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Much ado about nothing. This must be a record holder in that respect. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I perceive a lack of good faith. I accurately reflect back to you what you are saying, but you do not reciprocate. Rather, you obfuscate. Your tactics may result in some success. But obfuscation is easy to detect for those who are interested in genuine discussion. I am confident in Wikipedia's potential to prevail over such obfuscation. Unless you immediately show that you are interested in genuine discussion I will not respond to either of you. I will continue discussion on this topic, but will ignore your posts. Kevincook13 (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * DVdm, you are the one who sent me here in the first place. In our discussion on my user page I wrote: "I believe you about the culture here. I believe I have come to the right place. Before I start a conversation with other people about the point of view of this article, could we talk about it briefly? Can you see why I believe that the article currently does not take a neutral point of view?" You responded by writing: "At this point I can't help you anymore. The place to go is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard" So, I brought the discussion here. You joined the discussion here, but you have not yet shown any willingness to acknowledge why I think the article does not take a neutral point of view. Why not at least do that? Why did you send me here? Kevincook13 (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I first advised you to come here when you said: "Your refusal to allow the link violates the spirit of the neutral point of view policy." Then you said: "It does not appear to me that you are very interested in a neutral point of view.", so again I suggested you to come here  to get a fourth opinion. So you got a fourth opinion, and a fifth, a sixth, a seventh and an eighth, some of them repeated twice or more. Nobody here seems to agree with you, so I am afraid there is not much to discuss anymore. The bottom line seems to be what I already told you in my very first message and what someone else has told you here too: your link violates wp:ELNO item 11. It blatantly does so. Actually, it violates a lot more (see your talk page and here above), but one is usually sufficient. - DVdm (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It is easier for me to follow your advice when you show me that you understand my concern with the article as it now stands. Kevincook13 (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, my last comment was simply a mathematical joke (as to the value of 1 - 0.999...). It was not intended to be a personal remark of any kind.  However, as DVdm says, there is not much more we can say to help you. You are always welcome to propose alternative changes to the article and see if there is a consensus to keep them.  See WP:BRD.Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe that consensus can be reached to retain the change I already made. The road to reaching that consensus begins with a willingness to discuss my concern regarding the neutrality of the article. Kevincook13 (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The only change that you have tried to make is this one, and everybody seems to agree that it is a blatant violation of at least four policies and guidelines. I think that the consensus is that the article is perfecly neutral. - DVdm (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with DVdm Kevin. Adding a link to your own private research and opinion will never gain consensus.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed: link is obviously inappropriate per wp:ELNO. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The reason that guidelines are flexible is to help avoid losing sight of the objective, which is a great encyclopedia! Speaking of the encyclopedia, this article in particular, would anyone be interested in addressing my concern with its neutrality? Kevincook13 (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Back at square one. Perhaps you could benefit from reading how to recognize when no means no. - DVdm (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The title of the article you referenced above is "How to Lose". On my talk page, when you first suggested I bring our conversation to this noticeboard I wrote: "Thanks again for helping me to better understand how Wikipedia works. I see that there is a mechanism for contesting what you have decided. That is good to know, although I am not sure I am interested in a contest." You responded by writing: "Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND, so your seeing this as a contest suggests—again—that you might have come to the wrong place." Then I wrote: "I believe you about the culture here. I believe I have come to the right place." According to you, we are not in a contest. So why point me to an article about how to lose? Do you mean to say that you are not interested in addressing my concern? Kevincook13 (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Your concern has been addressed and not found to be credible. Now you are wasting people's time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed it. Who addressed my concern? Kevincook13 (talk) 15:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thats because you were not listening. Everyone who has told you that you are wrong. You might not like the answer, but thats the one you got. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Germany, Nazi Germany and the Third Reich on Military articles - Oh my!
See this RfC on which name to use in the infoboxes of military unit's active only during the Third Reich/Nazi Germany and leave a well-considered !Vote. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 06:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move
There is a requested move that may interest people here at Talk:Taharrush jamai. SarahSV (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Serious instance of discrimination
There is a serious instance of discrimination in Wikipedia. We have an article about The Sexual Life of Savages in North-Western Melanesia but not about the sexual lives of savages in Northern, Southern, Western, Eastern, South-Western, North-Eastern and South-Eastern Melanesia. Wikipedia should know that there are many peaceful tribes in these parts of Melanesia too and not be biased towards them, favouring only North-Western Melanesians. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.59.153.134 (talk) 10:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You do realize that the article is about a book with that title, not about the general subject of sexuality in Melanesia, right?  Wikipedia neither wrote nor published that book.  If you want to argue about the title or focus, get a time machine and go find Bronisław Malinowski, because the title and focus of that book are his fault and his alone.  All Wikipedia did was write an article about a book that happened to have that title.  Don't even try to suggest that we title an article about a book something other than the title of the book.  If Wikipedia wrote an article about the subject discussed in that book, the title would be "Sexuality in Melanesia," with sections by region (instead of geographic directions).  For example, we have articles on Sexuality in China, Sexuality in the Philippines, and so on.
 * If you seriously try to continue this argument, the only conclusion anyone will be able to draw is that you're a troll. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought that that conclusion would be drawn from the beginning and I certainly wasn't expecting such an essay. Really, who would try to seriously argue about such a ridiculous assumption? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.59.153.134 (talk) 11:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Be nice, everyone. Humor does not translate well when strangers communicate through text. Be nice everywhere and assume good faith.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  16:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Paleolithic diet
I'm seeing some serious NPOV issues occurring at Paleolithic diet. I don't have much time to give this, but if you see the article's current content, edit history, and talk page, i think the problems would be obvious to an uninvolved observer. I'd rather not prejudice anyone by saying what i think about the issues, but just to highlight the article for more eyes. I'd ask for anyone's help there. I'm probably not going to be editing there much due to the toxic environment, but more eyes could be useful in helping this article conform to WP:NPOV basics. Thanks for anyone who has the willingness and energy to do so. SageRad (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What's the problem, exactly? The idea of a single homogeneous "paleolithic diet" is ridiculous, and the fact that it's a fad diet is hardly controversial. Guy (Help!) 18:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer to let people decide for themselves. However, since you've gotten specific here, i have to say that there is not any assumption of a single homogenous "paleolithic diet" being made, so that's a strawman argument, and secondly, the notion (not "fact") that it's a "fad diet" is most certainly controversial. So, on both points, note that there is strong difference of opinion, and the things you've stated are not accepted facts. SageRad (talk) 18:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * These are controversies according to you, but not according to RS. To be neutral we need to ensure Wikipedia follows RS. Alexbrn (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I dispute that assertion, clearly. There is a case of a biased WP:OWNBEHAVIOR at the article. There is a case of WP:POV RAILROAD behavior that's taken over the page and made reasonable dialog completely impossible as a means to deciding content cooperatively. It's a nasty and toxic environment there. Let some others who are uninvolved bring their own eyes and minds to the question, can't we? SageRad (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Like many things, i think it's about perspective -- and i have a strong sense that we need more editors with various perspectives to add their voices there. It seems like there are two strong perspectives currently butting heads and it's not very fruitful. SageRad (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not deal in the perspectives of editors, but in the views contained in the best RS. That is the essence of NPOV. Alexbrn (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand the essence of NPOV but issues arise when the perspective of editors causes bias in which sources are used, which are deprecated, and how they are represented, so perspective of editors is still a factor that can lead to biased articles. SageRad (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The first sentence: The paleolithic diet is a fad diet based on the foods that proponents believe Paleolithic humans might likely have eaten, such as meat, nuts, and berries,[1] and excludes food which proponents think Paleolithic humans did not eat, like dairy. The first sentence is garbage. The first sentence should explain what it is. This could be fixed, but I am not going to fix it. I am dealing with way too problems at the chiropractic page. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

To me eyes, the problem persists and is getting worse by the hour. Needs attention regarding NPOV compliance. SageRad (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

POV editing continues on this article, and a small group of editors have essentially occupied the article, and they are maintaining the POV state of the article despite serious and well-intentioned attempts to work collaboratively, and to use proper sourcing to follow policy and to remove the intense attack POV that has already been pushed into the article. In other words -- good editors need to come and help untangle that mess there. Please.

I have no strong personal stake in the subject of the article, but i do believe in the potential for Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia with integrity. We cannot suffer editors blatantly gaming the system and let them get away with it, and still pretend that there is a working system in Wikipedia. SageRad (talk) 10:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

.... and.... it's continuing, with even the onerous anti-consensus removal of an NPOV tag from the article, edit warred out of the article by one of the people who are occupying the article. Does anyone care? Is anyone listening? SageRad (talk) 11:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing what you're seeing. The article actually describes and explains the diet and it says the various points why it was thought up and what the evidence is. It is a fad and it says so. It doesn't do anything like sort stupid things some hard-line anti fringe editors try doing like removing anything properly describing the topic for weight reasons and only leaving criticism.. Dmcq (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Things are getting worse. The entire lede is trash writing. It looks like a blog post. I am listening but I do not have the time to spend hours reviewing sources to just get reverted in the end. If there were expert authority then it could be fixed. QuackGuru ( talk ) 18:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Without explanation, sourced text was deleted and replaced with unsourced text and non-neutral wording. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 00:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The changes you want to make have been discussed repeatedly on the talkpage. Showing up and making them without actually checking to see if they have been discussed (and repeatedly rejected by multiple editors) is not going to get anywhere. If you have a new argument (you probably have a better and more policy compliant one compared to some) please take it to the talkpage and discuss it there. There are plenty of people watching it and perfectly happy to discuss it with you. However heavy-handed changes which have already been rejected are just not going to work. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Original research in the lede
The part "proponents claim" fails verification and the part "classed as a fad diet by mainstream authorities" fails verification. Without explanation the tags were removed without removing the text that failed verification. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 17:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a lively discussion. See Talk:Paleolithic_diet. QuackGuru ( talk ) 21:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Article still highly distorted
The article is still highly POV in current form and seems to be held that way by several editors. It's contested and some are still claiming that there is "consensus" for the current form, and accusing those who want to change it of POV editing, etc.

Anyway, here is a recent talk page section as an example. Anyone who is uninvolved and unbiased and has some spare time to get into an interesting topic might like to visit and see the controvery. SageRad (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Expulsion of Cham Albanians
The article is in dire need of non-partisan editors. I know a lot of people are reluctant to get involved in anything related to the Balkans, but I believe the only way to improve these articles is if they're overseen by neutral editors. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe the lead is bloated and unbalanced, and I've explained some of my concerns here:
 * Another editor, believes the background section is POV, and has raised his concerns here:
 * Maybe specific examples will help encourage discussion. I'll start by picking a snippet from the background section:
 * "Between 72-78 Muslim Cham notables from Paramythia where executed by a Greek army irregular unit during this time.[34] Cham reports that some Albanian notables of Chameria were persecuted and killed by the Greek authorities had been officially refuted by the Greek government.[35]"


 * I believe this is misleading, because the way it's structured insinuates that the executions never took place because it's "been officially refuted by the Greek government". The first sentence is supported by a Greek scholar. The second sentence is supported by a PhD thesis from 1997, in which it says (assuming the translation is correct): "The same report sent to the English Foreign Minister, which denounced murder and persecution of Albanian notables by Greek bodies and the Greek authorities. The report was later refuted by the Greek government with concrete evidence."


