Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 59

Strange controversy over Whirling
I created a page on a notable dance genre, Whirling. Part of the motivation was to distinguish it from particular styles of religious-rooted movement traditions, i.e., Sufi spinning. The page was bumped, inexplicably, to list of Islam-related deletion discussions by Everymorning. Since then, a veritable war has developed, with User:Ibadibam and several others arguing for a merge, but on grounds that show extreme systemic bias and Orientalism. There is a strong need for neutrals to intervene in the debate, because the AfD debate has gotten to the point where it is detracting from substantive edits.Viapastrengo (talk) 18:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Since I was pinged, I will response to what has been said about me--namely that it was "inexplicable" that I delsorted the AFD for Whirling under Islam. This was a mistake on my part, I didn't read the article closely enough and so thought it was a form of Sufi spinning rather than being very different from it as the article says in the lead. Sorry. Everymorning (talk) 19:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you immmensely to Everymorning. In light of your view now, could you please help by intervening to restore the whirling page.  User:Mr. Magoo and McBarker nonetheless merged the articles despite the clear weight of the opinions on the AfD page (including Magoo's and User:Ibadibam's being that more clarity was needed.  I asked for a tiny bit of time to clear up the confusion that was on the pages, and was creating several tools to do that (all very time consuming).  The merger was pushed forward nonetheless, against the clear weight of the voting results.  This is very disappointing and I can't devote additional time to editing wars and comments, when all I wanted to do was work on the pages.  I'd respectfully ask for you or anyone else neutral to help us undo the whirling / sufi spinning / tanoura merger, which only made things less clear.Viapastrengo (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Correction -- merger was done by User:Sandstein, whom I will contact to try to understand exactly what happened prior to initiating a DRV.Viapastrengo (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't merge anything. I just closed an AfD, to which you may want to link. I fail to see how any of this relates to NPOV.  Sandstein   19:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This is the AfD page: Articles for deletion/Whirling. NPOV because the edits that were being made, and the resulting merger shows a very clear Orientalist view on several clearly distinct practices/traditions/customs. There were multiple alerts to this in the original discussion, with zero acknowledgement.  End result is a redirect/merger that is incoherent and suffers from non-neutral conceptual slippage.Viapastrengo (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thought the merger/redirect was User:Sandstein's -- oops -- turns out was Magoo's -- was too busy trying to understand User:Mr. Magoo and McBarker and [User:Mr. Magoo]] apparent socks, while defending self from same.Viapastrengo (talk) 01:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Same account. You can edit your visible name at settings. Everyone called me Mr. Magoo so I just changed my name to it. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 22:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The AfD was actually over a lack of sources, so I didn't respond to charges of bias there. But if anything is Orientalist, it's the view that there should be a separate article for this. That a few Americans and Europeans have appropriated a Middle Eastern tradition does not make it separate and original. It would be disingenuous to document it as though it were parallel to and equally notable as a centuries-old practice, and not a recent derivative thereof. I think the new organization of these topics, as represented by the, does a much better job of putting this in its proper historical and cultural context. Ibadibam (talk) 04:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ibadibam, I thanked you before, sincerely, in the context of the AfD before the merger whirled everything together in one big pile of incomprehensible goo.  I'll thank you, again, for now answering User:Sandstein's question of what NPOV's got to do with it.Viapastrengo (talk) 06:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is the link to the Deletion review (DRV) discussion for anyone eager to jump in: Deletion review — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viapastrengo (talk • contribs) 06:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * To put some clarity here, Sandstein closed as redirect which he then performed and wrote that mergers can happen posthumously. Closing as redirect and then suggesting a merger can/may happen afterwards seems to be a common closure at AfD, even from other closers. It has even happened in cases where nigh everyone voted for merge. In this redirect case there was obviously concensus for a merger as well since the article creator least of all wants his or her work going to absolute waste. So I added a section for Whirling as a dance form at Sufi whirling. I also did a merger of Tanoura as a section as well, since it seemed to be a pretty dead article with only a small amount of text. At this point the two sections looked near identical to the original articles they had had. Now, Ibadibam came and edited the two sections quite a bit so it's not as apparent anymore. But look at the original shape. The two sections at the bottom are pretty much 1:1 with their original articles. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 22:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I also think Ibadibam should be complimented for apparently going through all of the sources and reviewing their connection to the text. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ditto on gratitude to User:Ibadibam and Mr. Magoo and many others for the time spent developing, cite-checking and critiquing. This doesn't ameliorate the concerns regarding a particular dance technique being "put in its place" ("in its proper historical and cultural context") when that place is hostile to the very thing that's being put in it!  Sufi spinning = male practitioners seeking a transcendental connection with selves, others and the G character.  Whirling = dance technique that's not a secular version of Sufi whirling practiced by female dancers but a standalone set of practices and recognized movement techniques.  Let me try to illustrate this a slightly different way.  There's curling and then there's curling.  One is a sport played by Canadians, and a sport is a kind of physical movement ritual in a way; the other is a weightlifting movement technique.  Let's repeat.  One is a sport played by Canadians (i.e., physical movement ritual done by [some] Sufis ); the other is a weightlifting (i.e., dance dance) movement technique.  Both are movement practices, and both have some conceptual overlaps (i.e., both can be thought of as group or physical practices), but the fact that both are called CURLING doesn't mean they are homologues.  Because one type of curling is an Olympic sport and the other is a mere weightlifting technique doesn't mean that biceps curling should be merged with whatever the heck "Canadian" curling is.  It'd be inappropriate to put biceps curling "in its place" by lumping it with Canadian curling.  So too with Sufi whirling, and whirling.  Now, let's go one step further.  Let's imagine there are Olympians out there who don't want curling the sport to be an Olympic sport because ... well ... it's not Olympic enough.  Curlers are apostates to a great number of Olympians.  And because they are Olympians, they can resort to physical assaults on curlers, because ... hey ... they're Canadian and they're ... curlers, and it's not true to the originalist Olympic vision.  And there're more of the Olympians than curlers; ergo, the Olympians have numbers on their side.  And the Olympians are ruthless and inventive.  If they can find any way to discredit the sport of curling, they'll resort to it.  And, voila, here comes WP.  "Look, ye fellow Olympians!" says one of the more audacious of the athletes, "check out what the world [i.e., Wikipedia] thinks of curling ... it's incoherent, and structureless.  At least in the "good ol' days" curling was only a man's sport, but look on, ye Olympians ... and despair.  Curling isn't a sport!  It's lifting stuff with your arms, and the article says even women can do that!"  "Blasphemy!" screams an Olympian from the sidelines.  "Let's kill them!" says a fellow Olympian.  "Hear! Hear!" the Olympic chorus rises.  "But wait, kill who?" says a late arriving Olympian.  "Oh, Jesus Christ, tardypants, ... the curlers, of course!!" responds the Olympian who started the curl-bashing.  "But how will I know what the hell is a curler?" asks Tardypants.  "Oh, for crying out loud, just look it up on Wikipedia!"  So, yeah, while we're on the topic of thank you notes, thanks for putting curling in its place.  I mean, they're both called curling, and they're both movement techniques that require flexing of arm muscles and stuff.  And hell, ain't no possible way an epistemic battle on WP could ever translate into real world recrimination or violence.  Oh, wait ... Viapastrengo (talk) 22:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Discrimination lawsuit
In the article about University of Tartu one user is trying to force in a section that in its form is damaging to the university and what is based on alleged accusations. Could someone please help with this? Situation itself is hardly of anything important and case itself unproven. User in question has started revert war. See talkpage for more info. Ivo (talk) 11:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear Ivo, is not alleged accusations, the case is in court and in ongoing litigation. Once the court case ends and in case the University is found of non-wrongdoing then the entry can be edited as desired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExpatEstonia (talk • contribs) 19:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Considering on entity guilty before it even has a chance to defend itself is by default wrong. Ivo (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The section appears to be neutrally worded, stating that there is an ongoing suit, that the plaintiff has alleged one thing, and the accused has denied it. As long as Wikipedia doesn't make judgements on the case's merits, or predictions on the outcome, and the content is reliably sourced, there's no issue of bias. Ibadibam (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

SodaStream
I've posted the following in the Village Pump, and was made aware that perhaps this should be here too

The article on SodaStream keeps pressing that they employ 500 Palestinians, and they mention more than once how the company had to let go of them because they had to move the factory from Ma'ale Adumim in the West Bank after boycotts.

The whole tone of the article is biased, it quotes the people, and states the facts that help its case in regards to the Palestinian land situation & the controversy that surrounded it and led to the move in the end.

I find it biased to keep mentioning that they employed 500 Palestinians (and not mentioning other employees, which include Jewish Israelis, and Palestinian-Israelis) without mentioning what the same process might have done to other workers. They also mention that they are expected to employ Bedouins (who are in fact Israeli citizens) in an upcoming plant.

I'm requesting a neutral-party reading of the article. And I need more details on this particular situation (reporting only the facts that give a good image, but not all the facts or the ones related to it), vis-a-vis Wikipedia's editing policy (WP:SOAP, WP:NPV). I'm also asking if the way it's written warrants a, or if it reads like it was written by a PR firm to present a better public image as means of damage control after the controversies and boycotts. ¬Hexafluoride (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Pov pushing of Kiluminati in Module:Yemeni Civil War detailed map
Hi. could be a witness. Kiluminati is a Single-purpose account. He refused sources that mentionned Hadi advance. The account appeared in December and he speaks of vandalism. He removes sources such as Masdar speaking advances loyalists and source map with Al Masira, official media Houthi. This is unacceptable. And he accused the others to vandalism. He had been warned here and here. 2016 (UTC) First, I ask Kilumnati cease to qualify those who do not think like him vandals or saboteurs. This is a personal attack and I demand punishment. For its wars of editions of removing information about advanced Yemeni government, just see his latest contributions. Enough 's enough of this pov pusher. And personal attacks, simply view comments for change , there's always a personal attack. Moreover, it is somewhat strong coffee that has come out of nowhere in December 2015, already knows the community pages of Wikipedia and has the nerve to accuse of vandalism. So he who does not know the definition. Moreover, it is certain that behind the Kiluminati account hides an experienced account, perhaps even banned. Hello. I demand an immediate sanction against the puppet socket for general behavior on the encyclopedia. For Warring he did with, where it distorts the meaning of Article to deny that to update the map with the advancing troops Hadi. Furthermore, I demand punishment for his personal attacks, defamation that are calling me a vandal, saboteur and fanatical pro Hadi. Regards. Panam2014 (talk) 09:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is true. User:Kiluminati has been POV-pushing on the Yemeni Map Module for months now. Despite being warned by other users and a number of discussions on the modules's talk page, he refused to cease his disruptive behavior, and is continuing to alter the map in favor of his own pro-Houthi views, using unreliable sources or seriously biased sources to carry out the changes. He also mass reverts any other users who make changes in favor of the opposite side, using reliable sources, and he accuses them of "vandalism" when this happens. And if any user happens to revert any of his unreliable or poorly-sourced edits, he reverts them also also hurls similar accusations of vandalism or disruptive editing. This is unacceptable. User:Kilunimati's edits are seriously shifting the Yemeni map module away from a neutral point of view, and sadly, since December 2015, the map has become the most unreliable map module on Wikipedia, except in the instances where I or another user managed to revert his changes or update the map using reliable sources. This needs to stop; this is damaging Wikipedia's neutrality and accuracy policies. Please attempt to mediate a solution with the user in question. If all else fails, I recommend a topic ban on the user for at least 6 months, to end any further disruption. Also, if things get too out of hand in the short term, then please lock the module for 3 days, to kill off any further disruptions or edit wars from this user, until a solution can be mediated. Thank you. LightandDark2000 (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * First of all, i'm so sorry for failure to follow WP:NPOVN laws where strongly been emphasized to notify editor who is the subject of a discussion with red color! given that by coincidence i faced to this topic that it show pretenders legitimacy how observe the law!
 * For POV Push accusation with regards to leaving in irrelevent section in noticeboard (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view where place to article content is compliant with the NPOV) should be snapback to Yemen Civil War talk page where editors must be told sources that based on doing edit. but the two not provide anything for their edit and always are be elusive from responding, here is visible. basically, there are not completely impartial resources for validation and accuracy of claims! and the two rely on sources that the majority of them are founder of war and the rest of its supporters. of course we all know they cant be neutral so what's the solution? answer is using all of them as jointly it's means admit one side to domination the other side and vice versa. it's the only operational way-out at the moment. except this method just lead to more chaos and i taked it for reduce disputes (User contributions).
 * Now the this two trying with working together and trick handling asperse and defame me and going to introduce me as POV Pusher in public opinios but weak works not benefit. it seems to me can be work out this difficult problem side by side not against. I hope intellection overtake from ignorance, hope.... K!lluminati (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Killuminati is indeed a pov pusher and I have demonstrated. So I will not dwell on it further. Furthermore, he claims that Al Masirah is credible and using as source General People's Congress website of Ali Abdullah Saleh. that's the weakest coffee complaining about defamation when we used to accuse others of vandalism and sabotage. Moreover, Kiluminati appropriates the module by its leader of the discussion by denying the arguments that are not going in his direction. To have searched the talk page I demand punishment under Harassment and its disorganization of the encyclopedia I also demand a punishment for WP:POINT. Panam2014 (talk) 12:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * why Al Masirah not be credible? let us not forget famous mainstream news media due to lack of journalist on yemen working their own news quoted al-masirah's reports (even al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya). what's wrong with using GPC website? not clear? for what reason the using salih, ansarullah and houthis resources are forbidden but using al-Jazeera, al-arabiya & al-Akhbariyah and all of arabic coalition sources that are starters of war on yemen is obligatory? that's comical analogy! it's clear they misrepresent truth and nutrify misinformation as flipped to audiences, and by this manner put community minds in aberration and brainwash public opinions easy peasy lemon squeezy!!! now at here the two sophistries prevent from being display battlefields realities. in previous some time the two reverted anything they deem to wrong. all of them be there here . with this action, the map instead of be indicative of reality is propagator of errors!
 * Stretches this sealed ring endangers the main objectives of Wikipedia that's surely “public access to correct information”. The this point to be taken seriously otherwise will have troubling consequences. K!lluminati (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This individual has lost all credibility. Sabanew (pro Hadi) or Sabanews (pro Houthis) and Al Masirah (pro Houthi) do not have to be used since these are the officials media of the belligerents. And their information is never taken up by the mainstream media. If they were credible, the information should have been included. I am proud of the confession of this POV pusher. The media like Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya are international sources and their information is taken over by large groups such as NY Times. Put the same level as the propaganda war is the POV pushing. Finally, Al jazeera contradicts Kiluminati but its information is recognized. --Panam2014 (talk) 11:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Can someone please lock the map module for 1 week? I'm sick and fed up with all the POV-pushing and edit warring that I'm still witnessing there. Despite the discussion here and the repeated attempt to discuss with User:Kiluminati, he is still using unreliable or seriously biased sources to reshape the map to his own views. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Kiluminati is a Pov Pusher. Now, he used biased sources such as Saba News Agency which is the official agency of the Houthis., , and . --Panam2014 (talk) 07:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Finally, he continues to use the biased sources and without consensus. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * New evidence of POV- pushing, now , he left off topic to promote the idea that the " government of the Houthis ' is legitimate and that Hadi is " a self-proclaimed former president " as he is recognized by the international community. --Panam2014 (talk) 10:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What about an compromise? I'd say, if K!lluminati continues to change colours on the map based on the sources we decided to be unreliable, he will be banned from editing this map. As a compromise and because I was told that it isn't actually necessary to cite any sources to add completely new points/marks to the map I'd say that the sources could still be used to add new minor points to the map as long as they are not completely far away from the frontline (for example behind a bigger town still in the hands of the other side). What do you think about this?--Ermanarich (talk) 20:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