 * Also, the part that it was "officially refuted by the Greek government with concrete evidence" should at least raise some warning flags with regards to the neutrality of this specific source. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 13:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Summary of Jewish history
The lede of Jews, which has Good Article status, currently summarizes several millennia of Jewish history in two sentences as

"while maintaining rule over their homeland during certain periods—such as under the Kingdom of Israel, the Kingdom of Judah, the Hasmonean Dynasty, and the Herodian Kingdom—Jews also suffered various exiles and occupations from their homeland—from Ancient Egyptian Occupation of the Levant, to Assyrian Captivity and Exile, to Babylonian Captivity and Exile, to Greek Occupation and Exile, to the Roman Occupation and Exile. These events subjected Jews to slavery, pogroms, cultural assimilation, forced expulsions, genocide, and more, scattering Jews all around the world, in what is known today as the Jewish diaspora.  Cassius Dio's Roman History: Epitome of Book LXIX para. 13-14: "13 At first the Romans took no account of them. Soon, however, all Judaea had been stirred up, and the Jews everywhere were showing signs of disturbance, were gathering together, and giving evidence of great hostility to the Romans, partly by secret and partly by overt acts; 2 many outside nations, too, were joining them through eagerness for gain, and the whole earth, one might almost say, was being stirred up over the matter. Then, indeed, Hadrian sent against them his best generals. First of these was Julius Severus, who was dispatched from Britain, where he was governor, against the Jews. 3 Severus did not venture to attack his opponents in the open at any one point, in view of their numbers and their desperation, but by intercepting small groups, thanks to the number of his soldiers and his under-officers, and by depriving them of food and shutting them up, he was able, rather slowly, to be sure, but with comparatively little danger, to crush, exhaust and exterminate them. Very few of them in fact survived. 14 1 Fifty of their most important outposts and nine hundred and eighty-five of their most famous villages were razed to the ground. Five hundred and eighty thousand men were slain in the various raids and battles, and the number of those that perished by famine, disease and fire was past finding out. 2 Thus nearly the whole of Judaea was made desolate, a result of which the people had had forewarning before the war. For the tomb of Solomon, which the Jews regard as an object of veneration, fell to pieces of itself and collapsed, and many wolves and hyenas rushed howling into their cities. 3 Many Romans, moreover, perished in this war. Therefore Hadrian in writing to the senate did not employ the opening phrase commonly affected by the emperors, 'If you and our children are in health, it is well; I and the legions are in health'" (para. 13-14). Sheffer, Gabriel. 2005. Is the Jewish Diaspora Unique? Reflections on the Diaspora's Current Situation. Israel Studies 10 (1): p. 3-4. "...the Jewish nation, which from its very earliest days believed and claimed that it was the "chosen people," and hence unique. This attitude has further been buttressed by the equally traditional view, which is held not only by the Jews themselves, about the exceptional historical age of this diaspora, its singular traumatic experiences its singular ability to survive pogroms, exiles, and Holocaust, as well as its "special relations" with its ancient homeland, culminating in 1948 with the nation-state that the Jewish nation has established there... First, like many other members of established diasporas, the vast majority of Jews no longer regard themselves as being in Galut [exile] in their host countries.7 Perceptually, as well as actually, Jews permanently reside in host countries of their own free will, as a result of inertia, or as a result of problematic conditions prevailing in other hostlands, or in Israel. It means that the basic perception of many Jews about their existential situation in their hostlands has changed. Consequently, there is both a much greater self- and collective-legitimatization to refrain from making serious plans concerning "return" or actually "making Aliyah" [to emigrate, or "go up"] to Israel. This is one of the results of their wider, yet still rather problematic and sometimes painful acceptance by the societies and political systems in their host countries. It means that they, and to an extent their hosts, do not regard Jewish life within the framework of diasporic formations in these hostlands as something that they should be ashamed of, hide from others, or alter by returning to the old homeland" (p. 4)."

With the references:

The summary was introduced in this edit by.

I and other editors have raised issues with this summary on the article's talk page. I don't think anyone will doubt that great hardship befell the Jews in several periods of their history (and the Holocaust is mentioned later on), but all else is ignored here, except periods which saw Jewish statehood. Thus, we have an extremely one-sided view of history of exactly the kind that one of the sources warns against:

"until a few years ago, most characterizations of diasporas emphasized their catastrophic origins ... [but] Jewish migratory experiences were much more diverse and more complex than the catastrophic tradition allows"

- Cohen 1997, p. 21–22

Similarly, the thrust of the article by Botticini and Eckstein is ignored, which is to explain "additional 30 to 40 percent of the decrease in the Jewish population" in terms of voluntary conversion to other religions. Instead, a quote is lifted out that fits the preconceived story. To give one more example of the complexity of Jewish history that is glossed over, Barraclough's Times Atlas of World History (p. 102–103 in my 1981 Dutch translation) describes the first few centuries of the diaspora, noting that Jews formed a thriving merchant class throughout the Mediterranean basin in Roman times (with major persecution only starting after the Empire's conversion to Christianity ca. 330).

Unfortunately, discussion of these issues has stalled. My suggestion is to at least revert to the older version of the lede, which was a bit better. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 12:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I think that present opening sentence is a pretty good description of Jewish history. Especially since that history is perceived by most people, Jews and non-Jews alike, in precisely this way, as the quote form Cohen proves.
 * Botticini and Eckstein is just one article, and regards a specific time period only. It also ignores that "voluntary" conversion was often a result of certain socio-economic pressures, which are already mentioned. Debresser (talk) 14:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In addition, the fact that the discussion has been stale for over a month, not counting one post by the poster of this section, shows that there is no active POV discussion, and per the instructions on the documentation of the POV template it can (and should) be removed. Artificially reviving the discussion here, just because the outcome of the discussion on the talkpage is not what Qwertyus would like it to be, is not appreciated. Debresser (talk) 14:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Qwertyus. This section of the lead does not contain information relating how Jews also flourished and prospered in their respective diasporas; only their victimhood without an independent state is related and emphasised, providing a subtle Zionist slant on history. Yet their authoritative legal code was redacted in present day Iraq... Chesdovi (talk) 14:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

"Summary style" is a "good thing." Condensing thousands of years into two sentences, is pushing it. Suppose the "more detailed version" (likely at least four paragraphs) were placed in a section below the lead, and the lead then reworded to something more like:
 * Over thousands of years, Jews maintained independent kingdoms, had those kingdoms been occupied by other nations, been exiled and spread across many nations. They have seen slavery and mistreatment, even including genocide, as well as prosperity and survival as a group.

In short - make it short and readable, and leave the details to the body of the article. Too many details in two sentences does not help readers. Collect (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In short, the lead is sourced with the sources of highest possible quality and it represent accurate reflection of the sources used. The POV template was removed because there was no discussion on talk page (where the debate should take place). As Debresser said If some editors fails to gain consensus for his POV, he/she should not use this noticeboard to bypass the talk page and people who worked hard on that article.  Many editors spent a lot of time and energy to provide best sources of highest quality and WP:IDONTLIKEIT should not be an issue here.Tritomex (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Um -- what part of my post was difficult here? The lead does not need to be obsessively detailed and sourced - the best leads summarize the actual article content.   And note also that noticeboards in general seek comments, which is what I did.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I've already shown that at least two of the sources are misrepresented, one of them in a rather extreme way. The Davies, Finkelstein and Katz volume is also used for fact picking; a glance at its introduction and some of its chapters doesn't reveal quite the kind of lachrymose history that has been written here. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 17:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * @Qwertyus Why do you not reply to my objections at all? It is you who are misrepresenting the Botticini and Eckstein source and ignoring the Cohen source.
 * @Collect The lead doesn't need to showall details and sources, but its content must have sources. The version proposed by Qwertyus goes against sources, as I have shown above, and Qwertyus fails to address that problem. The inevitable result is that his version can not be accepted.
 * I would also like to repeat that the talkpage discussion has failed to show consensus for the changes proposed by Qwertyus. Coming here is not the way to gain consensus. If there were any serious NPOV issues, they would have been pointed out by now. In view of the lack of such concerns, consensus forming must take place on the talkpage, and the talkpage shows Qwertyus has not gained consensus. Debresser (talk) 13:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * as WP:RS notes, "we publish the opinions only of reliable authors", not history as "perceived by most people". What Cohen says is that this type of history is outdated, in fact was outdated already in 1997. The purpose of history is not to tell people what they think they already know. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 17:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Cohen says "most characterizations of diasporas emphasized their catastrophic origins" and then continues to say that "Jewish migratory experiences were much more diverse and more complex than the catastrophic tradition allows". So he admits that most academic sources stress the "catastrophes", as quoted in the lead with 9 (!) sources, including one form the very same book of Cohen (!), and just wants to add some nuances to that. Now, that is fine as an academic theory, but not worthy of the lead of the article. Nuances are for the sections of the article proper, not for the lead. Debresser (talk) 01:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ledes should be neutral as well. Have a look at Jewish history for a more neutrally written lede. Also, the Davies/Finkelstein/Katz does not contain this view of history either; it's much more balanced. Facts have been lifted from it and fitted into a frame. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 09:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Whether this lead is neutrally worded, is precisely the question at hand, so that was an argument by assertion.
 * It may be that the Davies/Finkelstein/Katz source is more balanced. Nevertheless, the quotes are two groups of several sentences, so this is hardly original research or cherry-picking. Debresser (talk) 12:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The two US political parties are named REPUBLICAN and DEMOCRAT.
No Democratic party exists. However nearly all articles in WIKI contain this misleading error. Inacurractely naming Democrats, Democratic, conveys a false sense of identity to Democrats - inferring Republicans are not democratic. A global change is needed to correct this misnomer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.241.153.1 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 9 January 2016
 * Can you show that "Democratic party" is not used in reliable sources? A cursory web search shows that it is. Washington Post, Washington Times, Pennsylvania Democrats
 * The capital D in "Democrat" is meant to distinguish it from general proponents of democracy, just like the R in "Republican." This is generally understood.
 * If you want to and can find sources, you could add a section to Democratic Party (United States) explicitly stating that the difference between Democrats and democracy. Darkfrog24 (talk)


 * The Party Charter clearly labels it as the Democratic Party. Torven (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes. There's a distinction between "the Democratic Party" (a proper name), "a democratic party" (a common noun), and "a/the Democratic party", a mixed usage that – while attested (probably as an editorial error) in some publications – is ambiguous, confusing, and has no reason to be used on Wikipedia. WP does not capitalize general political philosophies, per MOS:ISMS, so "capital D in "Democrat" is meant to distinguish it from general proponents of democracy" is an invalid rationale here; it's capitalization for emphasis, the first "do not" point at MOS:CAPS. It's unclear what dispute the anon is referencing; Democratic party redirects to the Democratic Party disambiguation/set-index page, as one would expect. Assuming there is some actual dispute on this somewhere, I'll try to address it as broadly as possible: About the only potential legitimate use of "Democratic party" on wikipedia would be in reference to a comparison between two unrelated parties in two countries both with "Democratic" in their name ("the Democratic Party in the US and the People's Democratic Party of Kerblachistan"), but such a usage would be sloppy; "the two Democratic parties differ in their views on ..." can simply be rendered "the two parties differ in their views on ..."; it's also PoV pushing, because the equation of their uses of the word is a fallacy of equivocation and of false equivalence that ignores that words have different meanings in different contexts, and advances the original research implication that the parties are philosophically connected by their use of this term (this is obviously nonsense; many of the extremely undemocratic communist regimes of the 20th century included "Democratic" in the names of their nations and subnational entities as a propaganda move, and this has also been true of many political parties).  In the case of two parties with genuinely connected political philosophies and both named "the Democratic Party" (perhaps in neighboring countries, or one being a later version of an earlier one in the same country), we'd use "the two Democratic Parties differ on ..." or, again, just "the two parties differ on ...".  This is just basic copyediting, folks.  The objection that that often comes up in cases like this, summarizable as 'but it's in some of the RS that way, so I can use it no matter what' is wrong for three different policy reasons: MOS is not obligated to permit every known style that ever existed, and the guideline is based on editorial WP:CONSENSUS, as it is part of internal WP:POLICY, not an article subject to WP:CCPOL; editorial consensus on how to write a particular article is not required to accept and regurgitate the exact phrasing in previously published material (we're encouraged to  do this, per WP:EDITING and WP:PLAGIARISM); and WP:BURDEN clearly says we do not have to accept facts or sources as encyclopedic simply because they exist somewhere, and the most common rationale for rejecting something is WP:NPOV policy, though there are many others (all of which are valid, because what to include is also a matter of consensus).  This tendentious campaign being waged by a handful of editors that whatever they can find in some source somewhere  exactly what MoS may and may not say or do, or what editors may or may not come to consensus about, has to stop. One of the parties here has already been topic-banned from a swath of the MoS for pursuing this kind of consensus-takes-a-back-seat stuff.  This is strong evidence that the community's patience for pet-source and pet-style pushing has worn out.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Clearly, the Democratic National Committee would beg to differ that their party is not called "Democratic".  Montanabw (talk) | GO  THUNDER!  05:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

We have an article specifically about people who call the Democratic Party the "Democrat Party". See Democrat Party (epithet). All very juvenile. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Anyway, the use of "Democrat Party" as an insult is subject to WP:ARBAP2.  Recommend a trout to original poster.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

User "Volkstod"
The User seems to have a massive NPOV problem. The user name "Volkstod", translated roughly "Death of a nation" is a slogan of german far-right groups stating that immigration would destroy the german people and that immigrants would have to be removed from Germany to prevent this. In the german Wikipedia, the user was indefinetely blocked immediately after the first edit was performed. Here, the user is obviously showing their far-right political bias in their edits. A few examples:

* Removing criticism out of the article about annother right-wing group, calling the Washington Post "moonies"
 * Stating that there would have been a coverup in the media regarding the New Year's eve sexual assaults in Germany
 * Stating that there wouldn't be a proof for the existence of the german far-right terrorist organization NSU, which killed 10 people
 * Removing critical statements out of the article about a german right-wing political Party
 * Changing the term "xenophobic" to "antimigrational" when it's about the neo-Nazi, who tried to assassinate the mayor of Cologne, Henriette Reker

-- 84.59.84.9 (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * IP 84.59.84.9, I believe there is a serious WP:NOTHERE problem with Volkstod, and would suggest that you take this to the WP:ANI for further scrutiny. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, i would like to respont to the allegiations, that were make against me by the user 84.59.84.9. who has done only 5 edits or so. Please excuse my bad english, because i am not a native speaker.