John Dye article
The final section header in the biographical entry for actor John Dye contains 11 inline cites, but those are not about the actor, but about the Supreme Court case regarding Obamacare. Because of such overabundance of irrelevant cites, the deletion of this controversial, as well as misplaced, section should have some form of consensus/support/agreement. &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Upon closer examination, this matter is revealed to be not a legitimate POV issue, but a continuing revert and reinsertion of the same inapplicable text. &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 04:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In the history it does seem like an edit war is happening over this content about a court case. Since there is not much discussion about this on the article's talk page, I think it would be best to continue discussion there.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  19:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Timothy Leary
An IP editor (it could be one person or multiple people using IP addresses) is currently pushing the idea that Timothy Leary is a philosopher (see here, for instance). I think this is pretty obviously outrageous, and a violation of WP:NPOV. Leary has absolutely no recognition as a philosopher: his name is not mentioned in works of reference dealing with philosophy, and not one professional philosopher would recognize him as one. An IP has added a citation for the philosopher claim here, but in my view the source used is in no way reliable enough for this kind of extraordinary claim. I think the IP's edits need to be reverted, and if need be the article should be protected. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I was patrolling recent changes when I noticed that you had disputed that Leary is a philosopher. I easily found and added ref currently number one, a bibliography of Leary where I also added a quote stating that he is a philosopher, and btw "philosophy was found 29 times in that page that I ref'ed. He has been repeatedly "recognized as such".2601:80:4003:7416:5812:70AA:330D:D068 (talk) 03:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * And-FKC--why did you bring this here? How would this be NPOV-related? You make no sense here. Why not on the Talk Page? Here is something that may help you understand, List of Dewey Decimal classes2601:80:4003:7416:5812:70AA:330D:D068 (talk) 03:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I repeat my points: Timothy Leary is not regarded as a philosopher by any professional philosopher, and he is not mentioned in any work of reference dealing with philosophy. Ergo, he is not a philosopher. It destroys Wikipedia's credibility for it to include the inane suggestion that this promoter of drugs somehow qualifies as a philosopher, and simply increases the level of ignorance and misunderstanding of philosophy in this world. The fact that you can find somewhere a source calling Leary a philosopher doesn't change this; the source (written by Leary's admirers, I'm sure) is insufficiently reliable to support the claim being made. Maybe if you looked, you could find a source calling Lyndon LaRouche a philosopher; that wouldn't justify slapping the "philosopher" label on LaRouche either. Per WP:NPOV, "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which 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." One dubiously-reliable source calling Leary a philosopher isn't good enough. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I am the ip who added the ref to the bibliography. You did not see who authored that-or did you just not look at it? Still not seeing why you didn't go to the article TP-although you are clearly the one with an agenda here. There is no "takes one to know one" policy on WP as far as I know? Or must have a degree in philosophy to be considered a philosopher? He AUTHORED and TAUGHT, and LECTURED philosophy, how many refs do you need? Maybe in climate change scientists or something,but for this I thought that something said in a reliable reference is acceptable. 2601:80:4003:7416:5812:70AA:330D:D068 (talk) 04:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NPOV, "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which 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." Is the view that Timothy Leary is a philosopher a significant view in reliable sources? You have provided no proof of this, and I see no reason to believe it's true. Your assertions that Leary is a philosopher ("He AUTHORED and TAUGHT, and LECTURED philosophy") are irrelevant and unsupported. Consequently, I shall revert your edits at the article. Per WP:BRD, you should have discussed your proposed changes on the talk page after I reverted you, instead of edit warring. I've taken the issue here to draw your destructive behavior to the attention of a larger number of editors. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No evidence has been provided that he AUTHORED and TAUGHT, and LECTURED philosophy. The source provided says he was an "activist philosopher," whatever that is.  So I would take it out.  TFD (talk) 04:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * How is this? http://articles.latimes.com/1987-12-22/entertainment/ca-30476_1_timothy-leary2601:80:4003:7416:5812:70AA:330D:D068 (talk) 04:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * A single reference in a newspaper? Please. If that were enough, nearly anyone could become a philosopher. It doesn't even call Leary a philosopher; rather, it says that he did "his stand-up philosopher act", not quite the same thing. As I said, we need high-quality references: works of reference dealing with philosophy, and other sources written by people who have a legitimate claim to know what they're talking about. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * AND- FKC-you didn't rv me-I added a ref because you rv some other IP editor. I will rv you if you do that just so you know2601:80:4003:7416:5812:70AA:330D:D068 (talk) 04:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Doing a google search (yes, not exhaustive) clearly shows that if the word "philosopher" is used with Leary's name, its a self-ascribed label that he called himself and not a professor that we could call him as such. The LA Times article above, for example, shows how he used "Stand-up Philosopher" to describe a stage act. He had a specific philosophy, but that's not same as being a philosopher by profession. --M ASEM (t) 04:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, there are a few legit sources out there that do describe Leary as a philosopher (among other things). The International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, for example, describes him as "a psychologist, scientist, and philosopher who made substantive contributions to interpersonal theory and methodology and also gained notoriety for his endorsement of and research on hallucinogens." So the IP isn't completely off-base, although I'm skeptical that there are enough sources like this out there to justify using the "philosopher" label. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The ref that I added mentioned philosophy more than 20 times-(the bibliography). LA times calls Leary a philosopher, you don't like that. How about this? https://books.google.com/books?id=-zsuAAAACAAJ&dq=The+Fugitive+Philosopher&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj49r2byN3LAhVE6CYKHTuhBlQQ6AEIHTAA (his book The Fugitive Philosopher) on Google Books listed as :"Biography & Autobiography / Philosophers"? 2601:80:4003:7416:5812:70AA:330D:D068 (talk) 05:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's irrelevant how many times it mentions the word "philosophy". The claim that Leary is a philosopher is made just once, by the document's editors, who include Michael Horowitz, a former associate of Leary who is not a professional philosopher. Not being a philosopher, his view is hardly relevant. What the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences says is admittedly much more significant (and I thank Fyddlestix for mentioning it), but the bottom line for me remains that it is inappropriate to call Leary a philosopher given that he isn't seen as such by most philosophers and that it is not what he is primarily known for. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * You brought this to the wrong drama-board. Maybe RS would be reasonable, but I still don't get why you did not put this on the TP. I'm not so sure that the standard that you are asking-for is required here. I think it was you who said that if we didn't have these standards, (paraphrase), "anyone could be a philosopher". Um yeah-so what. But Leary has actually written books, been quoted on, and been referenced-as a philosopher in other classifying bodies. Even-if it is self-referenced, (and that is not the only ref for Leary), again, so what? And please show me where WP Policy backs you up with this? So, by your standards, only another bona-fide philosopher can say that Leary is one too? I need to see where WP requires this please.2601:80:4003:7416:5812:70AA:330D:D068 (talk) 06:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I brought this issue to precisely the right noticeboard, as shown by the helpful comments made by other users. You may believe that virtually anyone should be called a philosopher; I certainly do not, as I believe that Wikipedia should aim to become a high-quality and trustworthy work of reference. I do not think that there is going to be general sympathy for edits such as yours, which frustrate that goal, as well as destroying the meaning of philosophy and contributing to public ignorance and misunderstanding of the subject. Leary calling himself a philosopher is not good enough, his non-philosopher buddies calling him a philosopher is not good enough, and some vague reference to him as a philosopher in a newspaper (which doesn't really call him a philosopher) is not good enough. Find high-quality sources calling Leary a philosopher, or else just drop the issue. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

A similar point came up a while back in respect of more contemporary activist. As I noted in that debate, and as the RFC concluded, we need surely to be quite strict and consistent about what we mean when we describe someone as a "philosopher". The term is often used quite loosely in the real world for anyone who has opinions or theories about life and the wider world, as well as in a more formal academic or historical sense, and it should be latter that we focus on. Sources that may well be "reliable" in the broadest sense can often be found that say X or Y is a "philosopher", but we shouldn't blindly follow one or two randomly selected ones, especially when there's no guarantee they mean the same thing as others. This isn't a matter of sourcing per se but, as noted, a matter of what sources and what is meant by the term.  N-HH   talk / edits  12:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * OK-well ty for that other closed discussion. But this one is tricky in that I am trying to apply a pretty strict criteria to this, asking questions like, "Was Leary a philosopher in the professional sense?-was he employed as such, gaining income?"--and the answer is yes. Also, although I have not seen him published in philosophy trade journals and publications, (did not look everywhere), he has published works of philosophy, which are categorized as philosophy, and it looks to me like some of his published material is filed in libraries with the Dewey Decimal classification in the 200 division, which is philosophy.
 * With that being said, I still think that this discussion belongs elsewhere, BUT--I don't have an objection to qualifying Leary if that is appropriate. Rand, for instance is noted as an, "outsider"-in the WP philosophy article. Could we include Leary there? And although I am being accused here of (Npov?), or it looks like I am trying to defend the category for Leary, I'm just trying to apply the encyclopedic WP standards that are usually applied, namely, reliable sources call Leary a philosopher, and he called himself one, and he was employed as one at times. Maybe degree-holding philosophers are the ones who need the qualifier? 2601:80:4003:7416:D424:BA86:FF7D:2779 (talk) 14:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Same IP here--and jftr, I'm starting to lean-towards undoing the revert that I did. The category deletion. I would just like to see if it is appropriate and if WP has any policy in particular that would support it.I think that I found some pretty strong ties to Philosophy for Leary, so it would not be completely out of line to keep the cat. but then again, if there are strict parameters, such-as contributing to the field of philosophy, for instance, then it s/b removed maybe? I guess I just didn't like the original reverting editor's tone there in the edit remarks. It is worth discussing and not being pissy about it like we are all supposed to agree that someone who calls themselves a philosopher, has published, (not in philosophy journals afaik) on the subject, has reliable sources naming Leary as a philosopher, has lectured as one...BUT, not being accepted-or united-with peers of Philosophy who are members of professional groups, contributing to the field.....2601:80:4003:7416:344F:5128:5864:74A9 (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Posted to Talk Page- Talk:Timothy Leary 2601:80:4003:7416:5430:24E8:873B:31D9 (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd like to ask the editors who have commented here to keep an eye on developments at Talk:Timothy Leary. There unfortunately seems to be some sympathy there for labeling Leary a philosopher, and that's regrettable, because it is the kind of thing that potentially damages Wikipedia's reputation. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources describe him as a philospher. Thats the extent of it. Sources are not required to be neutral. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, we do have to consider the nature of a source if it is biased (not neutral), sensationalist, or the like to maintain a neutral tone in WP's voice. And given that there is some contention on "Leary is a philosopher", a careful analysis of the quality of the sources is required to determine if this is something we can say as a fact, or otherwise have to report as a claim per WP:YESPOV. --M ASEM (t) 15:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

PokerStars
This article is squatted on by someone who prevents any attempt to remove non-neutral language, and who may be associated in some way with the subject of the article. The article should obviously start by saying neutrally and verifiably what PokerStars is - an online poker web site. However, the user concerned disruptively replaces this with a non-neutral and uncited claim that it is "the largest online poker cardroom in the world". Over the last two years, they have reverted attempts to change this without ever seriously attempting to justify this in an edit summary. See ,,,,,. Further biased edits by this user include,. 217.144.146.41 (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC update: Ford Pinto section lede of the Fuel system fires, recalls, and litigation section
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Ford_Pinto. RfC update: To date, this request for comment has brought one (1) new editorial voice to the discussion. The discussion involves issues of due weight and neutrality of point of view in a section lede. Respectfully request editors with experience in issues of neutrality please join the discussion at Talk:Ford_Pinto. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK: fact or advertisement
Evening Standard, a free newspaper, wrote of a restaurant, mentioning that "according to chef Fergus Henderson, drinking a Black Velvet at Sweetings "puts you in the mood for romance"". There is a debate here whether this sentence can be used as a humorous hook for a DYK or it should rather be regarded as advertisement. Thank you for your comments. Borsoka (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Careful: this is borderline canvassing, because you're recruiting to the discussion in a way that reflects your views on the discussion. Ibadibam (talk) 03:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. I deleted the reference to the terms of use of Evening Standard which are only slightly connected to the neutrality of the statement, and slightly modified the text. Borsoka (talk) 03:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Violation of WP:NPOVTITLE?
Links to discussion:, , and

Article: Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War

Perceived problem: The title of this section (as of 21:28 April 8) is "Reports of war crimes and attacks on civilians". The heading looks POV and needs to be-written. Several editors are removing any and all attempts to rephrase the section title — diff, diff, diff.

Proposed changes: Reports of war crimes, Human rights concerns, Allegations of war crimes, Civilian casualties and criticism, Allegations, accusations and reports of war crimes, Alleged violations of international humanitarian law.


 * WP:TITLE – Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words; for example, allegation implies wrongdoing, and so should be avoided in a descriptive title. (Exception: articles where the topic is an actual accusation of illegality under law, discussed as such by reliable sources even if not yet proven in a court of law. These are accurately described as "allegations".).


 * WP:MOS — A title should be a recognizable name or description of the topic that is natural, sufficiently precise, concise, and consistent with the titles of related articles . – The provisions in § Article titles (above) generally apply to section headings as well.

Related Articles:
 * Sri Lankan Civil War
 * Yemeni Civil War (2015–present)
 * 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict
 * 2006 Lebanon War
 * Gaza War (2008–09)
 * 2016 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes
 * Northern Mali conflict

Thanks for the help. -- Tobby72 (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest Allegations of war crimes as the surest way. Dorpater (talk) 21:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh please. This is doubly ridiculous. First, it's ridiculous because the argument is that WP:TITLE prevents a section title from actually describing what the section is about. Which is of course nonsense. Second, it's ridiculous because, after getting completely worn out, frustrated and at the end of my patience with Tobby72's edit warring (which he does across multiple articles, against numerous editors - but always very carefully not to break 3RR or 1RR in this case) I actually started an RfC here. Even though it was really Tobby72's responsibility to start one since he's the one who wanted to make the change. Well, guess what? Unsurprisingly the RfC is not going according to Tobby72's wishes. Probably because it's absurd to insist that a section title cannot describe the contents of the section. So this is just WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Which is bad faithed and disruptive.

(and no, the sources don't say "allegations of", that's a Wikipedia invention, an attempt to POV and WP:WEASEL what sources say).Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Consensus was against you. – User:EtienneDolet: diff, User:Axxxion: diff, User:Macaque123: diff, User:Dorpater: diff, User:Hammer5000: diff. -- Tobby72 (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. One user above was a fly-by-night account and two of them weren't even reverting me or disagreeing (for example Axxxion's edit OR Hammer5000's comment on talk (not a revert)). You are just diff-padding - adding irrelevant diffs to make it seem like something is true when it isn't. There's an RfC. If you really think "consensus was against you" then RfC will decide that. You are perfectly aware that's how it works. So why come here and engage in WP:FORUMSHOPPING? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * There is an RfC about this already. Why post it here? My very best wishes (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree that the title is not POV. The reports themselves are much more cautious when blaming Russia or Syria for the civilian deaths.
 * WP:TITLE clearly states:
 * Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words; for example, allegation implies wrongdoing, and so should be avoided in a descriptive title. (Exception: articles where the topic is an actual accusation of illegality under law, discussed as such by reliable sources even if not yet proven in a court of law. These are accurately described as "allegations".)
 * The language in these reports are much lighter than what the section title portrays it to be (i.e. "suspected Russian air strikes", "attack appeared to have been carried out", "evidence suggesting"). Either that, or they are making claims that they themselves admit are hardly verifiable or not of their own independent observation (i.e. "it has not been able to verify whether it was pro-government Syrian forces or Russian forces", "either Syrian regime or Russian warplanes", or "Opposition activists and local witnesses have reported" and etc.). Therefore, I don't see why the title of that particular section should present these allegations as fact. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There is an RfC. You already commented there (and were corrected). This is just WP:FORUMSHOPPING.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "Corrected"...not even close. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There is an RfC. You already commented there. This is WP:FORUMSHOPPING.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree. There's concerning POV issues with the section title. I'd assume this is the proper board for that. A RfC isn't designed and dedicated to assess POV as thoroughly as this board does. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * So why'd you comment there, instead of saying making that very argument? You were fine with the RfC until it started going "the wrong way". Then Tobby72 and you ran over here and started this. There is an RfC. This is WP:FORUMSHOPPING.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't file the NPOV report. But now that Tobby made a pretty reasonable request here, I don't think it was a bad idea. Tchuss! Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not a reasonable request, it's WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Quote:
 * " Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators, or any of these repetitively, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus. It does not help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want. " Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This request is strictly about whether or not the title you suggest is in violation of NPOV. It is done at an appropriate noticeboard: the WP:NPOVN. The RfC is simply about whether "attacks of civilians" should be included in the section title or not. Concerns of POV sprung up there. So in order to determine whether that claim is NPOV or not, we need a proper forum to help us out with that. Hence why we are here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No, this request is about the same damn thing that the RfC is about. That's why it's WP:FORUMSHOPPING. See also WP:WIKILAWYER.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:SEEKHELP – If your dispute is related to the application of a specific policy or guideline, you may wish to post in one of these noticeboards (below) to get input from uninvolved editors familiar with that topic. -- Tobby72 (talk) 10:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There already is an RfC on the topic. This is forum shopping.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

(unindent) There is nothing wrong with pursuing more than one form of dispute resolution and trying to get opinions from other users. One Rfc and one noticeboard post are hardly "forum shopping". You keep repeating it and repeating and repeating it, as if that would somehow make it true. It doesn't. Nor is this the first time you "accuse" others of pursuing dispute resolution. You have been warned and blocked recently for making bad faith accusations. Stop. Athenean (talk) 10:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Quote: "Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators, or any of these repetitively, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus. It does not help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want. ". Yes, it's forum shopping. And you really need to quit it with the threats and attempts at intimidation (not to mention false accusations) as you have been in fact warned about that yourself. Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the quote, but posting on a single noticeboard, is not "raising the same issue on multiple noticeboards". If you are so certain this is forum shopping you should report this on ANI, or even better, AE.  Otherwise, please heed your own advice and quit trying to hijack this thread with irrelevancies. Athenean (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Bringing up an issue here which is already subject of an ongoing RfC, because the RfC might not give you the answer you want, is pretty much a textbook example of forum shopping. That is not an "irrelevancy" nor is this a hijacking. Quite simply, this discussion should be ended, hatted and archived and the RfC should be allowed to run its course. (and as much as I appreciate your advice, please keep it to yourself in the future) Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

ISIL using human shields
Possible violation of WP:NPOVTITLE is just one part of the problem. Could somebody please have a look at above mentioned article? This article, which has obvious POV issues, has been guarded to preserve its current content. Attempts to include contrary well-sourced information have been reverted (for example, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and Jaysh al-Islam militants were accused of using civilians and prisoners as human shields – this information has been repeatedly removed see diff, diff, diff) – link to discussion:. I think this is violation of WP:BALANCE and WP:DUE. -- Tobby72 (talk) 10:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No, what was removed your WP:SYNTH which tried to combine two completely different stories to suggest that the civilians which were attacked by Russian airstrikes were the ones who were being used as human shield. In fact, one set of sources talks about civilians being used as human shields against *American* air strikes, and a completely different set of sources talks about Russian airstrikes against hospitals. Your combining these two suggest they are related is classic POV and WP:SYNTH. *That* is the problem here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I see no real issue with "Reports of war crimes and attacks on civilians". Niteshift36 (talk) 00:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Can relevant legal opinions from major legal experts be removed as WP:FRINGE ?
This is regarding the article for the Iran nuclear agreement (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) (link to prior discussion). It has been claimed that legal expert commentary arguing that the Iran nuclear deal violates international law—by failing to prohibit Iran's genocidal threats against Israel—reflects a fringe view and cannot appear at all in the article.

The "major legal experts" in question are extremely renowned Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz (extended bio here), extremely renowned constitutional lawyer David B. Rivkin (extended bio here), former U.S. Justice Department lawyer Lee A. Casey, and Louis René Beres (extended bio here), an international law professor who has written numerous books on nuclear policy as well as hundreds of scholarly and opinion articles in publications like The Harvard National Security Journal (Harvard Law School), the International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, and the Journal of the U.S Army War College, as well as all the top newspapers in the U.S. (NYT, WaPo, WSJ, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, etc.) The disputed views by these highly notable figures appeared in independent reliable sources such as The Wall Street Journal (example) and The Hill (example).

Material reflecting these views has been repeatedly removed because, according to the roughly 2 or 3 members of a supposed consensus against inclusion, the views are "random fringe", "pathetically tenuous", "simply ridiculous", and "tenuous leaps of judgment strung together, not a serious legal claim", and that they "completely lack[] credibility" and "cannot be taken seriously". No pretense is made that these are anything other than the completely uninformed, non-expert opinions of the WP editors themselves. (Separate query: do these really sound like straightforward, unemotional analyses by neutral and detached editors?)

To my mind, the FRINGE policy is quite clear: it deals with pseudoscience, preposterous theories such as Moon landing conspiracy theories, allegations that Paul McCartney has really been dead since 1966, etc.

Major expert commentary with which a Wikipedia editor might disagree is simply not included. This remains true even if the commentary amounts to criticism, and even if the object of the criticism is a diplomatic effort led by a popular U.S. President. I do not think there is any way the above figures and their commentary can be put within one earth orbit of WP:FRINGE, nor does WP:WEIGHT demand that these views be given a minimal presentation.

On a related note, it was even argued that because two of these authors were already cited on a separate point elsewhere in the article, it would somehow be "undue" to cite them again for some other point—a claim that I don't think has any basis anywhere in WP policy. They're major legal experts, and that is why RS's are soliciting and publishing their opinions in the first place. If RS's publish their significant expert opinions on two different issues, there is absolutely nothing wrong with including the published views on both issues, especially in an article that is already complex and deals with a vast array of conflicting viewpoints.

Proposed text is below.

Proposed text 1: In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, attorneys David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey wrote that while the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide imposed an "obligation on all convention parties to prevent genocide and threats of genocide," Iran remained publicly committed to Israel's elimination.

Proposed text 2: In September 2015, emeritus professor of international law Louis René Beres argued that Obama's refusal to demand Iran abandon its genocidal incitement and threats, before being permitted to nuclearize under the deal, constituted a serious violation of U.S. treaty obligations under the 1948 Genocide Convention, and, thereby, also of U.S. law due to the priority given to international treaties under the Supremacy Clause and related case law. Beres also argued that the deal might encourage Iran to quit the Non-Proliferation Treaty entirely, relying on the new deal as permission to nuclearize while abandoning all commitments under the NPT.

Proposed text 3: Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz said in an interview that the convention against genocide prohibits aiding genocide, and that by giving money to Iran under the deal, the U.S. was "aiding genocide. We're accessories to terrorism."