1. there is a lot of discussions going on about the media couverage of the New Years eve sexual assaults in Cologne (and other german cities) 2016. Mostly of the participations, who claimed that there was some kind of coverup about these scandalous incidents could hardly described as rightwing extremists, or neo nazis or things like that. 2. it is possible to describe the alternative for germany (AfD) as a populist movement against the older establishment parties in the federal republic of germany. it is not necessearily needy to call the AfD right wing extremist. 3. in the article about the larouche movement there is no mention of the well-known Washington POST, but of the moonitie Washington TIME!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volkstod (talk • contribs) 01:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've had a chance to carefully check through the diffs pointed out by the IP and, yes, my apologies to you. You've caught fake sources added by this IP. As regards substituting 'antimigrational' for 'xenophobic', however, after it was explained to you as a direct quote from the investigating officer, you obviously took this on board and didn't make any further changes.


 * In general, however, it's better to keep your edit summaries to the point. If there are problematic changes being made to articles, use the article's talk page to explain your position. Even if your English isn't good, it's certainly good enough to convey what you wish to express for other editors to join in on discussing content issues. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It says above "calling the Washington Post "moonies""; actually he said Washington Times, (which was owned by Rev SM Moon). GangofOne (talk) 04:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm aware of that. The IP was trying to push content into the article attributing it to the Washington Post in the ref parameters, despite the fact that there's no such article in the Washington Post. Not providing a url for the article was something of a give away... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was a bit fast in collecting evidence, and I sincerely regret my mistake to confuse the "Washington Times" with the Washington Post. Hovever, there are still serious problems with this user, as you can see in the other diff-links given, and the diff-links are only the result of some spot checks I did, so there are probably some more. -- 188.97.67.68 (talk) (84.59.84.9 with a new dynamic IP) 13:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As noted in my own comment (which I struck out), this isn't an issue for this noticeboard. If editors are concerned about anyone's behaviour, it should be taken to WP:ANI. As it stands, you haven't established a reasonable case against Volkstod. What you have demonstrated reads like WP:HUNT. Casting WP:ASPERSIONS on editors based on some sort of gut feeling is not constructive, nor is it appreciated by the community. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems a case for WP:UFAA, rather than NPOVN. Prevalence (talk) 14:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Jun Hong Lu
There is a user who has had added a lot of the worst type of WP:PEACOCK and WP:COATRACK spam to Jun Hong Lu. I tried to remove it but I was reverted. Asking for help. Courtesy ping to User:Peace n Mercy. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 16:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * While I do not agree all the information should be removed, I did revert Peace n Mercy requesting a discussion on the changes and what should be restored.. Meatsgains (talk) 03:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

NPOV issues with text about alleged beheading footage in Lavdrim Muhaxheri biography article
This post is related to discussions on the talkpage Talk:Lavdrim Muhaxheri for the Lavdrim Muhaxheri biography article. (see (1/2) for reference articles within brackets ) Articles often mention both medial reports from 29 July 2014 about Muhahxeri allegedy appearing on beheading footage from Syria [17] and a warrant from Court of Ferizaj and Interpol from the 6 September 2014 in the same articles but they don’t claim that the warrant is issued for the alleged beheading footage [17]; ‘The demand comes from the Basic Court of Ferizaj, which has issued a warrant for Muhaxheri after he is accused of terrorism and organized groups to go to Syria and Iraq’ [17]'. Published court records on 15 January 2016 only mention text messages as evidence for recruitment.[65] The question is about formulation of medial claims in regard to NPOV; avoid stating opinions as facts; shouldn't ‘On 29 July 2014 Muhaxheri uploaded photos to a Facebook page where he is seen beheading an unidentified young man in Syria.’(1/2) (2/3) be stated as 'According to Balkan media, on 29 July 2014 an individual posted two (2) images to a Facebook page under the pseudonym "Lavdrim Muhaxheri" that, to some extent, give the impression of a man having beheaded an unidentified young man.' or something to the effect of a neutral statement where it's mentioned who's claiming it?

(1/2)https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lavdrim_Muhaxheri&diff=prev&oldid=700631550 (2/3)https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lavdrim_Muhaxheri&diff=prev&oldid=700798610

KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 08:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC) fix; the part about court documents is from 15 January 2016 and not 15 January 2015 (type - o)KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 10:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC) and NPOV - link KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 13:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC) shortened KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 15:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This is WP:Forumshopping. I have in vain tried to explain to User:KewinRozz that it is not a good idea to open an RfC and rising the same question on this noticeboard at the same time. Since the RfC was posted first, I suggest that this thread is speedily closed with a link to Talk:Lavdrim Muhaxheri. The posting is confusing enough as it is without having it duplicated. Regards! --T*U (talk) 09:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've already replied to your claim about WP:Forumshopping. 'Since the RfC was posted first, I suggest that this thread is speedily closed with a link to'. You've already commented on the Rfc about the edit, as is forthcomming by your comment on the talkpage and also by my reply to you yesterday. KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 09:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Clarification: The RfC that User:KewinRozz says that I have commented on, is an earlier RfC that now has been withdrawn. What I am concerned about is the new RfC that is identical to the posting in this thread here. --T*U (talk) 09:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Even if "withdraving" it, no, it's not an Rfc about an edit that hasn't been discussed on the talkpage or that you haven't commented on KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 09:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * No question was asked here, therefore the only way I can take this is as an invite to go to the RfC. At the RfC I don't see any straightforward question being asked either. The proposer needs to say what the problem they see is. For an RfC there should be a short neutral description at the beginning of the dispute. That needs to be put into the RfC otherwise it will be a waste of everybody's time like this here is. Dmcq (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Dmcq, it could be shortened to a short  neutral description by asking just about the reformulation of the statements on NPOV. I'll edit it.KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Guccisamsclub POV-pushing and personal attacks on Henry Kissinger
User:Guccisamsclub has inserted the following contentious claim into the Kissinger article: "According to Ben Kiernan, [Indonesia's] invasion and occupation [of East Timor] resulted in the deaths of nearly a quarter of the Timorese population from 1975 to 1981." This material is sourced to Kiernan's Genocide and Resistance in Southeast Asia: Documentation, Denial & Justice in Cambodia & East Timor, in which Kiernan argues that Indonesia's atrocities during the war in East Timor are "proportionally comparable" to the (peacetime) mass killings perpetrated by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia from 1975-1979. This material is related to Kissinger only in that Kissinger accompanied President Ford on a trip to Indonesia shortly before the invasion, and the two men told the Indonesian president, Suharto, that the U.S. would not object to Indonesia's plan to invade and annex East Timor. The U.S. maintained close ties to Suharto's government for decades during the Cold War, while the largest share of deaths in East Timor may have occurred under President Jimmy Carter, who continued to arm Indonesia despite his reputation as a global champion of human rights. (Carter would later claim that he had not been adequately briefed on the subject.) While the Indonesians certainly committed atrocities in East Timor, however, there is strong reason to doubt that those atrocities were in fact comparable to those of the Khmer Rouge:


 * The estimate that "nearly a quarter" of the population perished from 1975 to 1981 assumes approximately 170,000 deaths occurred in this period. However, the comprehensive Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation in East Timor (CAVR)—which is considered more reliable than the earlier indirect estimates based on flawed census data or simply experts' intuition—has documented only 102,000 deaths spread throughout the entire period of civil war and Indonesian occupation in East Timor, from 1974-1999. Although this is considered a "conservative minimum" estimate, a figure as high as 170,000 for 1975-1981 alone is extremely unlikely, as it nearly equals CAVR's hypothetical maximum of 183,000 for the entire 25-year period. (The theoretically possible 183,000 is composed of the following "population deficits": 129,694 from 1975-1980, 27,499 from 1981-1990, and 26,780 from 1991-2000. However, many of these "missing persons" were not dead but simply evaded detection in censuses or were never born at all.)
 * In "How many deaths? Problems in the statistics of massacre in Indonesia (1965-1966) and East Timor (1975-1980)", Robert Cribb writes that "a closer examination of the demographic data on East Timor" suggests a death toll "in the vicinity of 100,000", and also compared East Timor to Cambodia, noting "there is a remarkable shortage of detailed testimony on Indonesian atrocities, except in the initial assault on Dili" and East Timor "does not appear—on the basis of news reports and academic accounts—to be a society traumatized by mass death ... the circumstance leading up to the Dili massacre of 1991 ...  indicate a society which retained its vigor and indignation in a way which would probably not have been possible if it had been treated as Cambodia was treated under Pol Pot."
 * What happened in East Timor was a war, with thousands of Indonesian soldiers killed. During the early phases of the conflict, a significant percentage of the violent killings—up to 49% (page 6) in 1975—were committed by the anti-Indonesian Timorese resistance.

I am not sure that NPOV requires that we cover the death toll in Kissinger's WP:BLP. In fact, for many years it was not discussed, suggesting a quiet consensus to that effect—but that all changed when Bernie Sanders condemned Kissinger in a recent Democratic debate, inviting a number of drive-by editors to insert into the BLP whatever criticisms of Kissinger they could find. Even if the failure to mention the death toll was a serious omission, however, what is the point of cherry-picking a given percentage of the population that the death toll represents? Clearly, Guccisamsclub wants to portray the atrocities in East Timor as demographically exceptional, though the case for this is doubtful, and the choice of venue a poor one. (It's worth noting that East Timor is the only war/atrocity quantified in Kissinger's biography, with the exception of the American bombing of Cambodia, which he was intimately involved in. For example, the Cambodian genocide itself is not quantified, let alone in percentage terms, nor is the Pathet Lao's post-1975 campaign against the Hmong—even though both likely surpass Indonesia's crimes in East Timor. Similarly, the thousands killed by the U.S.-backed right-wing dictatorships in Chile and Argentina are not enumerated. What makes East Timor so extraordinary? Consider as well that not even Suharto—let alone other biographies of Western officials—makes any such claim regarding the percentage of the Timorese population killed.)

Nevertheless, I have proposed a compromise version of the "East Timor" section here, which includes Kiernan, Cribb, and the authoritative CAVR. As expected, Guccisamsclub quickly reverted the compromise with the nuanced and judicious edit summary "rv blogger". (Unfortunately, the bulk of Guccisamsclub's comments in our discussion of the matter consists of these kinds of personal attacks, suggesting why outside input will likely be necessary to reach an enforceable agreement: Guccisamsclub has accused me of being "hysterical", "wasting everyone's time", "cherry-picking", engaging in "ethnic hucksterism", being "supremely arrogant", "play[ing] little professor", and "doing preventive propaganda" while refusing to address my substantive argument on the grounds that "I'd be happy to pick a few holes in your story here too, as I've done in the past [referring to disagreements we have had on other, unrelated articles]. But I don't think your story has any bearing on the article or wikipedia policy." He has also accused me of considering "what happened in East Timor" to be "a footnote", based on my comment that Kissinger's personal involvement is a "footnote in Kissinger's career".) Beyond the edit summary, I can only guess that Guccisamsclub may have reverted me for the following reason, which he enunciated on the talk page several days ago: "I don't see any particular reason to prefer Cribb or CAVR to Kiernan. I think it's important that readers get the full range of estimates and caveats, but ... I am reluctant to accept your right [emphasis added] to dictate what that range should be." (Note how Guccisamsclub avoids explaining why Kiernan is preferable and should be the only source—or why we need to include Kiernan's percentage and comparison with Cambodia—and the ownership mentality evident in the comment regarding my "right" to edit the page.) Buried within the lengthy series of vituperative personal attacks, Guccisamsclub has also asserted that there is an important distinction between my "explicit comparison" with Cambodia and his implicit comparison, and strongly condemned me for mentioning on the talk page (though certainly not in the article itself!) that Kiernan's work on Cambodia has been criticized for understating the death toll (a very real topic—consider Kiernan's role in Cambodian genocide denial).