Thanks in advance for feedback on the policy ramifications of these figures and commentary. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 16:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I am just watching this page due to a previous dispute. But I would say the answer is "yes", at least potentially. Credentials don't imply that everything one says should be taken seriously, especially when the statements appear in a blog, a Murdoch paper and rightwing non-RS called newsmax. If a few professors had similarly accused the US of "violating" the genocide convention by threatening (very credibly) Iran with destruction, their opinions would be taken down in a split second as FRINGE. And what's good for the goose is good for the gander. That's the key thing here. Also,seems like these sources trivializing the concept of genocide and using it as a prop for their politicking. We've seen many examples of this recently (comparing Obama to Hitler, PPACA to the Gulag etc.) I don't think we want to play politics with genocide here on Wikipedia. Guccisamsclub (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Er, The Wall Street Journal is quite firmly a reliable source and The Hill is routinely cited—could you rephrase your position based on the actual WP policy instead of citing your own biases and personal dislike of the publisher? Also let's not dwell on hypothetical scenarios about whether a false claim of genocidal threats would be fringe, and instead focus on the actual genocidal threats that were the subject of this commentary. Finally, no offense, but I don't think most people consulting a noticeboard are looking for policy analysis by a user who is new to Wikipedia. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well your account is much younger than mine, although your familiarity with wiki-politics suggests otherwise. The relevant policies here are WP:RS and WP:VERIFIABILITY. According to the former, exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. The claims you're pushing is are clearly strong ones, and the sources that you're using are not sufficient due to bias, polemical tone and lack of peer-review. When you allege a breach of the UN genocide convention, references to at least a few neutral or academic sources are not too much to ask. A million things can and have been labelled "genocidal", but there IS a difference between "genocide" and genocide. That out of this myriad of "genocide" allegations you pick this one, while dismissing the rest as "false" and fringe, is simply indicative of your own politics, and thus completely irrelevant. One could dig up hundreds of similar allegations from biased yet "reliable" sources, and plaster them all over wikipedia. WP:VERIFIABILITY does not guarantee inclusion.Guccisamsclub (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What are you even saying? There isn't any other genocide threat to discuss in connection with the Iran nuclear deal, thus I haven't ignored one.  The hypothetical genocide accusation by Iran against the U.S. that you mention was hypothetical, i.e. completely fake and made-up, and thus it was also unsourced.  If you tried to add something like that, of course it would be fringe, and there's nothing politically biased about pointing that out to you.  You're suggesting I'm somehow biased for not focusing on other genocide allegations that either don't exist, or have nothing to do with the article in question?  That is downright absurd.  Look, I didn't ask for people to post nonsense speculation about my motives.  If you don't have any actual policy expertise to contribute—and it's pretty clear you don't—please don't clutter this thread with silly insults. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 23:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I am saying that strong or potentially inflammatory claims require stronger sources than those that you've provided. Interesting that you take that as an insult, but than again - not so much. I'd recommend focusing on controlling your temper - not honing your wiki-lawyering skills. Look, your account is only a few months old, but your posts suggest a long and tumultuous history on this site. If you're a previously banned user, at least have the courtesy to tone it down a notch. Guccisamsclub (talk) 01:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "That out of this myriad of "genocide" allegations you pick this one, while dismissing the rest as "false" and fringe, is simply indicative of your own politics, and thus completely irrelevant." This was an insult and a personal attack and it was idiotic.  I'm also giving your policy interpretations all the attention they deserve.  All the best. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 13:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree that in discussing criticism of an international treaty/deal such as this, removing the legal opinion of recognized experts under FRINGE is stretching what FRINGE is to apply to. Whether the Iran deal was legal/beneficial or not is not yet a well-established fact or widely-held opinion, and remains controversial in the news. As such, presenting what recognized legal experts say are legal issues with the deal seems completely appropriate to include. It would be different if we were pulling from a claimed legal expert with no recognition in the field, but that would be more UNDUE/WEIGHT rather than a FRINGE aspect. And while their statements that there might legal issues with an international deal can be considered an "exceptional claim", their expertise and the sources reporting them are well above the bar for "exceptional sources" to support that claim. Mind you, what they have stated, that there are legal issues with the deal, should still be treated as a claim attributed to these experts; the only way that claim will ever be verified or disproven is in a court of law. --M ASEM  (t) 15:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Emotional points of view of some Wikipedians can't overbalance legal opinion of recognized experts. And we are not discussing "million things" labelled genocidal, but the incitement to genocide that was well-grounded on evidence and analyzed by professor Irwin Cotler in the book published by Springer Science. I agree that the proposed legal issues are "completely appropriate to include".
 * Waiting until the "claim will ever be verified or disproven is in a court of law" may be too late for those who want to prevent genocides before they occur. A bill that is supposed to prevent and punish incitement to genocide is debated recently in Parliament of Canada. Is the Parliament dealing with a fringe theory? Yagasi (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment Yes I think it is fringe, though interesting fringe. I do not think it belongs in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action article and to have it there as well as giving a fringe opinion unwarranted attention it violates undue weight guidance. However what is fringe in one article can be notable in another - maybe a mention of it should be made on another article. It is taking a legal precept, the obligation to prevent genocide, and extrapolating it out into fields beyond that intended under that original legal precept. I do find the concept behind it to be important, but in this case it is just playing rather distasteful politics games at the expense of an important legal concept. However, personally I am encouraged to see it has been used, even if used wrongly and insincerely. I have in the past suggested that Armenia use this concept to demand international recognition of Nagorno Karabakh because Azerbaijan has, without doubt, a genocidal intent against Armenia and its actions if it were to ever regain NK would constitute genocide. From this, under the obligation to prevent Genocide, to support Azerbaijan's territorial position is to advocate genocide. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * On looking for possible alternative articles to mention It on, I fail to find any that are suitable. So I withdraw my suggestion. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * All referenced sources clearly relate it to JCPOA.
 * Can you be more precise and specify what exactly made you think it is fringe:
 * 1. the obligation on all Convention parties to prevent genocide and incitement to genocide
 * 2. state leaders public calls for the "annihilation", "wiping off the map", "elimination" of another state or people is an incitement to commit genocide
 * 3. these and other genocidal threats were announced by recent Iranian leaders against Israel
 * Which of the above is fringe in your legal opinion? Yagasi (talk) 07:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia Android app is not neutral on New York Democratic Primary, 2016
'''The Wikipedia Android app. shows candidate preference.'''

When viewing the "New York Democratic primary, 2016" page using the small screen of and Android device, you only see the picture of Hillary Clinton. The same does not occur from a PC browser where both Clinton and Sanders appear.

I believe this is due to the faulty display of the InfoBox Candidate. It only shows candidate1 which happens to be Clinton.

I find this bug disturbing at best. It should be fixed immediately. Alternately the infobox for candiates should be disabled. Believe it or not, this kind of structural prejudice influences voter choices thus subsequent elections. TimSpangler —Preceding undated comment added 12:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Is it even possible to alter what the android app displays without affecting the normal web-browser version? And is it specific to the App, or does the same thing happen to anyone using the mobile view? Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Granted that it is a potential problem, I can't reproduce it either via mobile view via desktop or on via my own mobile device - both candidate photos are shown. It might be a browser-specific issue, which should be fixed but addressed at WP:VPT or the like. --M ASEM (t) 14:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I dont see it in mobile view on either my android phone or tablet (however they have pretty big screens). If it is a display issue with one of the specific wikipedia Apps released by the WMF, I dont think there is an article-level change that will affect it - short of disabling/removing infobox's completely. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually there should hypothetically be CSS code based on the device type that could be added to either the template for the infobox or the images, but again, without being able to reproduce it, its impossible to know what to fix. Hence it's more a VPT issue than a NPOV one. --M ASEM (t) 14:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

How about not having a picture of either? Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

You can reproduce the issue using the official Wikipedia Android app, not a browser. Indeed it is a giant banner of Clinton, and no Bernie. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Since this is a technical glitch that apparently is only affecting the android app (Apple app is not affected) it needs to be raised at WP:Village pump (technical). We can't deal with it here as it is not an intentional "Neutrality" issue. Blueboar (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It could be replaced with a combined pic, which would probably render correctly. although the usage of the android app is probably low enough that we can ignore the issue. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Wendell Potter
An IP added some caveats to this article, suggesting neutrality concerns in the edit summary. I just reverted as they didn't seem particularly WP:BLP compliant, but the article could use some extra eyes as it has needed depuffing/neutralizing in the past. VQuakr (talk) 03:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Description of Kushwah on Wikipedia
Dear Sir. Gone through the description of Kushwaha/Kushwah/Maurya/shakya on your site.it was totally factually incorrect. You have taken the view of some unknown writer pinch,without understand the India conflict of brahiminsm & kastriya. On going under current of classifying other caste as low by Brahmins to maintain their ego & do greater harm to kastriya. I request you to kindly go through authentic docs at royal places & established history. Your article on Kushwah has hurted the sentiment of some 120 millions people.how 120 million can be wrong for centuries. If pif people living in England are not called English. Then whom so — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.205.178.2 (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Addition of sourced content about violence against Biharis and different points of view about figures of people killed and women raped / Removal of unsourced content
Please comment at Talk:1971 Bangladesh genocide.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 16:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Jimmy John's and mentions of the founder's big game hunting
This article just got protected after an edit war over [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_John%27s&type=revision&diff=715807855&oldid=709590300 an entire subsection] dedicated to a supposed boycott that happened (or was proposed) last summer during the Cecil the Lion outrage. Basically, the founder has been criticized in the past for his big game hunting trips in Africa. I initially reverted the addition per WP:BRD because I think the recent event about the founder was given undue weight in the article about the company. The editor who added it and an anonymous editor then proceeded to edit war over it, rather than discuss it at Talk:Jimmy John's. So the article's protected.

Any additional input or advice would be highly welcome. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 12:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * For the record, I'm aware I protected "the wrong version," or that by admitting this, I have just endorsed "the wrong version." I don't care whether it's included or not.  If there's a clear consensus one way or the other before protection expires, I'll remove protection.  Ian.thomson (talk) 12:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:ERA violations at Authorship of the Bible
At Authorship of the Bible an IP serially commits WP:ERA violations. Please help. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

The IP is a corporate proxy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality required on the NSEL Case page
This page needs the following edits:


 * Biased claims have been made using self-published sources as citations (Scanned documents on Scribd)
 * The tonality of the page is disputed -- For example under one paragraph it is written that Jignesh Shah was the 'mastermind' of the scam, whereas there is not proof of that and going through the sources I've discovered that he was bailed on the basis of lack of proof.
 * Again under the subhead -- Jignesh Shah's Arrest/ Involvement in the scam -- the tonality is debatable and the subhead should simply be -- Allegations on Jignesh Shah --
 * Went through the links about PwC report on this issue and its content and intent have been rendered questionable and I think this should be included in the text.
 * All these points are backed by citations and are factual. Yet, other admins have been deliberately trying to hide this fact and therefore I think they are personally targeting Jignesh Shah for some reason, even though his involvement in the case was never proven.
 * Other editors are clearly spreading propaganda through this page and targeting individuals using biased tone and aggressive disruptive editing which is against the Wikipedia policy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamtheroux (talk • contribs) 08:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Flag of Northern Ireland RfC
I raised an RfC at Talk:Flag of Northern Ireland. I believe the lead breaks NPOV by trying to make out that it is still the generally accepted flag of Northern Ireland as shown by its use in games and by being flown in some areas but playing down that it is banned from official use and lacking in overall community support. I'm not sure it'll make much difference to the outcome but it would be nice to know what some uninvolved people think one way or the other. Dmcq (talk) 10:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

NPOV and tables
We have a general dispute about WP:NPOV (and WP:SYNTH) as it applies to lists, and specifically an article consisting of a table. The point of disagreement is whether the table should be based on a single RS which all editors agree to use, or on all relevant RSs, which differ in their selection of rows (events) in the table. Below are the two latest comments in the exchange, which seem to summarize the two positions well enough (sariya refers to a type of event listed in the table): The article is List of expeditions of Muhammad. Here's a link to the (long) discussion. Thanks in advance. Eperoton (talk) 02:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Position 1: Reflecting multiple RSs isn't synthesis; it's what we're supposed to do per WP:NPOV. A table is not a conclusion, and NPOV holds for tables as much as regular articles. The question is how to reflect them appropriately in this case. I've already made some proposals before, including citations in the year column, and additional columns marking presence of the items in major RSs.
 * Position 2: It's synthesis, exactly because: "suppose source 1 mentions a sariya X and source 2 mentions a sariya Y, then we can't use that to make a table composed of sariya X and Y since source 1 may reject the authenticity of Y and source 2 may reject the authenticity of X (as an example), hence the table will not be reflecting what the RSs state"

Art of the Deal and Mein Kampf
There is a discussion here that could use some input, about whether to mention an article that compares the subject book to Mein Kampf. Toohool (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Saudi-led intervention in Bahrain
The article is nominated at DYK and there are apparently concerns over it's neutrality. However, no specific point is mentioned there. Can any one please say how the issue can be fixed? Thanks. --Mhhossein (talk) 06:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Nimbo, Enugu State
I wish I had time to look into this. I saw something go by on Recent changes, and was led to the section "Public Perception". It seems to me that statements and opinions are being presented as facts, and that the section, maybe even the whole article, needs some oversight. Thanks to whoever can help out. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Kosher tax (antisemitic canard) neutrality RfC
A discussion concerning neutrality is taking place at Talk:Kosher tax (antisemitic canard). Input from editors with experience in neutrality would be helpful. Thank you. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 22:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

John Thune
I don't have the time at the moment, but someone should take a comb through John Thune. I already changed that he was "born in a small town, Pierre, South Dakota" to he was "born in the South Dakota state capital Pierre" but the entire bio is a marble-etched monument to Thune's blinding success in the face of his humbling modesty. There's also a lot of questionable sources, like genealogy websites. LavaBaron (talk) 08:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Jewish Bolshevism
Neutrality of this article is highly questionable. Someone keeps deleting my concerns off the Talk page.