TL;DR: Which of these three proposed versions of the "East Timor" section in Henry Kissinger is most neutral: The long-standing consensus version, Guccisamsclub's version, or my version? Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I reverted TTAAC over and over because:
 * First, he tried to remove the reliably sourced information entirely, arguing that:
 * -that it was a "very minor footnote" in Kissinger's career, despite the fact that Kiernan discussed Kissinger's role extensively in the book. The "footnote" argument simply reflects TTAAC's political priorities, not any serious consensus about the consequences of the invasion being unimportant to Kissinger's legacy.
 * -that is was dubious and exaggerated, despite the fact Kiernan's estimate was well-supported and fit squarely within the accepted range of serious estimates (neither a minimum nor a maximum). If TTAAC wants his contentious arguments (that the true death toll was closer to 100,000, that East Timor is not "demographically exceptional", that it was decidedly more a war than a genocide) to be taken seriously, he should get published it in a peer-reviewed journal. Then we can cite him - though it will still be a drop in the bucket and will not alter the balance of existing scholarship. Anyone can play professor on wikipedia - bluster is all it takes.
 * Having gotten nowhere with the first strategy, he inserted a massively undue quote which compared East Timor favourably to Pol Pot, giving it far more weight than its author likely intended. For that, he got reverted by two editors. Comparative genocide - especially in the form of flippant and politically-motivated whataboutism - was clearly outside the scope of the section. Next, TTAAC blatantly cherry-picked two sources (Cribb and CAVR/HDRAG) with the very lowest estimates, and inserted them as a "compromise edit". That was a POV-push aimed squarely at critiquing Kiernan's work on both Cambodia and East Timor, while presenting the Timorese genocide as being less bad than some comm-ies would have you believe. As his last edit summary illustrates, TTAAC hardly intended the edit as a genuine "compromise"; instead it another in a long line of unconstructive/pointy edits to "serve a purpose" related to his own political struggles here on wikipedia.
 * One alternative is to change the time-frame and to cite Kiernan for 1/5th (145-150K) from 1975-1980, since that's the one that Kiernan discusses most. The difference between 1/4th and 1/5th is negligible, as far as I am concerned.
 * I don't think anyone besides TTAAC and myself really cares at this point, but shouldn't we invite CJ Griffin for comment based on this and this?
 * I promised to "poke a few holes" in your story. I'll put something to that effect on my blog ... er talkpage shortly. I suggest you refactor your post as well if you want anyone to read it. Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Cribb's qualitative and quantitative analysis are literally his entire argument, and the quotes are representative. Guccisamsclub brought up the politics of comparative genocide by citing Kiernan's work on comparative genocide, rather than the authoritative CAVR. My compromise edit was, in fact, intended as a genuine compromise; when I wrote "If this is reverted by Gucci (as there is a good chance it will be), it will still serve its purpose", I meant that I could then propose my neutral summary as an option here and thereby expose Guccisamsclub's edit warring and intransigence. (What could I possibly gain by openly admitting to tendentious editing?) There is, as a matter of fact, nothing in said compromise edit "aimed squarely at critiquing Kiernan's work on Cambodia", as anyone can check and plainly see. I will not respond to Guccisamsclub's personal attacks. TL;DR: I believe any unbiased observer who compares the three versions of the "East Timor" section linked above will see that mine is the most neutral, and welcome input on the matter.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe if disguised your POV (based completely wrong info, I might add) you'd have a stronger case. Or if you did not insert the 4,000 estimate for the victims of the bombing of Cambodia - one of the biggest bombing campaigns in history. You appear to use numbers simply as ideological props.Guccisamsclub (talk) 01:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This digression is irrelevant, but if anyone cares, Guccisamsclub is referring to this edit, based on this source, which was added by his ally C.J. Griffin, and tells us: "[According to retired Air Force intelligence officer Earl Tilford,] the Air Force ran many missions simply to keep a higher profile in the military budgeting process. More sorties were taken as proof of military importance. Tilford recalled repeated bombing runs of a lake in central Cambodia. The B-52s literally dropped their payloads in the lake. The sole purpose was to keep the mission count high. The upshot? The total tonnage might have little relation to the damage inflicted. In addition, Tilford said most bombs were dropped in remote, thinly populated regions. "I would say 4,000 to 5,000 civilians at most might have died," Tilford said. "That's a guess based on a knowledge of targets, of the topography and that there were just not that many civilians in those areas."" (Craig Etcheson, former chief of investigations for the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, gives a similar estimate of "probably more than 5,000".) C.J. Griffin simply cherry-picked the highest estimates of 50,000-150,000 and ignored the rest.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Knowledge Engine (Wikimedia Discovery project)
I don't think that this edit is NPOV. It assumes without evidence that Heilman is telling the truth and Jimbo is telling a lie. (See extensive discussion on Jimbo's talk page). Could someone take a look at the entire article and make sure that it does not favor any one POV (including mine, of course)? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * NPOV is concerned with making sure that sources are neutrally reflected in articles. NPOV is not about creating false dichotomies between two points of view, and making sure that both are given equal representation. As a matter of fact, part NPOV called WP:FALSEBALANCE talks about not doing this. That being said, the link I followed on the article lead to a page in a foreign language, so I couldn't verify whether the edit in question neutrally reflected the source. I'm also not sure about how foreign language sources should be treated in terms of reliability and verifiability, since they need to be translated which could be considered original research. Scoobydunk (talk) 06:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No its never considered original research, because that would be really really silly. Foreign language sources are perfectly acceptable if they qualify as reliable per WP policy. AGF means you assume any user who has translated the source is being truthful, absent contrary evidence. There is usually a foreign language speaker around to get a third opinion anyway. English language sources are preferred obviously for the ease of maintenence by the general editing population, however in some areas the best sources will be in the native nationality. For example if we required English language sources for 16th century Hungarian philosophers, it might be a bit hard to find. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Australia's Head of State?
There is a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics, which revolves around the issue of how to apply the WP:NPOV policy. Interested editors are most welcome to contribute. StAnselm (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * This might best be read in conjunction with Australian head of state dispute, which provides reliable sources for both points of view. --Pete (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, there are major concerns about the aforementioned topic & related 'dispute' article, being expressed there. GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * NPOV is not a main issue. This discussion concerns other policies, including original research, reliable sources, notability, weighting, content forking and plagiarism. Editors StAnselm and Pete go against the official position of the Australian government, it's parliament, courts and senior judiciary and all textbook legal opinion. They would prefer Australia to be presented in conjunction with an alternate theory and to conclude the country's Head of State is unknown. They appear to want to present Australia's top level of government as a debate. These two editors disagree with 14 other editors who answered clearly, as per the official position. Finally, no editor has expressed an objection to presenting this alternative point of view within Wikipedia, so NPOV is not really being disputed, just weighting. Travelmite (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please be very careful how you hurl about accusations of plagiarism. StAnselm (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have been very careful. Articles should attribute sources and ideas to the author of those sources and ideas in accordance with the Plagiarism policy. Travelmite (talk) 04:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Peyton Manning
All info on the Peyton Manning article concerning the subject's highly publicized scandals has been completely removed. Previously this content was in a "Controversy" section, but was moved to a section entitled "Off The Field" after a consensus to do so was met. This is a fear, shared by me and at least one other editor, that the page may be being cleaned by PR representative of Peyton Manning; there is no proof of this as of yet and we have agreed to assume good faith, but this is a fear of ours. Also, there are multiple users which have disputed the neutrality of this article since the removal of the content of the scandal, but there have been a couple of users which continue to remove the POV tag from the page.

I understand that we need to come to a consensus on how to add the info on the scandals, but it clear that the article violates WP:NPOV if there is no information on the scandals at all. ParkH.Davis (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The issue is that the undue weight given to these events violates WP:BLP. I have tried to err on the side of caution when dealing with these issues. The lawsuit was settled long ago and the HGH issue was never proven. I used my editorial judgment and removed a 16,000 byte section in order to try to incorporate the material into a smaller and more focused section. Peyton Manning is notable as a football player, not as a participant in a settled suit from the 90s and not as an alleged user of HGH. Wikipedia is not news, and the excess weight given to these events is not encyclopedic. Assumptions of a PR firm's involvement are a clear violation of good faith. Please note that User:ParkH.Davis has now reverted the article 4 times instead of trying to discuss this on the talk page. ParkH.Davis was also blocked 2 weeks ago for the same behavior. Some experienced, outside eyes would be appreciated on this article. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It does not violate WP:BLP to discuss a subject's controversial past, especially when it is well sourced by numerous reliable sources. Manning is being investigated by the USADA, the NFL and the MLB as we speak for using HGH, so you can't just sweep it under the rug.  Manning's name was recently mentioned in a lawsuit against the University of Tennessee concerning the institutional sexual abuse committed by the school's athletics departments.  Also, the whole point of a Wikipedia article is to record a subject's history.  It is exactly because the scandal happened that it should be at least mentioned in the article.
 * I made clear that Leo and I have no proof whatsoever that Manning's PR is involved in the editing of this page; I only said that it is a fear of ours. I have been in the process of discussing this issue on the talk page for almost a month now.
 * It is clear that WP:NPOV is being violated as there is absolutely no mention whatsoever of Manning's scandal in the article. ParkH.Davis (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The entire Controversy section was removed with expectations of talk page discussion on what information should be added back to the page. The "controversies" were of course covered in multiple reliable sources but the previous section gave undue weight to these issues, which if to be restored need to only be mentioned not covered extensively. The HGH allegations are just that, allegations and have not been proven. Suspecting that a PR firm is protecting Manning's page is not assuming good faith. Meatsgains (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Consensus was made to move the content to an "Off The Field" section, not to remove it altogether. It is censorship to completely delete all of the content about Manning's scandals.  There is no way for this article have an NPOV if the scandals aren't even mentioned.  Also, virtually all of the coverage given about Manning by reliable sources recently have been about his scandal, how is it "undue" to give the same weight to these scandals that reliable sources are giving to them?  ParkH.Davis (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I never said consensus was to remove it completely. It was removed so we could discuss and reach consensus on what pieces of information should be restored. You just said yourself that coverage of Manning recently has been about his scandal, so I suggest you take a look at WP:RECENTISM. Meatsgains (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If there was no consensus to remove it completely, then why has it been completely removed? Consensus was to move the content, not to remove it.  The sex scandal has been on going for the last 20 years and the HGH use happened in 2011.  There has been a recent barrage of reliable sources discussing these scandal and as Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources, say, there is no reasonable way that the scandal content can be censored.  ParkH.Davis (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * User:ParkH.Davis It is clear that these incidents should be mentioned. They should not constitute such a large portion of the article. I removed them entirely because having such a large section devoted to these issues constituted a BLP violation. Therefore let's err on the side of caution. We need to build the additions collectively on the talk page. I suggest we all take a step back and wait for uninvolved editors to weigh in here. Rehashing the same arguments here does not help anything. Please do not continue to edit war.Mr Ernie (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I know that it is clear that the scandals should be included. That is why I am so baffled as to why they have been completely removed from the article.  The content in question does not violate WP:BLP as it well cited by numerous reliable sources and given the same weight that reliable sources have given it.  Even with the content in question, 95% of the article has nothing to do with the scandals.  ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * News organizations mostly cover current events. No reliable sources are writing news stories about Manning's previous Super Bowl win, or SEC championship, or any of the other events that have led to his notability. We do not build articles based on what current reliable sources tend to cover or weight. I will refer you to WP:NOTNEWS. I will quote the relevant bit here "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews." Please use the article talk page to address the best way to insert these incidents, keeping in mind the policies described above.Mr Ernie (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is based on solely on what reliable sources say. Anything else is original research.  20 years of coverage for a sexual assault is not "routine news reporting", it is a major event in the subject's life.  Manning is being investigated by the USADA, the NFL and the MLB for his GH usage, this also appears to be a major event in his life.  The full controversy section makes up a very small portion of the entire article and is at the very bottom.  The vast majority of the article is devoted to his football career, which makes sense as that is what he is most known for.  There is no reason for these scandal not to be at least mentioned.  I still do not understand why all mentions of either scandal were completely removed from the article.  ParkH.Davis (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Peyton Manning is notable as a football player, not as a participant in a settled suit from the 90s and not as an alleged user of HGH. I strongly dispute that. A quick search on any part of Google (news, books, or the web) turns up scandals as the overwhelmingly highest-profile coverage of him.  I feel that part of the problem here is that fans (who are mostly familiar with him through his other accomplishments) might not realize that even those high-profile accomplishments ultimately pale before some of the scandals he's been involved with.  I would argue that the majority of the text in the article could be about his scandals and it still would not violate WP:NPOV based on the level (and, at this point, the duration) of coverage they're getting.  Certainly suggesting that they could be omitted entirely and still produce an article that would satisfy WP:NPOV is implausible.  At this point, I am comfortable saying that he is more notable for his scandals than he is for anything else.  At the very least, I feel that the controversy section should be restored; people can work on incorporating it into the article in a more useful fashion, but I absolutely don't feel that your removal of it was defensible.  --Aquillion (talk) 07:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * So let me see if I understand what you're saying: You believe that Peyton Manning, SEC championship winner, 2 time Super Bowl Winner, holder of all kinds of professional football records, etc, is more well known as a participant in a locker room prank gone wrong incident turned settled lawsuit as a teenager and as an alleged user of HGH? This is EXACTLY the reason we have and are guided by WP:NOTNEWS. Of course current coverage is about current issues. Nobody would be writing articles about his football accomplishments at this time, because they're already written. I will AGF, but I've seen you pop up in various areas always pushing the same POV. It's getting tiresome at this point. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Your categorization of the sexual assault scandal as a "prank" is categorically false and not backed up in any way by any reliable source. The "prank" hypothesis has been completely discredited and the event itself has been reported on my numerous reliable sources as a "sexual assault".  Most of the mainstream coverage on Manning done by reliable sources is on his scandals.  Football fans seems to forget that not everyone is a football fan.  Wikipedia articles are not fan pages, they are supposed to give a full and accurate overview of a subject's history.  Completely omitting all references to manning scandal clearly violates WP:NPOV.  ParkH.Davis (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is an article, WRITTEN IN 2011, that reflects exactly Ernie's view with also a kind of futuristic vision: http://deadspin.com/5842474/what-if-hgh-could-cure-peyton-manning. And here is another talking about the trainer's case: http://deadspin.com/how-tennessee-s-sexual-harassment-allegations-caught-up-1759118435. Yes, Deadspin is a progressive web media, but it's the same site which published the Manti Te'o's girlfriend hoax and Greg Hardy's assault photos, so it's a quite credible media.Leo Bonilla (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please don't cast aspersions. And no Deadspin is not a credible source of anything - please see WP:RS. And don't interject your statements in between other threaded statements. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * First: it's not an aspersion, it's a letter to the editors asking what do they think could happen with Manning's health as he has been one of the faces of NFL (in the first half, I forgot to mention it and I apologize for that), and I mention it because you mention Manning's reputation. I don't need to say a thing about the second link. Second: Of course men, of course, whatever you say. Your WP:RS criteria doesn't apply here as, for example, the Super Bowl 50 article actually has a Deadspin citation... on the top, and that among other cases. And of course Deadspin can be sensationalist sometimes but just as much as ESPN or Fox Sports, but if your criteria about sources is so limited, IT'S NOT MY PROBLEM AND I WON'T MENTION IT FURTHER. And third: my interjections are because sometimes users don't read or putting below statements make themselves irrelevant, but if that's how Wikipedia works I won't do it anymore. SORRY FOR GETTING OUT THE TOPIC FOR THE REST. Leo Bonilla (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have struck my wording. Thanks for pointing it out. The University alleges that Manning was only included on the recent lawsuit to generate publicity. I believe this is important to consider. (http://www.knoxnews.com/sports/vols/football/ut-asks-for-peyton-manning-claims-to-be-removed-from-federal-lawsuit-2c79f911-0695-1eed-e053-0100007-369895141.html) Mr Ernie (talk) 15:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your correction. The recent Tennessee lawsuit has nothing to do with this or Manning and was never even mentioned in article before.  The content in question directly discusses Manning's own scandals and the events surrounding them. ParkH.Davis (talk) 16:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I have checked the Talk:Tom Brady page and when Ballghazi happened there was a similar discussion but with worst fights. It's disproportionate to compare both cases but finally a part of Brady's scandal was include in his BLP (I think it was because there was a main page for Ballghazi). I'm in faith that an accurate section of Manning's controversies will be presented soon, and as ongoing information is published, I consider some part of the original information should go to the Tennessee Volunteers football page and not in Manning's bio. I think the section "Off the field" is the most accurate. And I can apologize for writing about a potential PR staff involvement despite I clearly said there was no accusation and it was just a comparison with past cases. Leo Bonilla (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. There is an entire article dedicated to Deflategate, but there is not a single mention of Manning's scandals anywhere on Wikipedia.  Would it not be fair to create an article dedicated to Manning's scandals?  ParkH.Davis (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sepp Blatter's article is full of discussion about his scandals and controversy. Why is it appropriate for other figures, but not for this one?  I agree with Dsaun100 that this policy is being inconsistently applied.  ParkH.Davis (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It does no good for the editors of that page to come here and bicker with each other. The purpose of this page is to get outside input on a content dispute.  FWIW, my interpretation of the rules is that this is a WP:BLP dispute, not NPOV. Cla68 (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Which aspect of BLP does this fall under? My understanding is that under BLP, controversies can be discussed if they are backed up by reliable sources.  My personal objection, however, to deleting the content, is that the NPOV of the article will be compromised if it is only presenting arbitrarily positive info or downplaying the significance of the scandals.  ParkH.Davis (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Some mention of these controversies should be included on the page, and so far it seems that this can be worked out on the talk page. What I don't understand, though, is why the tag has been removed repeatedly, even though there is an actual ongoing discussion of the problem and no consensus to omit the subject entirely. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As Cla68 mentions above, this is a BLP issue, not NPOV. We chose to err on the side of caution while we worked out the best way to handle the article. It is my understanding that the NPOV tag should not be used when the consensus POV is not your POV. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, but nobody (as far as I can tell) is arguing that the entire section violated NPOV. Deleting absolutely all information on a high-profile scandal like this isn't an appropriate reaction, especially when nobody disputes the basic facts.  A BLP argument based entirely around some editors holding the belief that the article gives WP:UNDUE weight to what is unquestionably a major scandal seems relatively weak; clearly it's not enough to justify deleting the section, even "temporarily."  You need to limit your BLP claims to more narrow and specific arguments about the parts you object to.  --Aquillion (talk) 06:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Please help us add back in the parts that should be there. The consensus was that the section should not have been so large due to undue weight concerns. We chose to blank it while we rewrote the sections in a more appropriate manner. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Could someone please write a proposal of what they would like to see included so that we can discuss specifics and stop bitching at each other? I am in favor of keeping all of the previous section and simply moving it to an "Off The Field" section. ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I encourage Wikieditors to read this article: http://time.com/4180414/wikipedia-15th-anniversary/. Moreover, there is a tag about BLP on NSNYC talk page:

So I propose the content blanked about Manning might be restored (after being rewritten) but with a same kind of tag, just until all this controversies comes to a clear point. Why? Because even if the information is really well sourced, the information is dispute is considered by several people harmful to Manning's name in sense of people could focus in short term on this controversies more than on his career, as in some point happened to Tom Brady and the New England Patriots, but this information should not be censored. The point is that we need to reach a consensus. Leo Bonilla (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The redacted claims clearly violated WP:BLP as containing statements of allegations as the equivalent of fact, in using argumentation in Wikipedia's voice about the allegations, and in being given absurdly undue weight. In addition, there is absolutely no apparent WP:CONSENSUS for inclusion of the allegations in such massive detail. A total of two sentences would reasonably cover the locker room incident (trainer's claim, Manning's denial), and the HGH incident is not even of any direct value at all, as involving a person who denied making the allegation as initially reported. And please avoid claims of "whitewashing" - WP:BLP has specific strictures, and following the strictures of policy is simply what Wikipedia requires. (iterating my belief "Articles which make "allegations" make bad encyclopedia articles, especially when any sort of POV can be attached thereto. I suggest that articles subject to WP:BLP in any manner which make allegations be strongly constrained. This specifically includes use of opinions or claims that a person or persons bears "guilt by association" with any other person or group.") Collect (talk) 15:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ben Roethlisberger and Brett Favre's cases were also allegations and that information is mentioned in Wikipedia. Some editors are not fair and, AS I REPEAT, THAT IS REASON WHY I ONCE FELT THERE WAS 'WHITEWASHING' INVOLVED AND I ALSO ASK IF IT WAS NECESSARY MY APOLOGIZES FOR THE STATEMENT BUT NO ONE SAID A THING. And there's an column for Deadspin for Drew Magary, and even though I don't share Magary's opinion in a 100%, the column reflects the reason why some of us thought there was a PR issuse: http://deadspin.com/peyton-manning-can-eat-shit-1757781250 (sorry for the profanity). Leo Bonilla (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * All, and I want to make it a point to say, ALL, of the content in question is rigorously backed up by numerous reliable sources. Giving only two sentences to a major event in the subject's life would still be in violation of WP:NPOV as it would arbitrarily down play the significance of the events and likely leave out large amounts of information vital to understanding the events.  This does not violate WP:BLP as literally all of it is backed up by numerous well respected and reliable sources.  I reported this to the NPOV noticeboard because it seems the content was arbitrarily deleted from even a small mention.  Wikipedia is not censored and we can not remove or downplay content based on our personal opinions of the events.  Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and reliable sources are spending much time and effort in covering Manning's scandals.  Manning's article should give the same weight to scandals that reliable sources are giving them.  ParkH.Davis (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ask yourself a simple question. Would these scandals have a wikipedia page if Peyton Manning was not a notable person? Let me give you my opinion: of course not. As such, they should be weighted appropriately with the encyclopedic topics associated with this individual, taking care to satisfy the WP:BLP requirements stated clearly by Collect. It doesn't matter how many news articles are written about these issues. As I've stated so many times, please take the time to read WP:NOTNEWS. ParkH.Davis your viewpoints are directly addressed in that policy. Just add a note about the lawsuit claims and Manning's denial and let's move on. Finally, to address your point, just because the news is covering an event does not mean we have to include it in our project. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Then ask yourself THIS QUESTION: Why Ballghazi has its own page and is part of Brady's BLP if it was proved he didn't gain significant advantage tampering balls and if the great majority of the press (in a hypocritical manner) take side with Brady when he was suspended? Let me remind you Manning is under investigation by the NFL for banned substances use as well as Alex Rodriguez was once by the MLB (I'm referring about how it started not how it ended, please), and Manning also was under investigation for his sexual harassment incident in a case against the University of Tennessee until a few days ago. Leo Bonilla (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Manning is also being investigated by the United States Anti-Doping Agency and the Major League Baseball organization. ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We should give the same weight to the scandals that reliable sources are giving, no more and no less. This has nothing to do with WP:NOTNEWS as this is a 20 year on going event.  Wikipedia is based on reliable source and not based on personal opinions or original research; we can't arbitrarily down play the significance of these scandals or pretend that they didn't happen.  If the scandals are not given the same due that they are given by reliable sources, then I will continue to dispute the neutrality of this article.  This is not a Peyton Manning fan page.  ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not TMZ. When any scandal or alleged incident happens against a celebrity, there is going to be a systematic bias of coverage of that scandal, compared to anything else the person might have done in their life; these sources love watching a train wreck, bluntly. We absolutely must be careful for BLP to counter systematic bias generated by this type of press. (See the fact that Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations is nearly 2.5 times the length of Bill Cosby itself) That Payton has pending legal actions against him, that's a few lines but as the case is still open we should not attempt to interpolate in any manner how it might resolve and treat the subject any differently because of this. Editors that want to vilify BLP without strong sourcing to back it should recognize this is unacceptable. --M ASEM (t) 00:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The sources cited by the content in question are only reliable sources such as the Washington Post, the New York Times and The Nation. TMZ is not a reliable source.  Please assume good faith and stop accusing others of bias.  There are no legal charges pending against Manning, I don't know where you got that from.  This has nothing to do with BLP, as all of the content is rigorously backed up by numerous reliable sources, the conflict is over the POV of the article.  ParkH.Davis (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Amazingly good point citing TMZ. How the Ray Rice scandal was acknowledged to the public? PUBLISHED BY TMZ!!! And here is how TMZ made the dubbed as "Most powerful man in sports" Roger Goodell look bad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xM8qVuc32Rc. Leo Bonilla (talk) 03:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The video is about a mention of a Goodell's press conference by HBO's Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, let me clarify. Leo Bonilla (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * While sources like the NYTimes and WaPost are not TMZ nor engage in unscrupulous standing, they do give undue weight to ongoing cases against celebrities. There is something in human nature that we want to see successful people fall hard, and by that nature, there is a standing systematic bias that much more coverage will come to these types of events. As we are writing an encyclopedia and while meant to stay current, we're supposed to be treating topics with the long-term view. Let's say Manning is found innocent of all charges in x years from now. In that situation, the allegations would end up being reduced to a sentence or paragraph, at most, and we should not be writing on the presumption he will be found guilty, even if this is backed up by reliable sources.  That's a BLP violation right there. Please note that I am not saying that no mention of the allegations should be in the article, but it should be "he's currently involved in legal matters" in a sentence or two without excessive detail on a pending legal action. --M ASEM  (t) 15:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Manning was never charged with sexual assault, which is part of the story, as it appears as if the University of Tennessee may have been systemically covering sexual assault incidents, particularly those in which prominent athletes were involved. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, therefore we must determine whether an event is "due" or not based on the coverage given to it by reliable sources and not on our personal opinions as to whether or not it is "due" or not.  There is no reason to downplay these scandals except to give the article an arbitrarily pro-manning POV.  Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive.  I am not interested in debating whether or not manning may or may not be guilty of any crime which he has been accused of.  I am only interested in telling a full and unbiased account of the events surrounding the scandals.   ParkH.Davis (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * WP is not in the business of "telling a full and unbiased account" (my emphasis) of scandals particularly involving living persons. We summarize topics. And in cases of scandals involving living persons, we have to be fully aware that coverage of these in even the best RSes is skewed, and we should not attempt to try to cover that as in depth as these sources provide. Effectively, we avoid WP:RECENTISM, and should consider how this topic would be presented in, say, 20 years from now. If the charges were dropped against Manning, then that means for us a few sentences should be sufficient. --M ASEM (t) 17:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There were never charges against Manning in the first place. That's the whole point.  This has been in the news for the last 20 years and a recent lawsuit has brought up the point that the University of Tennessee likely covered up sexual assault incidents like manning's to protect the image of the players involved and the University.  I am tired of people not even knowing the basic timeline of events here and the basic facts of the case.  This is clearly not recentism as this has been a major event in the subject's life for over 20 years.  It clearly violates WP:NPOV to arbitrarily downplay or omit the details of the scandal.  Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and reliable sources have obviously deemed this story worthy of widespread and continuous coverage.  Wikipedia is NOT censored and we cannot arbitrarily downplay events which don't align with our personal opinions of those events.  Once again, Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive.  I am not interested in having a debate about whether or not manning is guilty of any crime or not.  ParkH.Davis (talk) 18:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * People can allege whatever they want in a lawsuit. You say UT likely covered up sexual assaults. That's an outright wrong thing to say. A lawsuit had alleged that the University did this. But until a court of law proves the allegations you can only say they are allegations. Can you understand this difference? This is the critical point to the discussion that everyone is trying to get you to realize. If I sued Nike for making my feet smell when I wear their shoes, and some reliable sources wrote an article about it, would you write that Nike makes people's feet smell bad in the Nike article? Mr Ernie (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not interested in debating the merits of the lawsuits, any of them. This is most certainly not the forum for such discussion.  Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say, not on any editors' personal opinion.  ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a part talking about sweatshops in Nike Inc.'s article. Do people still wear Nike? Oh yes! Leo Bonilla (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem looking at the removed content is that it is attempting to outline every little detail. The section that was on the doping charges is written as proseline. For a BLP this is simply inappropriate. (Note that Deflategate came up and while that has BLP considerations, it is about the case which has more than one person highlighted as possibly doing something wrong, not just the individual), so it is reasonable more details can be there). There's a way to still include this information but as BLP favors blanking contentious material about persons than including it, discussion should happen first on the talk page to figure out a succinct version that highlights the issues without going into every facet of the court case. --M ASEM  (t) 19:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The events surrounding the scandals are summarized and hardly include "every little detail". This has literally nothing to with WP:BLP as all of the content is rigorously cited by numerous reliable sources.  Completely censoring the article of any mention of the scandal clearly violates WP:NPOV, hence why I brought my concerns here and not to the BLP noticeboard.  This is not a fan page for Peyton Manning, this is a description of his life's events.  ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Just because you have RSes (even good quality ones) doesn't mean every detail is appropriate. Keep in mind: We are a summary work, we don't try to be the last stop that someone researching a topic should use but should be encouraging readers to follow sources to learn more. We need enough of an overview to be comprehensive (that Manning had been involved in the UT situation and had been in a dope allegation must be present, I agree), but the level of coverage should be very high level. This works towards assuring we are not a newspaper, not engaging in giving undue weight to most recent events, and keeping in mind we are writing a neutral biography. Let the sources document the messy parts of both situations, but WP needs to keep out of the weeds on these, unless the situations on their own have received sufficient notability. --M ASEM (t) 20:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)\
 * Every little detail isn't appropriate, but the content in question doesn't even come close to include "every little detail". The depositions for the first defamation is over 70 pages long, while there is a couple hundred words here on the entire scandal.  This has nothing to do with WP:RECENTISM as this has been on-going for the last 20 years and this has nothing to with WP:BLP as all of the content is cited by numerous reliable sources.  It is not our position to "stay out of the weeds".  Omitting info on the scandals is POV pushing of the worst kind.  Based on the extensive amount of coverage both scandals have received by reliable sources, I would say they are both plenty notable to warrant inclusion.  ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree, skimming the material that was removed. There's a lot of excessive discussion of the complains in the original UT case, for example that can be distilled to one sentence (a he-said, she-said situation); we don't need their statements included in full, for example. If the case alone was notable (I have no idea if it is or not), there might be reason to expand there, but definitely not on a biography page. --M ASEM  (t) 20:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not a "he-said, she-said situation". As is outlined in the multiple reliable sources cited, the only witness to the event confirmed Dr. Naughright's story. It would be POV pushing to omit the fact that the only witness affirmed that Dr. Naughright had been sexually assaulted by Peyton Manning.  The scandal is a major event in manning's life and has been on going for more than two decades, thus is most certainly notable for inclusion in the article.  There is no reason to omit information on the scandals except to push an arbitrarily positive POV of the subject.  ParkH.Davis (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's been explained multiple times to you now why we can't make those claims. That witness changed his mind a few times in official narratives, and there was no official judgment about what happened. Please re-read my comments to you on your talk page and we can work at it that way. If it still doesn't make sense it may be time for you to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It isn't a "claim" to say that sexual assault allegations have been made against Peyton Manning, this is a well established fact. I am not going to argue with you over whether or manning is guilty of any crime or not.  I am not going to drop the stick.  It is clear that a major violation of WP:NPOV has occurred.  There is no reason why all mention of manning's scandals should have been completely deleted from the article.  ParkH.Davis (talk) 02:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a forum. I am not going to discuss my personal opinion on Peyton Manning here.  See: Wikipedia is not a forum.  ParkH.Davis (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Your personal opinion seems to be quite clear on this issue; you've already been blocked edit warring over it and could have been blocked for edit warring again this week. I won't be engaging with you again because you refuse to read and understand what people are telling you. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * My only personal opinion in this discussion is that the Peyton Manning article should have an NPOV, which it is currently lacking. All I want is the article to have an NPOV, that's it.  There is no reason why manning's scandals should not be at least mentioned in the article.  ParkH.Davis (talk) 04:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with anyone's personal opinions at all: Talk:Peyton_Manning. Leo Bonilla (talk) 03:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking at this version, for example, I believe it is longer than necessary, and can be cut down 25% to 50% without losing the factual nature of the allegations and the current revisiting of the case by the 2016 actions, while the doping side by definitely at least 50%.--M ASEM (t) 23:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Could please give specific instead of telling us to arbitrarily cut it by "25% to 50%"? Which parts do you object to?  ParkH.Davis (talk) 02:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, not every single detail, I agree. But in that case, the Al Jazeera documentary ought to have a main page because other players are involved in the NOW investigations like Clay Matthews III and James Harrison apart of MLB players. Leo Bonilla (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Let me remind you the main idea of my point. Ray Rice's domestic violence incident was acknowledged completely, first by TMZ when NOBODY OR ALMOST NOBODY cared about it, and before TMZ showed the video to the public Rice just had a suspension of 2 games while other players had 4 games for banned substances, Josh Gordon for example if my memory doesn't fail me. Do you know how screwed up things have to be when TMZ reports first?! So, there are situations when other kind of media like Al Jazeera America (yes, a true news outlet which is about to close) or the New York Daily News report first. Furthermore, the charges were dropped on Kobe Bryant's case but it doesn't mean people forgot it or had to forget it, and I'm talking about current days when all the madness about his last games is lived. Under our democracy Manning is innocent until the opposite is tested but his innocence doesn't mean the deletion of the investigations or his past incidents, and their respectively reporting. A recent example is Dr. Luke vs. Kesha case: there's a main page for it in Wikipedia created recently, and talking about the case, there wasn't found enough evidence to end Ke$ha's contract or to judge Dr. Luke for sexual harassment; Ke$ha is appealing and we know half of Hollywood reaction. But there it is, reported on Wikipedia. Leo Bonilla (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Alright. I made a big review. First of all I apologize if I took side with anyone's opinion and it was libelous. Now let me report: this is a case when a part of an article POORLY WRITTEN creates dispute. There are parts which concern more about Al Jazeera's credibility than Manning's involvement in those issues (in part due to he is not the only athlete mentioned), at least for now. Currently, there is a part on Al Jazeera's page related to the documentary and the posteriors reactions to its publication; and by the way, the "Performance enhancing drugs allegations" title could be totally rewritten as "Mention in The Dark Side: Secrets of the Sports Dopers documentary" whether in the 'controversies' or 'off the field section', or mention the event in his 2015 career year section (he gave an interview to ESPN talking about the issue) like it appears in Tom Brady's BLP with the Deflategate reference, as well as not write out on Manning's BLP parts which are included in AJ channels' pages. The part about media coverage of Manning's life MUST NOT be in the article as it concerns more the sources than the reports themselves, whichever relation Jim Nantz has with Manning should go at Nantz's BLP, and comparisons with Cam Newton's career coverage are JUST opinions which people can share or not. But I do believe the following facts should be included on Manning's article: the NFL, MLB and USADA investigations; why Manning hired Ari Fleischer; and the 911 call and the incident related. It's a considerable shorter recapitulation. Now let's talk about Jamie Ann Naughright. I think the incident related to her should be summarize with specific details of and related to the affidavit and not every version of the history, plus the 2000 Manning's autobiography reference and the posterior Naughright's sue for defamation (but no more than this specific fact) and the New York Daily News's publication. Now in that recapitulation wouldn't reduce the content in more than a 20% but I think would be more accurate than how it was. I HOPE I CAN HELP FOR THE CAUSE. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CENSORED. Leo Bonilla (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Does inclusion of common English pronunciation deserve a "geographical imbalance" tag?
Editor has put a "geographical imbalance" tag on the Subaru article, claiming in the edit summary "concerning the American pronunciation over-weighting". This is the latest development in a dispute over the IPA pronunciation which started over a week ago, and has resulted in talk page discussion nearly 60% of the length of the article. In that discussion, Ttt74 has stated that s/he opposes the inclusion of what s/he calls "the American pronunciation". (It is not identified as "American" in the article; as the references (linked YouTube videos) show, it is common to both the US and the UK.)