There is obvious bias in that article; its dismissal section uses Jewish absence in parties other than Soviet communism (Bolshevism) as an argument for why they are not overrepresented in Soviet Bolshevism, which is ridiculous.

It also states in the beginning that this is an anti-semitic canard, but does not make an honest attempt at supporting that statement.

Third opinion needed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jewish_Bolshevism#Anti-semitic_canard.3F — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.22.109.21 (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Mary Fallin
Perhaps because her name has shown up on some longlists for Trump VP possibilities, Oklahoma governor Mary Fallin has seen an uptick in editing, and some of the edits might be seen to be inconsistent with our NPOV policies. The article in its previous state was not perfect, and one persistent IP editor has made a series of changes that have consistently removed the negative content and added positive content, in some cases written in campaign-style promotional prose. Attention from additional editors sensitive to NPOV issues would be very helpful. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Panama Papers
Could we possibly get some more eyes on this article? I am an involved editor and do not have specific issues at the moment but the article is still missing significant implications for entire countries (Senegal and Uganda come to mind) and has been plagued by possibly-political edits by people who have not otherwise contributed. For example, the mention of international sanctions against Russia after it invaded the Ukraine was deleted, and nobody answered an invitation to discuss on the talk page. Mentions of Hillary Clinton have been moved into a subsidiary article which is AfD'ed, and supposedly erroneous material was deleted from the Bangladesh section. I have not had time to look into that one, and that editor may be correct, but that is the heart of the problem -- contentious material, and very few editors at the moment. Thanks to anyone who chips in. Elinruby (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Good idea. Panama Papers could use more eyes. SageRad (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Crimea
Currently, are we categorizing Crimea under Ukraine, Russia or both? While it seems that Crimea is currently mostly categorized under Ukraine, the head article (Crimea) and some of the categories are categorized under both. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I am under the opinion that it should be categorized under both, since both countries claim the peninsula.XavierGreen (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

UNDUE violation at New Testament
WP:UNDUE violation at. Please help. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussed with sources at Talk:New Testament. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

"Most scholars today have abandoned these identifications,11 and recognize that the books were written by otherwise unknown but relatively well-educated Greek-speaking (and writing) Christians during the second half of the first century."

- From a source removed as stated above

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the problem has been solved by compromise. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

History of automobile safety and Ralph Nader
Due weight issue in the History section of our project's article Automobile safety. Contended content:

"On November 30, 1965, the book Unsafe at Any Speed: The Designed-In Dangers of the American Automobile, by 32-year-old lawyer Ralph Nader, was published, and was a best seller in nonfiction by spring 1966. In February 1966, U.S. Senator Abraham A. Ribicoff asked Nader to testify before a Senate subcommittee on automotive safety. According to The New York Times, the Encyclopædia Britannica, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives at the time John William McCormack, the United States Department of Transportation, and others, Nader and Unsafe at Any Speed helped the passage of the 1966 National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.   The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act was the first mandatory federal safety standards for motor vehicles."

Attempted dispute resolution at article talk

 * Talk:Automobile safety - general discussion of multiple article neutrality issues
 * Talk:Automobile safety - discussion of due weight of Ralph Nader and Unsafe at Any Speed
 * Talk:Automobile safety - discussion of due weight of history

Discussion
Coverage in Wikipedia is of course proportional to coverage in reliable sources WP:DUE; beyond the proportionality demanded by policy, we have vast noteworthy reliable sources explicitly stating the pivotal role of Ralph Nader in the history of automobile safety, including The New York Times, the Encyclopædia Britannica, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives at the time, and the United States Department of Transportation. The US is an industry leader, and the 1960s a watershed decade, and Ralph Nader a significant actor, in the history of automobile safety, and so they will always have due weight in History section of our article Automobile safety. Very obviously, the due weight of Ralph Nader, the book Unsafe at Any Speed, and Nader's congressional testimony in the History of Automobile safety is not none.

Ralph Nader is loathed by some automotive enthusiasts, some of whom are Wikipedia editors. Who knew? The contended content has been deleted multiple times. Arguments for exclusion advanced at article talk include tagging the contended content as off-topic, and a related claim of a bizarre undocumented editorial policy, local to our article Automobile safety, under which the History section is strictly limited to a simple listing of the dates of introduction of new safety features and new regulation, totally devoid of relevant context and background, see for example, the intent of which seems to be to leave our readers with the impression of a spontaneous stream of safety improvements delivered by benevolent manufacturers WP:READERSFIRST. At article talk the two (2) sentences mentioning Ralph Nader in the contended content were described as War and Peace and dismissed as "burning incense at the Shrine of St Ralph the Nadered." Further, in service of diminishing the significance of Nader, the significance of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act itself is non-neutrally deleted.

Our article Automobile safety is currently of size 22 kB (3538 words), "readable prose size", less than half of the size at which article length begins to be a concern WP:SIZE. Our article Automobile safety is unevenly sourced; the contended content is among the better sourced paragraphs.

Assistance from uninvolved colleagues with experience in the application of our project's neutrality pillar is respectfully requested. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * There is little accurate in Hugh's interpretation of the reasoning and (absence of) arguments presented (by him) for inclusion. A major problem with the addition is that it created a 2nd level section solely for that addition, which is almost certainly not the most significant book or action about automotive safety.  (It might, although probably not, be the most significant book or action about US automotive safety.)  Furthermore, there were (in the original paragraph, and probably in this one) opinions masquerading as fact, which must be specifically attributed.  The opinion is attributed to 8 references; unless it occurs in all of them, it must be specifically attributed.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Others, more familiar with the articles in question, may have more interpretation or factual errors to report. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments from uninvolved colleagues please? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Attacking the motives editors in the NPOVN description is probably not the best way to start a neutral discussion. "Ralph Nader is loathed by some automotive enthusiasts, some of whom are Wikipedia editors. Who knew?" This is an attack on the motives of the other editors and an implication of bad faith. Springee (talk) 17:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment:, please do not significantly modify or add to your comments after others have replied as you did here []. It can create a false impression of the statements other editors were replying to. You have been warned about this several times including earlier today []. Springee (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments on the contended content from uninvolved colleagues please? Thank you! Hugh (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment: editing material after the fact without clear notification can create false impressions of the talk page discussion. You have been told to please not do that by at least three editors in the last week or so. Here you are doing it again. Springee (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment: This is not really an NPOV issue, but rather one of understanding the scope of the article. The lead makes it clear that it is a technical article, outlining the various safety technologies and features invented and implemented by the engineers. Social aspects would be rarely dealt with in such an article, if at all. For dealing with your topics, you probably want a separate article on Automobile safety legislation or something of that sort. Moreover, the legislation has more to do with the delivery of safety technologies, not the technologies themselves. So, it is understandable that the editors of that page do not welcome your content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The title of the article is Automobile safety. The lede of the article is:"Automobile safety is the study and practice of design cars, construction, equipment and regulation to minimize the occurrence and consequences of traffic collisions." The article has a section History. A "History" section is entirely appropriate in any article that is not itself a "History of..." article. The exclusion of context and background on the basis of a claim that the article is "technical" has no basis in policy or guideline. We are asked to not simply recount dates and events, but to write prose with sufficient context and background that our readers may understand our articles. There is simply no basis in policy or guideline for a local editorial policy excluding certain aspects of the history considered unfavorably by a local consensus, and simply no basis in policy or guideline for a local editorial policy which specifies a simple listing of the dates of introduction of safety features or the dates of passage of key legislation, to the complete exclusion of context or background. This local editorial policy can only be understood as a pointed attempt to leave readers with the impression of a spontaneous stream of safety features delivered by a benevolent automotive industry. Editors opposing a balanced treatment of the history of automobile safety were asked at article talk to propose language for possible inclusion in the lede explicit stating their unusual ideas of scope, and declined, please see . The discussion at Talk:Automobile safety is not of policy or guideline, it is of outright disdain for Ralph Nader, please see. Of course the resistance by the industry to safety features, and the roles of key actors, is widely represented in relevant reliable sources and is relevant to the history of automobile safety, but are conspicuously and non-neutrally excluded from our article. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "This local editorial policy can only be understood as a pointed attempt to leave readers with the impression of a spontaneous stream of safety features delivered by a benevolent automotive industry." This sentence certainly does not assume good faith with regards to other editors.  Perhaps those editors simply have a better feel for what readers of the article might want to see.  The fact that the article has been around for around a decade and hasn't taken on the political undertones you are advocating suggests that you don't have a good sense of what should be in the article or what might be important to its readers.  Springee (talk) 00:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems alright to me as an interpretation of a long-term pattern of editing. I don't know if it's correct or not at this point, but can you please allow people to speak plainly? It's not a personal attack. It is a remark about what one editor sees as a pattern and a problem regarding NPOV. Discuss it, but don't shut down the editor who says that with an accusation that it's a personal attacks. I could likewise say that you're making a personal attack by you telling the editor "you don't have a good sense of what should be in the article or what might be important to its readers". Jeesh. Let people speak. This can be a discussion. Say your piece and let others say their piece. SageRad (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The WP:PROSE issue is certainly valid, but that is not for this board. As far as WP:NPOV is concerned, you need to find books that cover the topics the page covers and see if they cover the political issues as well. The ones I found on Google Books didn't cover any political issues. In such case, NPOV says the article shouldn't cover them either. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , how would you summarize the above cited sources? Hugh (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I understand the question. But I would describe it as consumer activism that led to auto safety regulation.
 * It appears that the article doesn't have much coverage of regulation even though it is within its scope. Perhaps you can add a section on regulation there. But you would need to find good scholarly sources that discuss the subject in its entirety, rather than specific events. The Oxford Encyclopedia on Economic History seems to be a good starting point. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Led by consumer advocate Ralph Nader, a campaign was launched to force vehicle producers to pay more attention to safety. The state responded with a series of regulations in the 1960s, intended to force reluctant manufacturers to improve safety standards."
 * "It appears that the article doesn't have much coverage of regulation even though it is within its scope." Are we both discussing article Automobile safety?
 * "Proposals in Europe would require cars sold there to have a minimum/maximum hood (bonnet) height."
 * "School buses and Semi-trailer trucks in North America are required to bear retroreflective strips outlining their side and rear perimeters for greater conspicuity at night."
 * "In 1958, the United Nations established the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations, an international standards body advancing auto safety."
 * "Over the next several decades, three-point safety belts were gradually mandated in all vehicles by regulators throughout the industrialised world."
 * "Effective on new passenger cars sold in the United States after January 1, 1964. front outboard lap belts were required."
 * "Effective in 1966, US-market passenger cars were required to be equipped with padded instrument panels, front and rear outboard lap belts, and white reverse (backup) lamps."
 * "These required shoulder belts for left and right front-seat vehicle occupants, side marker lights, collapsible steering columns, and other safety features."
 * "Initially, the US NCAP (New Car Assessment Program) crash tests examined compliance with the occupant-protection provisions of FMVSS 208."
 * "In 1984 New York State passed the first U.S. law requiring seat belt use in passenger cars."
 * "In 1986 the central 3rd brake light was mandated in North America with most of the world following with similar standards in automotive lighting."
 * "In 2009 NHTSA upgraded its roof-crush standard for vehicles weighing 6000 pounds or less."
 * "NHTSA has issued relatively few regulations since the mid-1980s..."
 * "Within Europe ECE Regulation R44 dictates that children below 150cm must travel in a child restraint that is appropriate for their weight."
 * "...it is not allowed for children below the age of 3 to ride in a passenger vehicle without "security system"..."
 * "Sweden specify that a child or an adult shorter than 140 cm is legally forbidden to ride in a place with an active airbag in front of it."
 * "In some areas, new drivers' vehicles must bear a warning sign to alert other drivers that the vehicle is being driven by an inexperienced and learning driver."
 * "Several states require additional testing for elderly drivers."
 * Hugh (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hugh (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: Haven't gotten into the specifics, but i must say that the social and political dimensions of automobile safety are of interest to readers as much as the technical developments. Telling the history of the changes that were made or not made, and why, is important, as well as the technical specifics. Changes don't spring from the thin air, and sources do support telling the history. SageRad (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The article, as was noted, is a technical article that gives a general time line. The appropriate place to put some of the historical causes would be in the parent article of each subject.  So in this case the political backdrop of a safety act could be in the article about that act.  Springee (talk) 11:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Who decided and who noted that the article is "a technical article" solely? Who has defined that as the scope? Is it up for discussion even if it's somewhere somehow so defined? I feel quite strongly that social context around technical issues is often a very useful and interesting part of the subject of those technical issues. For instance, in an article about a certain chemical, we often have the history of the development of that chemical, its uses, how they changed over time, regulatory histories, and controversies and any social effects and narratives that are part of the chemical's history. I don't see why it should be any different with the topic of Automobile safety. You say that the article is a technical article meaning that it ought to exclude social history about the topic, but what's your justification for saying this? SageRad (talk) 12:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Side note: Please note that this noticeboard is not a dispute resolution mechanism. It is just a place to get an outside opinion on the NPOV policy.
 * Reply: Nobody makes decisions on what the scope of articles should be. The scope can be changed with discussion on the article talk page and through dispute resolution mechanisms such as RfCs and WP:DRN. Alternatively, articles can be retitled, new articles created and cross-linked and summarised in each other etc. The topic as described in reliable secondary sources plays a large role in such debates. It does seem to me that an article titled Automobile safety should cover regulations, but covering the history and politics of regulations may be out of scope. You could create a separate article on Automobile safety regulation, as I recommended quite a while ago. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Oyu Tolgoi Mine
This is a request for neutral editor(s) for the article Oyu Tolgoi mine. The subject of the article is, within the context of Mongolia and global copper mining, important and notable, but currently the article is subject to occasional anonymous edits which are demonstratively inaccurate or untrue, use citations out of context to create a misleading narrative effect, and have editorial/political bent. I have a conflict of interest under the Wikipedia guidelines, as I work for the subject of the article, so I am requesting that editor(s) with a neutral point of view take on curating this article for accuracy and neutrality.

The main body of the article could use substantial work in being more factually accurate and having better citation. An example is in the milling and mining section:


 * “Initially the mine will process 70,000 tonnes of rock per day, ramping up to 85,000 tonnes from both the open pit and the underground mine (underground mining is to be done by block caving).”

This line is not cited, so it is unclear where these numbers come from. They are also inaccurate. The nameplate capacity of the mine concentrator is 100,000 tonnes per day, and it is the capacity currently expected even when the underground mine comes on line.

The “controversial issues” section suffers from both factual errors and an editorial bent that appears to violate the neutral point of view guidelines. An example is the line:


 * “Mongolia's Southern and Central Zones occupy terrain traditionally used by nomadic herdsmen. Diverting already scarce water resources to mining could jeopardize their livelihoods.[20]”

The line is verbatim and unquoted from the cited source, and it is being used out of context to imply that Oyu Tolgoi is jeopardizing the livelihoods of the herders. The entire section is constructed this way with many of the citations either being used out of context or arguably unrelated to the point being made. Instead of a point-by-point refutation, I have prepared an alternative construction of the article as a potential starting point. This builds on the current article, removing the factual inaccuracies and attempts to be neutral throughout. Are there editors who will take this up and ensure this article meets Wikipedia’s standards? -- Chimeramind-timetraveler

--

Oyu Tolgoi mine
The Oyu Tolgoi mine (Mongolian: Оюу Толгой, also Oyu Tolgoi, Turquoise Hill) is a combined open pit and underground mining project in Khanbogd sum within the south Gobi Desert, approximately 235 kilometres (146 mi) east of the Ömnögovi Province capital Dalanzadgad.

Oyu Tolgoi is a joint venture between Turquoise Hill Resources (a majority owned subsidiary of Rio Tinto) and Erdenes Oyu Tolgoi (a Government of Mongolia holding company) with 66% and 34% ownership stakes, respectively, in the project. Rio Tinto has been the manager of the project since 2010.

The mine currently is an open-cut only operation generating US$1.63 billion in revenue on production of 202,200 tonnes of copper in concentrates in 2015. Oyu Tolgoi is projected to become a top three producer of copper once the underground mine reaches full production, producing annually over 540,000 tonnes of copper in concentrates.

History
Early exploration and prospective work was carried out by Soviet and Mongolian geologists in the area now known as Oyu Tolgoi in the 1950s, which was followed by detailed state mapping surveys in the late 1980s. Broken Hill Proprietary Company (BHP) acquired exploration licenses for the area in 1996. After drilling 23 holes over three years, BHP suspended its exploration activities and entered a joint venture with Canadian miner Ivanhoe Mines to continue exploration in the license area.

The first drilling result to show economical mineralization was produced in 2001 in an area known locally as Oyu Tolgoi (Mongolian for Turquoise Hill), where there was evidence of copper extraction from outcroppings as far back as the bronze age. In 2002, drilling led to the first intersections with the subsequently named Hugo Dummett Deposit, which is one of the highest grade, undeveloped porphyry copper-gold deposits in the world. By 2003 there were 18 exploration drill rigs on the property employing approximately 200 people, and Oyu Tolgoi was the "biggest mining exploration project in the world."

As exploration continued, Ivanhoe Mines began discussions with the Government of Mongolia in establishing a long-term “stability agreement” for the project in 2004. In 2006, Ivanhoe Mines and Rio Tinto agreed to form a strategic partnership for the financing, construction, and operation of Oyu Tolgoi, while negotiations on the “stability agreement” were on-going.

After years of negotiations, a 30 year Investment Agreement, with an optional 20 year extension, was signed by the Government of Mongolia, Ivanhoe Mines, and Rio Tinto in 2009. As part of the agreement, Ivanhoe Mines Mongolia Inc, Ivanhoe Mines’ local subsidiary, was restructured to provide the Government of Mongolia a 34% equity share in the company and was renamed Oyu Tolgoi LLC.

Rio Tinto became the manager of Oyu Tolgoi in 2010 as major construction of the mine infrastructure began. In 2012, Rio Tinto acquired majority control of Ivanhoe Mines, and renamed the company Turquoise Hill Resources.

In January 2013, Oyu Tolgoi began producing copper concentrate from its open pit mine, and commenced shipment in July 2013. Later in that same month, development of the underground mine was suspended while Oyu Tolgoi’s shareholders (the Government of Mongolia, Rio Tinto, and Turquoise Hill Resources) discussed financing options for the mine expansion. In May 2015, an Underground Mine Development and Financing Plan was agreed by the Government of Mongolia, Rio Tinto, and Turquoise Hill Resources to restart the underground development at Oyu Tolgoi. It was followed by the signing of a Project Financing agreement for US$4.4 billion in December 2015.

Ore Body
Oyu Tolgoi’s ore body is a series of copper-gold porphyry deposits running north-by-east to south-by-west across the eight by 10 kilometer mine license area. The primary reserve case deposits are the Central Oyu Deposit (open-cut) and Hugo Dummett Deposit (underground). The deposits extend beyond the current mine license area, and there are suggestions of a 26 kilometer mineralization trend inclusive of the current mining area.

The ore body has a mineral reserve of 1,530 million tonnes of ore containing copper, gold, silver, and molybdenum. The Hugo Dummett Deposit is a high-grade, world-class ore body, and it is estimated that about 80 per cent of the project’s value is in developing the underground mine.

Mining and Milling
Oyu Tolgoi currently is an open-cut only operation generating US$1.63 billion in revenue on production of 202,200 tonnes of copper in concentrates in 2015. Ultimately it will be an open-cut and underground mining operation. Ore is mined from the open-pit using shovels and haul trucks, and is crushed and conveyed overland to a concentrator.

The concentrator has two semi-autogenous grinding (SAG) mills which grind the ore to pebble sized rocks before sending them on to four ball mills for grinding into a fine powder. The copper, gold, and other minerals are extracted from the ore using flotation methods and transformed into copper concentrate, a fine blackish powder, with approximately 24-26% copper content. The copper concentrate is then sold to customers as final product. The Oyu Tolgoi concentrator has a name plate capacity of 100,000 tonnes of ore processing per day.

The underground mine will utilize the block-caving method of extraction and convey ore to the surface. The main extraction level will be 1,300 meters below the surface.

Financing
Oyu Tolgoi is funded by a combination of equity and shareholder loans. In December 2015, Oyu Tolgoi’s shareholders signed a US$4.4 billion project finance facility with a consortium of international financial institutions and 15 commercials banks.

Corporate Structure
Oyu Tolgoi is owned by Turquoise Hill Resources (a majority owned subsidiary of Rio Tinto) and the Erdenes Oyu Tolgoi (a Government of Mongolia owned holding company) with 66% and 34% stakes, respectively. The company is overseen by a board of directors with representatives appointed by the shareholders in proportion to their ownership stake. There are nine members of the board, including the Chairman, with three members appointed by the Government of Mongolia.

Day-to-day operations are overseen by the Chief Executive Officer and a management team of general managers. The workforce is 95% Mongolian.

Constitution of the Republic of Crimea
The annexation of Crimea is a sensitive topic in general and it is often hard to find NPOV on it. This article, however, just openly promotes the Russian POV. It avoids anything that might make a reader question legality of the topic, fails to properly address a position of the international community and misleads a reader about the current legal status of the subject. It is also poorly categorized, being directly connected to both Ukrainian and Russian politics in the region as well as to the whole Russia-Ukrainian conflict, it have been put only into "Crimean politics" category, like it is some boring regional law of low global importance.

Unfortunately, my attempts to address these issues were altogether removed by User:Ymblanter. My attempts to discuss this with him directly did not work, he seem to be inclined to keep the article biased. To avoid the changes war, I made an account of the issues at the talk page and I ask the community to give it some attention.

AMartyn (talk) 11:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Americans for Prosperity (again)
Regrettably, this page is once more the subject of a dispute over whether or not the lede should acknowledge the organization's financial ties to the Koch family. I think some outside input would help, please see this removal and this section of the talk page. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Discussion on the talk page should suffice. This has nothing to do with NPOV, but is a discussion of WP:UNDUE.  Onel 5969  TT me 03:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * UNDUE is a part of NPOV...Someguy1221 (talk) 03:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected, . Always thought they were different.  Onel 5969  TT me 03:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Who funds and operates an organization, whether a company, a charity or any other group of people, is never UNDUE and can't be pushing a POV as long as the information is sourced and the wording remains neutral about the funding and operation. It is just a fact about the organization, it is the associated wording that can be UNDUE.  Lipsquid (talk) 03:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It's certainly not undue and based on the number of sources fyddlestix has provided on the talk page indicates that this should be more broadly discussed within the article itself than it currently is.Scoobydunk (talk) 04:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Suicide bag
There are multiple POV issues currently being discussed on the talkpage, but I'll start with one: Talk:Suicide bag. The statement in question is in the History section of the article. It says, Dutch psychiatrist Boudewijn Chabot, in his 2015 book Dignified Dying, calls the suicide bag with inert gas method "rapid, painless and safe", which is sourced to a self-published book by Chabot. According to, this is an NPOV issue as opposed to RS since the self-published source is reliable source for Chabot's own statements, and the question is if including controversial material from Chabot's self-published work is giving due/undue weight to his POV. Have I given enough context? —PermStrump ( talk )  21:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I've been involved in some of these discussions sporadically for a few weeks. This suicide method, which originated in the 1990s, is called quick and painless by lots of sources – but only by people who support "right to die" ideas.  "Anti-suicide" people (including major media outlets, which closely adhere to guidance from suicide prevention experts when writing about the subject) don't use any potentially positive/attractive words to describe any suicide method, because they're concerned that any positive description will increase the number of deaths.
 * So the result (to use a different example) is that a right-to-die source will say that jumping off a 200-foot-high (60 m) bridge is quick and certain death, an anti-suicide source will say that it's painful, that lots of people miss the water and land on the rocks near the shore, that nearly all survivors regretted their choices after they leaped, and that making sure you didn't survive will risk the lives of a search and rescue team, and a first-year physics student will tell you that you'll hit the water in three and a half seconds. They're all "correct".
 * The fundamental disagreement about this information at this article isn't whether Chabot says it, or even whether Chabot is an expert (he certainly meets the minimum requirements at SPS). The fundamental disagreement is really about whether the article should be allowed to contain words that are used regularly by basically all "right to die" advocates when they describe this method, but which are firmly opposed by all "anti-suicide" advocates.
 * And just in case: I don't think this is a simple case of yelling "NOTCENSORED".  This requires some thought.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * To my humble opinion, the edits of User:CFCF and User:Permstrump are deeply disturbing and worrying. Both editors are massively waving with guidelines and essays and the like. When they get too much opposition against one argument, they swiftly move to the next. And in all cases they first start deleting in the article before being forced to the talkpage. To my opinion, both gentlemen are pushing their own opinions. The Banner talk 21:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

LGBT issue at Catholic school
Multiple users in different places have requested review of information about LGBT issues at a Catholic school. I am asking for comment from the following places - The article is Marian High School (Bloomfield Township, Michigan). Not all users have found their way to the talk page, but there are requests for comment from multiple people. Diverse perspectives would be welcome.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  14:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * WikiProject LGBT studies
 * WikiProject Schools
 * WikiProject Catholicism
 * Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

Iranian diplomats kidnapping (1982)
Some editors have raised concerns that Iranian diplomats kidnapping (1982) has a POV slant. At the very least, it takes some stances on the legitimacy of certain claims, and there are several instances where it uses words to avoid. Could an experienced editor who isn't afraid to wade into the topic area of the Arab-Israeli conflict take a look? See this DYK nomination for an idea of what specific concerns were raised. Thanks. ~ RobTalk 12:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The poor grammar doesn't help; it was likely written by an Iranian who hadn't read WP:NOTAMEMORIAL142.105.159.60 (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And while we're at it, the title needs to be re-worked and the page for Ahmad Motevaselian needs to be reviewed in the same fashion at the kidnapping article; it reads like an Iranian press report was run through google translate one too many times.142.105.159.60 (talk) 18:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd ALSO like to point out that the article for Ahmad Motevaselian says he was there as the leader of a commando squad, so to say that he was a diplomat in the kidnapping is incredibly dishonest to the point of being propaganda.142.105.159.60 (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Derogatory/Pejorative Cultural Slur Used In Wiki Article.
The following page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caro%E2%80%93Kann_Defence contains a pointless, derogatory, offensive cultural slur that serves no purpose whatsoever other than to belittle the group in question. It in no way serves any instructional, historic, or factual function.