There is no noticeboard for "geographical imbalance"; I picked NPOV as the closest, and also because Ttt74 has, in the talk page discussion, accused me of POV-pushing - that including an English language pronunciation violates NPOV.

WP:MOSIPA says "When a foreign name has a set English pronunciation (or pronunciations), include both the English and foreign-language pronunciations; the English transcription must always be first."

WP:NPOV requires "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

My stance is that even if the common English pronunciation is labeled as the "American" one, this is hardly any sort of bias or non-NPOV. MOS requires that we include the IPA for the English pronunciation, or pronunciations. And it would be very hard to argue that the common English-language pronunciation does not have significant usage.

The fact that there are other pronunciations used elsewhere in the world, or even in specific regions of the United States, does not preclude many, many articles from including an English pronunciation. Nor should it here. If Ttt74 finds references for other pronunciations that have significant usage she or he is free to add them.

So, my question: Is this "geographical imbalance" tag warranted by the article as it now stands? (Personally, I think it's ridiculous.) Jeh (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Your POV-pushing about American pronunciation is showing: in the talk page you said "we don't need an a common English pronunciation", and now you are saying the opposite "Does inclusion of common English pronunciation deserve a "geographical imbalance" tag". Besides you failed to AGF when you said she or he instead of saying he or she. The pronunciation you seem to be advocating on that article is a U.S marketing stuff and nothing more: it's just not well used by anyone else except of those people who are too influenced by the country you are living in. I don't think other instances of Wikipedia, like the German one, are wrong for not including their own pronunciation. Ttt74 (talk) 09:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding your phrase "Personally, I think it's ridiculous.": I think that describing a decision made by other contributor to be "ridiculous", is in no way a good manner to make your case on this DR forum. I warned you many times of your lack of AGF on many discussions, but you seem not to take it on consideration. This time a warning on your talk page will be enough. Ttt74 (talk) 10:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Re "common", the trouble is that you are confusing two different uses of the word "common". In the first case that you quoted I was referring to a single pronunciation that was known to be "common" to all or most English speakers. (I said we didn't need to find such a pronunciation, since MOS supports including multiple ones. That was in response to your opinion that we shouldn't have any English pronunciation just because there were several possible ones.) But in the second case that you quoted I was using the word in the sense of "typical; widely or frequently used".
 * Regarding "he or she", this is very much a side issue... but it is common (i.e. frequent) among some English writers to use this interchangeably with "she or he". To use "he or she" all the time is, in the view of many (including myself), not in the spirit of equality that the phrase is intended to evoke. Too, consider that "she or he" is more consistent with the common (often-used) notation "s/he". In any case, this is a personal stylistic choice of mine. I have not the slightest idea how you think that use of "she or he" is an AGF violation, or for that matter that it can be construed as any other sort of attack, insult, or even a slightly mildly uncivil comment. Or anything else precluded by WP:CIVIL and the like for that matter. Now... If you will list your gender on your user page then, in deference to your reaction here, I will use the appropriate gender-specific pronouns to refer to you in the future. In the meantime, since I don't know your gender, I will continue to use such gender-neutral expressions as I see fit at the moment.
 * The pronunciation reflected in the IPA is referenced to YouTube videos of, in the one case, a television ad approved by Subaru UK, and in the other, a "video article" produced by Motor Trend, a major U.S. magazine. Your dismissal of these references as "too influenced by the country you are living in" is absurd. Such videos are of course carefully designed to be as understandable as possible to the widest possible audience. So it is reasonable to accept them as representing a standard pronunciation, understandable by almost everyone in their respective countries -- even by individuals who would, in their own speech, use a different intonation or inflection. (Note that the referenced pronunciation is also completely consistent with the spelling of the word.) Your claim that it is "just not well used by anyone else" is, so far, merely your claim, unjustified by any references (and I frankly find it bizarre). But even if we assume, for sake of argument, that everybody outside the US and UK uses some other pronunciation, that does not mean that IPAs confirmed by these references these IPAs should not be included.
 * No, what other-language Wikipedias do, per their own rules, is not "wrong". But neither is what we do wrong just because we have, in some cases, different rules. I am not aware of any other language Wikipedia that supports anything like WP:ENGVAR, but that doesn't make us wrong. Indeed, this acceptance, even embracing, of national variations of English is indicative of our adherence to NPOV. Regarding this issue, it may well be different in every other Wikipedia in the world... but our MOS requires that we include the English pronunciation(s). And for English language Wikipedia, that is definitive. Furthermore, the UK and US together make up a very large portion of Subaru's English-speaking market. So to exclude the UK/US pronunciation would therefore be contrary not only to MOS, but also NPOV, and even WP:DUE.
 * Re. "ridiculous", I meant what I said exactly. Heck, quite aside from the validity of your complaint, the tag you added is only marginally relevant to the issue. Nor is this an AGF failure. You really need to stop chanting "AGF! AGF!" for every imagined slight; at this point anyone who regularly interacts with you will just say "oh, that's just Ttt74 crying AGF again, pay it no mind." And that's what I'll be doing. Jeh (talk) 11:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "And that's what I'll be doing": You are being rude and annoying with your comments; You are to one who should behave with more civil manner. You really don't need my energy on this DR forum. Let the admins take their responsibility on the issue. Ttt74 (talk) 11:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Having just listened to a bunch of SubaruAustralia ads, this seems to me to be a dumb and largely made-up controversy. Of course the vowels are all shifted to some great or lesser degree, but as far as the stresses, they pronounce "Subaru" exactly as Americans do: Subaru. And again, like Americans, there is a secondary stress on the last syllable. I don't do IPA and perhaps it is possible to differentiate the American versus Aussie vowel pronunciation, but then again, it would therefore be possible to differentiate between various American regional accents on the same basis. Mangoe (talk) 12:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "Dumb and made-up controversy" pretty much summarizes my reaction. Can I take it that you support the inclusion of some English-language IPA in this article? Do you support the removal of the "geographical imbalance" tag? Thank you for your input, either way. Jeh (talk) 12:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello. I investigated the case brought here a bit and cannot see anything that Jeh might have done wrong. In all the fairness, even if he was wrong, there would still have been other forms of setting things right. Friendlier ways. In response to the question that Jeh has asked from Mangoe above, yes, I do support removing the geographical imbalance tag. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

List of films featuring whitewashed roles
, who has contested the sources used in the article List of films featuring whitewashed roles based on their application of the U.S. Census and personal knowledge, has made a very pointed POV edit here. He has pushed for his own changes to be implemented despite opposition from me and one other editor so far. I have started a discussion on the talk page and have stopped editing, but I found this latest edit extremely problematic. Can editors review the situation as well as this editor's particular conduct? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I made that edit because User:Erik would not allow me to remove additions in which the race of the character is not specified only ASSUMED, i.e. Katnis in Hunger Games. DJokerNr1 (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Other editors should review the content of that film's entry. It is reliably sourced. If sources contesting this claim can be found, they can be included as well. This has been done for several films on the list in which the whitewashing has been challenged. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * it is not reliably sourced when the author of the sources can't tell the difference between a cultural identity and a race. OR when the race isn't specified by canon sources, but the author of the reliable source puts it on himself/herself to classify the character for us. DJokerNr1 (talk) 21:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Your argument is not substantiated by guidelines defining reliable sources. You don't get to dismiss sources as not being reliable, simply because you disagree with what they say. So you need an argument actually backed by WP policy.Scoobydunk (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Editor has also mocked the use of sources as seen here. The editor is only interested in applying their own logic and not actually following sources for Wikipedia to summarize their coverage. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Wiki should have standards on what sources it uses(or so I'm told). When i criticizes a source if it's an amateurish blog post or uneducated opinion piece, the response should be the points on why it is a reliable source, not just it's the source! it's the source!. Because if not, then anything can be used as reference for wiki. DJokerNr1 (talk) 21:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Many films have multiple references showing different sources writing about whitewashing in each film. You're welcome to criticize specific sources, but you've been blanking some entries wholesale, so it is doubtful that you are even considering them. Based on your tone on the talk page, you are constantly projecting your interpretations on the topic. It does not matter if reliable sources have written about whitewashing in films like Aloha, Exodus: Gods and Kings, or 21, if it does not fit your interpretation, it should be rejected. That's a huge POV problem, which is why I posted about your contributions and conduct here on this noticeboard. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * No. When discussing such a divisive issue, the characters at hand should be clear. Tony Mendez doesn't identify as Hispanic. Your reliable sources put him into the stereotypical hispanic category, nonetheless. Holding the uneducated mindset that Hispanics are universality a brown people, not a racially diverse cultural group. The lack of this basic knowledge make the source unreliable. Gods in mythology don't have ethnicities. 21 was INSPIRED by real world people. It wasn't a historical flic or a biogrpahy film. White character were creatied that were LOOSELY inspired by real world asian character. It wasn't a case where white actors played non white characters, i. e. Ghenhis by John Wayne. This is not POV pushing. this is simple fact checking. DJokerNr1 (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The Argo entry states that Tony Mendez does not identify as Hispanic. However, reliable sources have covered the criticism of Affleck in that role and that it should have been a person of Hispanic roots in that role. This is also the case for Gods of Egypt, which has been hugely covered by reliable sources about its whitewashing. In the case of 21, I've already explained on the talk page that sources state that it is a matter of under-representation in film where Asian actors could have been cast in these roles based on real-life Asian persons but white actors were instead cast. This is all covered by the sources; none of what I argue is coming from personal interpretations. Your arguments are based on personal intepretations. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 22:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * what is hispanic roots? underrepresentation doesn't mean white wash. And white characters were created, it's not like a random white actors Charles Whitefield played a character (in film) named Ng Zhou. I'm not the one pushing POV here. sorry. DJokerNr1 (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This says, "The group cited 'whitewashing' by studios, referencing instances in which minority characters were either played by white actors — Emma Stone as an Asian American in 'Aloha,' Ben Affleck as an Hispanic in 'Argo' — or ethnic roles that were rewritten to accommodate white actors." The film has been the subject of such a discussion and warrants listing and explaining. As it has been said, Tony Mendez's statement about not self-identifying as Hispanic has been included. The same goes for other films where the criticism has been countered. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 22:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * You are creating your own OR arguments to refute reliable sources. Sorry, but it is not the role of WP editors to refute what reliable sources say. If you feel that a source isn't reliable, then you can take it to the RS noticeboards. However, the criteria you've listed so far for disqualifying these sources, is not sufficient and is ultimately irrelevant to determining the reliability of a source.Scoobydunk (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

To that i add Stereotypes of Hispanic and Latino Americans in the United States. Forcing a cultural identity on someone, when he/she denies the identity in question voids the source as a reliable source, since it's POV pushing on an epic scale by the author. DJokerNr1 (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * You're contesting that the Los Angeles Times reported on the Multi-Ethnic Coalition, of which the National Hispanic Media Coalition is a part, considered the casting in Argo to be whitewashing, by referencing a Wikipedia article and claiming that the LA Times is "POV pushing" with its coverage of this criticism? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 22:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Deepak Chopra NPOV
There is an RfC for Deepak Chopra involving concerns about NPOV at Talk:Deepak_Chopra.BlueStove (talk) 00:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Hebron Conflict of interest and NPOV of sources
After several weeks, it has been determined that the source for a particularly accusatory paragraph against the Jewish Settlers in Hebron was bias and not compliant with the NPOV policy. It was discovered that the author downplayed murders of Jews and and used language which maximized the emotional value of deaths of Palestinians within the conflict. The author was described by a non-participant in the dispute and as anti-Israeli agitator, and best.

The response be the editor of that paragraph has been to remove the observations, lock up the talk section and most importantly, now claims that Wikipedia doesn't adhere to a NPOV policy. How do we get this past an editing war and into a real dispute resolution?

166.84.1.2 (talk) 22:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * WP NPOV policy is strictly applied to how editors behave in presenting information in articles, it has nothing to do with how sources are written. As a matter of fact, sources are allowed to be biased, it's our representation of sources that's not allowed to be biased. From WP:NPOV "Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view." So attempting to remove a source because you disagree with its point of view and think its biased, is not sufficient for rejecting a source on WP. If the main concern is the source, then you should go to the reliable sources noticeboard and actually link the source and the information being used from the source, so editors have a better idea of what you're talking about.Scoobydunk (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Please be aware that the editor who started this section started a nearly identical section at WP:AN — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted that the editor who opened this request is not permitted, under an arbitration ruling, from editing in this topic area. Under this ruling, "All anonymous IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict". This request should therefore be rejected without regard to its merits (which, in any case, are non-existent). RolandR (talk) 01:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Kosher tax (antisemitic canard)
I'm not entirely sure as to whether the sourcing on this article is up to standard. As far as I can see, there only seems to be one reference on the article that meets reliable source criteria- the Globe and Mail article- and said source certainly does not describe the concept of charging meat producers more to kill beasts without stunning them beforehand as an 'antisemitic canard'. The vast majority of other references are to clearly biased advocate groups, self-published books, or sources that do not mention the 'kosher tax' as such (c.f. Blee 2009).

Would appreciate it if someone could have a good look over the article. 121.75.209.143 (talk) 11:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I just took a quick glance at the article, talk pages, and few of the sources. I can look more in depth later... However, off the bat, I see two works published by university presses that definitely qualify as reliable, a Jerusalem Post article (itself an RS), and a few others that probably qualify as reliable, in addition to the Globe and Mail articles. Amounting to approximately 1/3 of the references... That's not counting a few of the other sources that seemed reliable. The articles also appears to be well-written, and the result of five talk pages (four archived and one current) worth of editor discussion. At the moment, I don't see anything that jumps out at me in the article prose as undue. In fact, reading over it, I'd say it's very balanced- in its presentation, at least. Can you point to any specific issues within the text that you feel are biased, or op-ed pieces that are used inappropriately? Quinto Simmaco (talk) 08:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Attribution of a quote at Daniel (biblical figure)
There is a discussion going on at Talk:Daniel (biblical figure) as to whether a quote in the article needs to have attribution. It currently says "The Book of Daniel, like Ruth and Esther, is historical fiction," but previously it said "According to Michael Coogan, the Book of Daniel, like Ruth and Esther, is historical fiction." Which one is best, per WP:YESPOV? StAnselm (talk) 19:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Clearly the labeling of anything which is regarded as "truth" by any religious group or religion as "historical fiction" is a matter of opinion and should be cited and sourced as such. Else we could have someone saying "The Quran is fictitious" or the like - and I suspect one can easily see where we would end up.  On matters of religion, conservative wording is far superior to "I told them it is fiction" posturing. Collect (talk) 19:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree here. That's a false equivalency, and I suspect that this might possibly be due to a lack of familiarity with the term as it is used in the context of historical criticism, and/or the text. Among scholars, the Book of Daniel is widely viewed as a work of historical fiction. As in thd literary genre, not that the story itself is a wholly fictional one. This isn't a value judgement; various parts of the work show a lack of familiarity with the subject matter (Akkadian culture), and the vocabulary betrays a later period of authorship than is traditionally claimed (due to the use of Persian and Greek loan words, as their introduction into Hebrew proper can be dated to the post Exilic period at the earliest). Various authors and theologians, often with a point of view that the entirety of the work now known as the Bible is not only infallible, but historically inerrant (to even the degree that the textual attribution of supposed authorship is necessarily true) have attempted to explain this in a variety of ways. However, the majority of these viewpoints are not the mainstream consensus, and some of them fall beyond the pale of what would be considered WP:FRINGE.
 * Among the aforementioned theories that are generally considered more credible, and which some scholars readily concede, is that there is a legendary nucleus to the story, but that it was written later, or--- that there was later scribal interpolation of a core historical text written by a historical Daniel (the latter having much less currency than the former). The point being: historical fiction is a genre, and doesn't mean that there isn't an actual historical account behind the text. However, as per WP:RNPOV, we don't present viewpoints espousing infallibility, inerrancy, etcera with equal weight to those of academics in fields outside of theology; doing so would be WP:UNDUE.
 * One can certainly qualify the statement as an attribution to Coogan, but sources can likely be readily found stating that his viewpoint is the majority estimation among scholars. Saying that stating a work like Ester is historical fiction can lead the Qu'ran being called in Wikipedia's voice a work of historical fiction... That's reaching. Just thought I'd clarify what it means specifically within the field of Biblical criticism, and why it is regarded as an example of such a work, Collect, et al. Hopefully that helps? Quinto Simmaco (talk) 08:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Iterating: Clearly the labeling of anything which is regarded as "truth" by any religious group or religion as "historical fiction" is a matter of opinion and should be cited and sourced as such.  That you find it needful to engage in a long discourse which basically says:  Wikipedia can label any religion as a hoax if a "reliable source" calls it one.     This is a general consideration, and one which most people hold.   We can attribute opinions as opinion, sourced and cited as such, but when we start using Wikipedia's voice to make such pronouncements in any way, we shall have quite lost our course. Collect (talk) 14:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

GMO conspiracy theories
I started this article because I kept finding sources that identified this topic. Certain editors think the article is not NPOV and have proclaimed this vociferously on the talkpage, but I have had a hard time identifying exactly what their objections are beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT (I am suspicious that many are anti-GMO activists who don't want this page to exist on Wikipedia for reasons having less to do with concerns over neutrality rather than wanting to paint their position in the best possible light).

It would be nice to get someone who is independent of the ongoing controversies related to GMOs on Wikipedia to review the article to see if the tag should still be there. Right now, we have only longtime disputants editing so it may not be possible for us to see where actual problems lie (if any do).

Thanks.

jps (talk) 13:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * For me the issue is the conspiracy theory, so regardless of the great research you have done, it may fall under WP:FRINGE. Case in point, you are implying that if someone questions the content or sentiment of the content, that they are now in fact validating this theory and are working to oppose you. This may be better addressed on the Fringe theories/Noticeboard. I understand the entry, just don't think that is what Wikipedia is for.--WatchingContent (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Think what the issue is: Scientist are sceptical by nature.  When an organization publish gleaming reports, time-after-time one thinks of Publication bias. No org. can be that perfect. If an org. published every research article they paid for  – good or bad- it would give other scientist  less concern that they are hiding something – because they could take a broad view of the whole subject. As it is  Funnel plot suggest they are only publishing the good. Genetically modified organism may be OK. Yet, the fact is, companies are strongly suggesting that we believe every word they say – and that is not the way that science works. The history of medical science is littered with examples of Radium Ore Revigator and what not, that we may laugh about to day but at the time they where promoted as being scientifically proven but other  scientist of the time and the gullible pubic   were left in the dark. The Romans loved fruit syrup from water supplied by lead pipes and reduced in lead kettles which made it sweet (Lead(IV) acetate). To-day we can laugh about their naïvety. Yet today, are there no more  fools that only go by what the promoter presents  before the public  in black and white and believes that today we are truly enlightened and  immune from the foibles of past ages?  P. T. Barnum made a fortune out of these sad people. GE said that reactor like Fukushima would not melt down  and they should know, they design it.... and so  the list goes on and on. Work in R&D for a few years and you'll soon discover how little experts really know – and can do . The management demands  results, so the facts get  bent out of all proportions in order that one has a job the following year. So, you have a hard time identifying exactly what their objections are. I think your  state of mind will continue unless you can step back a few paces and look at the whole picture. Oh, and go back to Funnel plot and think about that  also. Do these companies think we are mushrooms and should be kept in the dark and be feed only their BS? COI  I don't think I have ever edited on a GMO or similar article before but I do recognize BS when is see it in their PR. It stinks and a lot more so than bad fish.  A science paper by one of these companies should be treat like any other,   even if it appears on Google Scholar it not to be taken as gospel unless it has been independently verified . So, is it any wonder that your efforts  of  pontificating fringe as though it is accepted and verified fact is going to run into problems with other editors that may have a broader picture? Wikipedia requires verifiable facts.--Aspro (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Unpaid contributers to oft cited publications.
I hope I'm putting this in the right place. Given the recent goings on concerning some major online publications not paying their contributers, (huffpo, mary sue are two named), does it warrant reevaluating their uses as reliable sources for Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.42.168 (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't this Q fit better at Reliable sources/Noticeboard ? Jeh (talk) 22:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Huffington Post does have unpaid guest contributors so I think it should be a case by case basis and not exclude the whole publication, despite it's painfully obvious slant.--WatchingContent (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Prada gender discrimination case
I'm concerned about the way this article addresses matters that may currently be under litigation, particularly insofar as the background section appears to solely present the side of one of the litigants; from a BLP standpoint at least, I think it may need to be edited... but I'm not sure how to address it fairly without simply gutting the article. I've already made a number of changes to some of the sections, but I'm just not sure what more to do here and would like some more eyes to look at this article. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 14:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I saw this also. It is a total abuse page and does not adhere to anything about what Wikipedia stands for. I would encourage these editors to use WP:ALTOUT but we all know there is major abuse going on with editors using Wikipedia because of Google's algorithmic favoring. This page should be a subset of the plaintiff's page, which I would even question notability for. If the subject matter was of another issue, the entry would be torn down by Admins in nanosecond.--WatchingContent (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC: section lede at Ford Pinto
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Ford_Pinto. The neutrality of the lede of section Fuel system fires, recalls, and litigation of article Ford Pinto is disputed. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Detention and search of Indian VIPs at US airports
This article is very one-sided, not exploring reasons for stops and searches!!--Petebutt (talk) 20:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Surely such a veteren edtor as knows how to lodge a notice here by now-!  Fortuna  Imperatrix Mundi  16:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of fringe theories
Please see Talk:Entropic force. (AFAIU, WP:FRINGE is part of WP:NPOV series.) Staszek Lem (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Astra-the personal weapons of the hindu holy trinity and their purview
There is edit-warring going on in the article "Astra" []. I seek consensus from those who have studied/interested in hindu mythology,on the neutrality of one of the weapons mentioned-Sudarshana chakra. The personal weapons of the hindu holy trinity-Brahma,Vishnu and Shiva are considered to act,or desist at will of their owners only.1.Please look into the weapons Trishula and Pashupatastra,where the description reads "cannot be stopped by anyone" and "cannot be stopped by anyone other than Lord Shiva" respectively.This is in stark contrast to the description of Sudarshana Chakra,the personal weapon of Lord Vishnu,where it reads "Cannot be stopped by anyone, except Lord Vishnu himself & Lord Shiva".I seriously doubted the authenticity and neutrality of this information.The editor,who added the part "&Lord Shiva" in describing Sudarshana Chakra hasn't provided any source or link to verify it.2.Also,the Wikipedia article "Ambarisha" relates the story how Lord Brahma and lord Shiva "pleaded their inability to save him(durvasa)" from Sudarshana.[] 3.Since authoritative sources on Hindu mythology are hard to come by over the internet,I am forced to provide the following sources on ambarisha-durvasa story,all of which conform to the view that Sudarshana cannot be stopped by anyone other than Lord Vishnu.[] [] [] and so forth.I hope the administrators look into this,deliberate and strive to make this article neutral again. Ankisur2 (talk)
 * Comment The editor User talk:Ankisur2 has been WP:FORUMSHOPPING; cf. Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Fortuna  Imperatrix Mundi  16:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The minor edit referred to here does not effect the neutrality of the article; the content added was referenced with obviously unreliable sources. Please close this. Drmies (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I was not familiar with WP:FORUMSHOPPING,but I looked up and it says "Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards".To be clear,I raised two separate issues.With the administrators noticeboard,I raised the issue of personal attack by Adamstraw99,and didnot discuss the content of the article.With  Neutral point of view discussion board,I questioned the content of this article,and refrained from mentioning anything about Adamstraw99,which seemingly Fortuna.. failed to notice.Hope this clears things up.

Drmies If the edit is "minor",and does not affect the neutrality,why not make it accurate and correct as well?Have you checked out the page "Ambarisha"?

RfC: Use of "simple islanders" in Nuckelavee
Editors at this noticeboard may be interested in the discussion happening at Talk:Nuckelavee regarding the use of the term "simple islanders". — Nizolan  (talk) 07:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)