Specifically, the authors/maintainers of the Caro-Kann Defense Wiki page (a chess opening) refer to a certain line that is sometimes played as the "Hillbilly Attack," stating that the line is used by weak players. "Hillbilly Attack" is not an "official" name for the line and the word "hillbilly" is nowhere to be found in the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings (ECO). "Hillbilly" is a derogatory term. It is not "cute," it is not "harmless," it is an insult directed toward Americans of Southern heritage (whether it is specific to those in Appalachian regions is irrelevant).

The line in question would more accurately - and appropriately - be called the "2.Bc4 Attack" because that is the nomenclature of the move in question. I have edited the page but others insist on keeping the offensive and purposeless pejorative as is. It is nothing more than a derogatory gouge at Southerners, period.

I submit that there is no place in the lexicon of chess - or Wikipedia - for spiteful, pointless, derogatory nonsense like this. Other cultures/sub-cultures reserve the right to stand up against bigotry of this type, and my culture is no less worthy of respect than any other.

There is NOTHING UNREASONABLE in asking that the the line in question be referred to by a more accurate and civilized term. No one is going to object to the far more accurate and appropriate "2.Bc4 Attack." E1e10p (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not censored. There are no "official" names for any chess openings, FIDE has long given up trying to regulate opening names. Rightly or wrongly this is what reliable sources call the opening. MaxBrowne (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The real question would seem to be whether reliable sources on chess refer to it as the Hillbilly Attack, or at least say that it is sometimes called that. Do they?  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * See google book search. John L. Watson is a respected chess author. MaxBrowne (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I must have played it once—and probably lost with it. Seems to be a sufficiently standard term. I have added the Watson source, and another one. - DVdm (talk) 17:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ah, I just noticed now that you have removed the mention of "ugly white openings". Ok, it looks like that's a Watson-only term—at least for now. No problem. - DVdm (talk) 10:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

NPOV: Religious Views of Adolph Hitler
I acted exactly in accordance with Wikipedia's policies, WP:RS and WP:RSOPINION in Religious views of Adolf Hitler, the User:Ian.thomson reverted them. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler&action=history John Smith Doe, The Person (talk) 09:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * User completely ignored the blindingly obvious consensus against his suggested changes at Talk:Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

What was in the article violated policies of Wikipedia. John Smith Doe, The Person (talk) 09:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No, you are just WP:Wikilawyering. Authoritative academic works are not opinion pieces, and you're censoring citations that support claims that don't fit your well-established bias. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

You should read the policies I cited. John Smith Doe, The Person (talk) 10:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I have. You should, too. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

"The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors.", WP:RS/AC — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Smith Doe, The Person (talk • contribs) 10:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * And I repeated citations from later on in the article that affirm there's an academic consensus accept that what Hitler said in private (against Christianity) reflects his own beliefs. You've taken those out, damaging the rest of the article.  So between you ignoring the talk page consensus, you're now repeating the same argument after the situation has changed and removing cited material that doesn't fit with your established bias.  Ian.thomson (talk) 10:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

"reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view.", does it DIRECTLY say that in the source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Smith Doe, The Person (talk • contribs) 10:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Source 2 is used because of: 

Why did you pick this? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 16:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Reading the link to Source 2, it does start out by saying that "one aspect of our understanding of Nazism remains largely uncontested: the belief that ... Nazism itself could not be described as a Christian movement." So that quote doesn't address Hitler's specific religious beliefs at all. But then, author Steigmann-Gall goes on to say that he, for one, isn't buying this 'academic consensus', but that he is going to challenge it by showing that many Nazi Party elite members were, in fact, Christian.

Google books preview of Source 1 is here: I sure can't find any statement about near-unanimous scholarly views on Hitler's religion, neither at the cited p. xiv, nor on any other page by searching for the word 'Christian'.

The Wiki article states: "Steigmann-Gall concluded that Hitler was religious at least in the 1920s and early 1930s, citing him as expressing a belief in God, divine providence, and Jesus as an Aryan opponent of the Jews.[78]"

So Steigmann-Gall does argue here that Hitler held Christian views, albeit far from orthodox.

Here is an RS confirming that there is a lively and ongoing scholarly debate on whether Hitler was an unorthodox Christian who believed in an Aryan Christ who was an opponent to the Jews: http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/04/18/3480312.htm JerryRussell (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I admit that, due to trying to fix a broken cell phone at the time, I was rushing to grab what sources were available in the article. I grabbed the source that is used in the article to establish that the table-talks (where Hitler rather plainly refers to Christianity as an outside force) are generally accepted.  Steigman-Gall admits that he's arguing against the consensus that the upper echelons of Nazism were either either unrelated or opposed to Christianity, which would establish consensus there.  Looking now, that was not good work, but I was trying to shoo away someone who had started off by citing youtube blogs and who argued "Historians or people cherry-picked, aren't immune to errors, fallacies, biases (such as confirmation bias) or prejudice, so carefully examine facts by one's self and not by blindly following what's told or written to you. I prefer empirical evidence."  In every other article I've dealt with, users who behave that way generally turn out to be cranks almost foundationally opposed to WP:NOR, who may use small changes to try and snowball their own views.
 * The ABC.net.au source is a reliable journalistic source and not an academic one. Journalistic sources sometimes engage in WP:GEVAL between popular but unacademic views and academic but unpopular views.  Ian.thomson (talk) 23:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello Ian, in 2003, Steigmann-Gall set out to challenge the academic consensus which he says existed at the time. So did he succeed? Google Scholar turns up 183 citations to his book, and many reviews. Wiki already has an article on Richard Steigmann-Gall which includes links to reviews. Perusing some of this material, I would say there is no longer any academic consensus, if there ever was one. Based on a random sample, it appears that most reviews and citations agree that Steigmann-Gall showed that the Nazis believed in and promoted something they called 'positive Christianity', as opposed to 'negative Christianity' (by which the Nazis meant any traditional form of Christianity.) To the extent there's any remaining debate,it's whether 'positive Christianity' deserves to be called any form of Christianity.  JerryRussell (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Controversies surrounding G4S


I'm bringing this here to get more eyes on this page, and for a discussion on whether a "controversies" page is appropriate. It seems like a well-wirtten and well-sourced article, but I'm not sure if the existence of a "contoversies about company X page" is allowed or desired. PLease use ping in your replies if possible. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Couple of problems, Group 4 have a huge history of corrupt/fradulent practices, ineptitude, scandals etc that have all got major press time. There is an argument there that due to the amount of controversies they have been involved in, it should constitute the majority of the article - but putting them all in the article directly would bloat it. So there are a couple of options, pick a few and argue endlessly on the talk page over which controversies are most notable, or spin it off to a separate article. Generally yes, you wouldnt have a entirely separate page dedicated to controversies, but with some companies its the easier to manage option. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Chris Kyle RfC
This might need a mulligan.

The question posted by the RfC is as follows:

How should the current news story regarding the question over Kyle's awards be presented in the article?
 * via news reports mirroring The Interceptor, an online unreliable source;
 * via the notation in Kyle's autobiography in addition to other reliable sources based on his DD-214.

In addition to the allegations of off-site canvassing, the text of this RfC is pathetic. Can an admin please step in here?142.105.159.60 (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Stanford University article is 100% glowing PR-advertisement
When I tried to tag the article for improvements, I was reverted without any fixes. The article on June 7th 2016 reads like an admissions brochure. The article is well-referenced but all of the references point to positive achievements and don't even try to give any kind of a balanced view. There's no mention of how Stanford failed to release the mugshot of its student rapist or any criticism whatsoever.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Did you ever pause to think you may be coming to that article with an agenda? Every campus has had rapes, many resulting in well publicized cases. Colleges and universities, for the most part, contain mostly material about what they are, their history, faculty, alumni, things that are not inherently negative. Their existence and notability is mostly about things that people would consider positive. It is not the job of an encyclopedia to catalog crimes and other negative incidents associated with places and institutions, but rather to distill the substance out of the reliable sources relevant to the topic. The negative stuff gets put there, like any other content, if it is relevant to the subject's notability, of due weight, well sourced, non-POV, is better described there than other articles, and so on. By the way, drive-by-tagging of prominent, well-watched articles is generally frowned on and usually gets reverted, especially if done by editors new to the article who get disgruntled at one thing or another and have not let a discussion run its course on the page and attempted other content resolution steps first. And especially the Advert tag, which is completely misapplied here. You're just pooping on the article, not making a legitimate claim that the article was written by an advertising agency. Though I do see that you've made some bad faith accusations on the talk page about the editors being Stanford alumni. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The rape case called my attention to the article initially. But this is not about the rape case. But when I read the article, it's entirely positive, no negatives, a glowing brochure, and this can happen when all of the contributors have a vested interest (a conflict of interest, because that happens to be their alma mater. There's no mention of the firing of H. Bruce Franklin, a tenured professor opposed to the Vietnam war. Look at these statements:


 * ""...The university is also one of the top fundraising institutions in the country, becoming the first school to raise more than a billion dollars in a year ... Stanford's academic strength is broad with 40 departments in the three academic schools that have undergraduate students and another four professional schools.... and companies founded by Stanford alumni generate more than $2.7 trillion in annual revenue, equivalent to the 10th-largest economy in the world .... It is also one of the leading producers of members of the United States Congress...." (okay, that is a criticism) ...The Stanford University Libraries (SUL) hold a collection of more than 9.3 million volumes, nearly 300,000 rare or special books, 1.5 million e-books, 2.5 million audiovisual materials, 77,000 serials, nearly 6 million microform holdings, and thousands of other digital resources, making it one of the largest and most diverse academic library systems in the world ...Notably, the Center possesses the largest collection of Rodin works outside of Paris, France ... Stanford has a thriving artistic and musical community ... Stanford is one of the most successful universities in creating companies and licensing its inventions to existing companies; it is often held up as a model for technology transfer...""

- from SU article of June 7th 2016


 * How about addressing these points? When I simply point out that contributors who disagree with me happened to be Stanford alumni, and possibly biased, I'm accused of acting in bad faith. What I'm saying is: fix the article for the OBVIOUS flaws; if not, keep the tags on.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * To be honest its a bit ridiculous that an article with that large a 'student life' section does not mention what exactly the student lifestyle has landed it in the papers for. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Jesus, not even a link to the Stanford Prison Experiments. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't tag a relatively non-controversial article as having a non-neutral point of view. Instead, I suggest you actually find sources that cover some of the controversies and tragedies at the school and are covered enough by the media or academia to merit inclusion. If editors then start to revert reliably sourced additions to the article, then we'd have an issue of a violation of neutral point of view. So try actually contributing first, instead of just expecting other editors to make the changes you want.Scoobydunk (talk) 11:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I will. Until then, it is a brochure and should be tagged as such.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Tomwsulcer keeps insisting that the article contains "no negatives". I provided a partial list of negatives that are already in the article here. More could be added, but it is hardly the whitewash that Tomwsulcer claims. I have removed a few examples of boosterish language that he cited and will continue to work my way through the article looking for examples of puffery. But it is ridiculous to call this article NPOV; as with other articles about top universities, such as Harvard or University of California, Berkeley, achievements and superlatives are in the article because they come from independent reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. And yes, I am a Stanford alum. Who do you think keeps a university article on their watchlist? --MelanieN (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. I added the Stanford prison experiment. Thanks for the suggestion. --MelanieN (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It is difficult when one is close to a subject, when one's identity is bound up with that of an institution, such as Stanford, to see things objectively, neutrally, impartially. Naturally contributors (probably alumni) will look for the glowing details and add them -- it's only what they see. And alumni will look at rival schools such as Berkeley and Harvard, and see that alumni from those schools are doing the same thing -- boosting the reputations of their schools. So it seems natural. What I'm trying to tell you is that if you stop for one moment, imagine that you are seeing the article with fresh eyes, that you didn't attend, and maybe you'll see the article for what it is -- a glossy puffy everything-is-rosy brochure. Like, if Wikipedia had music, there'd be trumpets!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The Mrs. Stanford stuff -- one line. The government scandal paragraph -- good, I missed that, my eyes had long since glazed over. It's stuff like this that is rampant throughout the article -- "...The university campus was listed by Travel + Leisure in September 2011 as one of the most beautiful campuses in the United States[116] and by MSN as one of the most beautiful college campuses in the world..." Almost the entire article is like that, as if Stanford is shangri-la, paradise found, a modern Garden of Eden, not a place that coddles rapists by reluctantly handing over mugshots to the press.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't blame Stanford or its alums; they didn't make this stuff up. Blame Travel and Leisure and MSN. As for the current rape case, there is discussion at the talk page about whether to add it; I haven't contributed to that discussion but even you agreed that "the rape case isn't all that important". --MelanieN (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. I don't know what your obsession is over a mugshot, but Stanford expelled the guy within two weeks - not only expelled him, but prohibited him from setting foot on the campus. --MelanieN (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry I'm not obsessed about a mugshot, although there was widespread media coverage that Stanford dragged its feet on releasing the mugshot. Good they expelled the guy; but why the mugshot delays? For much of the public, there's a widespread feeling that the judge's lenient sentence, along with Stanford's reluctance to release a photo, is part of a pattern of white privilege. But I'm pretty much agreeing here that this particular rape incident and the fallout is not important enough to make it into the Stanford page. My overall concern, as I've tried to say again and again, is the brochure-ish-ness of the Stanford article, like glitziness on steroids. It makes Wikipedia look like a sales organ.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure why this discussion is happening here rather than on the article's talk page. Now that it is here, my feeback is not particularly sympathetic. I think would benenfit from a careful reading of WP:NPOV. There is nothing there that says that positives and negatives have to be balanced or that any negatives have to be present at all. It just says that all viewpoints found in reliable sources must be represented, paying attention to the WP:DUE weightage. If there are reliable sources that comment on "white privilege" issue, by all means include them. The only problem I see with the article is a bit of WP:PEACOCK wording, which can be cured by a good copy editing pass. To add a worthwhile negative issue, try looking up "stanford research grant overheads." -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As per recent improvements, I'm okay with closing this discussion.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think so too. I am not sure where the expectation came from that a university would release photos of its students without their permission. Since he was expelled and banned, I think they did the right thing (and this is a personal issue for me). It's astonishing they acted within two weeks. It's not at all "white privilege" either; it's a class issue, but neither of those things belong in the article. Roches (talk) 07:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Good article reassessment: World War II biography
A community good article reassessment has been started for the article on Hyazinth Graf Strachwitz, a World War II biography. The reassessment page can be found here. Part of the reassessment deals with the article's neutrality and thus falls within the scope of this noticeboard:


 * GAR section on neutrality

Interested editors are encouraged to take part and comment on whether they believe the article still meets the GA criteria, or to provide suggestions about how it could be improved so that it can retain its GA status. Regards, K.e.coffman (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Heidi Heitkamp
Just a heads-up that what looks like several editors are introducing non-neutral language into this article. Page protection might be needed. Best, FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  17:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Bryce Dejean-Jones
The issue is with the paragraph describing his death. The current wording, insisted upon by User:Pmaster12 and inserted by him, says that Dejean-Jones "entered" the apartment where he was killed and then was attempting to "enter" the bedroom when he was shot. All of the sources describe the act of entering as either "kicking in the front door" or something close to that (rather than, say, opening the door with a key), and say that the resident shot through the bedroom door as Dejean-Jones was kicking at it/trying to break through it. See ,,. It seems to me that the manner of entering is an important aspect of this story and must be mentioned in this article, and that omitting such an important aspect creates a clear WP:WEIGHT problem. The article is currently posted on the main page via ITN, so this matter does need to be addressed quickly. Nsk92 (talk) 02:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, P's clearly a fan who wants to whitewash the situation to make it look like BD-J merely accidentally, innocently walked in and was shot dead unjustly an without reason. The sources clearly state that BD-J deliberately broke down the front door and the bedroom door - only then did the resident shoot him. P's claiming that 'entered' is the same thing as broke doors down and that BD-J just made an innocent error. Deliberately breaking in two doors isn't an accident - whoever's apartment he thought it was. P's also claiming that the method of entry is irrelevant. Jim Michael (talk) 09:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * NO, Jim Michael YOU ARE the individual that cares whether he's innocent or not. I told you numerous times that I could care less but people like you don't surprise me at all. I didn't not want to go this route but you continuing this whining about him smash in something which clear you have a personal feeling about this situation is why you are continuing to complain on how it's written or looks. A daily reader would understand the situation but people like you doesn't surprise me. You are just a brainwashed individual that cares about who's innocent and who's bad which that is irrelevant to this topic. Obvoiusly you Jim Michael have some personal bias about this situation what mess with your judgment. You Jim Michael keep on talking because it shows how ridiculous your getting. I don't understand how it got to this point but I know where I stand. Unfortunately all it takes one to go far. Pmaster12 (talk) 16:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Wrong, the reader wants the truth, which is that he broke into the apartment, which is where he was shot dead and was why he was shot dead. It's very relevant and is reliably sourced. If you don't care, then stop whitewashing the article. You first claimed he didn't break in. Now you claim it's irrelevant and that entered means the same as broke in. Prior to hearing of his death, I had never heard of him or you, so you can't claim I have something against him or you. I'm not being biased; I'm describing in the article what the sources say happened. You're misleading the readers by making it sound like he didn't do anything wrong, when you know full well that he did. Jim Michael (talk) 16:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh, Oh, Oh, who says you need know about him to be bias. I never said you need to know about to be bias. You Jim Michael are the only one that I came across that is complaining about the wording when it's many different sources out there. You said he smashed in and over exaggerating this situation which many sources clearly does not say that. You Jim Michael are the one that cares whether he's innocent that why I said that you MUST have a personal bias about this situation. You don't need to know about this subject to have a personal bias. If you didn't have one. I would not have to keep going back and forth here. You Jim Michael complain whether he's innocent which that's irrelevant when you are adding information bout this topic. That's what I'm saying. Only people like you Jim Michael want every chance you get to whine about about innocent or guilt which that should never cross your mind when adding information to a situation especially like this one. I don't care about it you care cause you want to brianwash anybody that speaks about innocent or guilt and that's not your place to decide that. That's why I said you Jim Michael have personal bias about this situation. You started this. I keep telling you numerous times I could care less whether he's innocent or not. So stop bringing that up if you are not bias or have nothing personal about this subject. You are just individual that brainwashed fan that so concern about whether the subject is guilty or not which is why I'm not surprised. Just another fan looking for something to spread your personal feelings about. Pmaster12 (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not a fan; I guess you're a fan of his and/or his team, so you want to paint him as perfect. As I previously had never heard of him or his team, I'm in a good position to edit neutrally. I'm improving Wikipedia articles. You know that broke in is substantially different from, and more accurate than, entered. It's relevant fact that he broke into an apartment, and because of that was shot dead. Had he not broken in, he would not have been shot. You're the only person trying to cover up what he did by claiming he merely made an innocent mistake. If you don't care, stop whitewashing the article and ranting about it. Other editors agree with me that the relevant facts need to be stated in the article. No editors are agree with you on this matter. If someone kicked your front door in, then kicked your bedroom door in, would you say the intruder entered, or broke in? You'd say he broke in. If someone described him as having entered, you'd correct that person and say that he broke in. Jim Michael (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

See I don't care if editors agree with me or not. You Jim Michael care about being right. I don't care because it's neutral point of view so if you are looking for editors or users to agree with you so you can feel like your good about yourself. That's your thing. I don't care I'm not looking for that. I'm doing my best to put the appropriate information and improving the articles. Not on how it looks or whether he's innocent or not like I said on numerous times that's irrelevant. That's it. So let's get that out. Pmaster12 (talk) 21:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of his team that's why I said that your argument is kind of getting a little delusional. You bringing famdom just shows me how low you get to try to convince others but yourself that you are obviously looking for something here to gain. Like I said numerous times keep your personal feelings about this situation to yourself because if that's not bias editing. You Jim Michael are the only one here in the discussion that cares about innocence or guilt and trying to measure intent which I've said multiple times now. It's means the same thing just worded differently. Pmaster12 (talk) 21:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * You're not being neutral or appropriate. You're deliberately misrepresenting what happened. Changing broke down the front door to entered it is not the same thing. If you really thought it meant the same thing, then you wouldn't have repeatedly changed it. Jim Michael (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm changing not because of you Jim Michael. I still think it's the same wording just worded differently. I changed it because of my earlier discussion with Nsk92. So I can finally get this subject resolved. Pmaster12 (talk) 23:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * You know full well that broke in and entered are not the same thing. If you thought it was the same you wouldn't have repeatedly changed it to entered from broke in. You've only stopped doing that because Nsk and someone else opposed you. They only became involved because you kept whitewashing the article to make it look like BD-J didn't break in. If someone broke in to your apartment/house, would you say to police that the intruder "entered", or would you say that he broke in? Jim Michael (talk) 08:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The police would know what entering means. You Jim Michael know what enter means but you Jim Michael probably have a personal gain. Like I said before you Jim Michael are the only one that cares about the other irrelevant things. You are still trying to brainwash yourself and other editors that you don't understand the word enter means. I know you Jim Michael are smarter than that. I know you have your personal feelings about this situation while editors are the opposite the ones in this discussion. I could care less about the subject being innocent or guilt which that should not be in your mind when you are editing these articles especially something controversial like this if you were not bias. Otherwise you would not still be going on about this subject which to me this is a non issue. Pmaster12 (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * You know that entered has a much broader meaning than broke in; most entries don't involve breaking in. Police wouldn't say, and didn't say, that BD-J merely entered. They, like the media, made it crystal clear that he broke in. Had he survived being shot, he'd have been arrested and charged with a crime. You say you don't care, and you think it's a non-issue. In that case, stop ranting about it and do some useful editing elsewhere. All the editors involved in this issue oppose you on this matter. Jim Michael (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Let me tell you something you are the one is ranting and raving about crime and the wording of this article. YOU Jim Michael ARE the one starting editing warring over something that's really a non-issue. That's what I'm saying. I'm going to tell you this again, hear me clearly cause you really are stretching this. I don't care if editors agree with me or not. You Jim Michael care about being right. I don't care because it's this is neutral point of view so if you are looking for editors or users to agree with you so you can feel like your good about yourself. That's your thing. If that makes you Jim Michael feel good go ahead. This is all about discussion. Pmaster12 (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

YOU NEED TO STOP ranting about innocence or guilt which that is irrelevant in these sources. YOU go somewhere else with that but don't start editing warring over something that's non issue. It's ok to disagree because that's what this noticeboard is about but turn this a edit war which you started. I'm the wrong editor for that. Pmaster12 (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

You are the only one whining and complaining looking for agreement for your personal gain which that's not what this noticeboard is about it's about getting issues resolved. Pmaster12 (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * You're not being neutral - that's the problem with your editing related to this article. If you think it's a non-issue, leave it alone. There's consensus that the article should say that BD-J broke into the apartment where he was shot dead. Jim Michael (talk) 08:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry about me being neutral that's your problem you are trying to measure every editors intend that works your personal gain or feelings about this article because if that wasn't the case you would not be edit warring. My editing it means same just worded differently. You keep on going and going on how this article should make the subject look bad which that should not matter to you at all. Where Previous discussions are you care is how the subject looks in the article and all I said is that argument is irrelevant. That's it and this is resolved. Pmaster12 (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I notice three issues after reading the sources: (1) There is no mention of DeJean-Jones taking a walk before the break-in, though it is obvious he left the g/f or acquaintance's apartment. Though to say he only took a walk is unknown, until there is more information (like the pending toxicology report mentioned in the sources). (2) There is no mention of the fact the resident called out to DeJean-Jones, but received no response. (3) There is no mention that after being shot, DeJean-Jones left the apartment and collapsed in the breezeway. At this point, only the known facts should be in the article, not any guesses onto what happened. As more facts are released, they should be added and linked as is, imo.Nobody1231234 (talk) 08:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Relevant RfC about lead section of article on Singapore
There is a relevant RfC about the content in the lead section of Singapore. See Talk:Singapore. Would appreciate more inputs there. Thank you. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Talk:Singapore

Cleveland issues with nicknames in the introduction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cleveland, see "Nickname yet Again" section

Basically, there is a contingent that feels "Mistake by/on the Lake" should not be included in the introduction, due to the nickname being old or pejorative. However, other nicknames in the same section, including "Sixth City" and "Metropolis of the Western Reserve", are even more old/outdated, and in the case of Sixth City, currently flat out false (Sixth City refers to the size of the city, of which Cleveland has not been the Sixth City for decades). In my opinion, there are three possible fixes: removing all of these nicknames from the introduction, keeping all of the names, or keeping it as is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?&diff=725338342&oldid=725288477 :Keeping all names versus as is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=722056284&diffonly=1 :Line 102 edit would be an example of removing all nicknames from the introduction — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobody1231234 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The above is an inaccurate summary of the extensive debate that has gone on over this issue. I don't see any purpose in discussing the issue here since it has been adequately debated on the article's talk page. The originator was properly given a 3RR warning over his edit warring and needs to address the ACTUAL ISSUES raised in opposition to the addition of the pejorative term in the lede -- it is mentioned IN CONTEXT in the body of the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * How is the "Nickname yet Again" section"an inaccurate summary of the extensive debate that has gone on over this issue"? Was there more debate that has taken place on the issue than was posted there?  I've never seen additional debate (besides the new topic "Sixth City" that was recently added. Nobody1231234 (talk) 03:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Long-established consensus is that "Mistake by/on the Lake" is not even a "nickname" but rather a derisive term, and as such does not belong in either the Cleveland article's lead or infobox. Similarly, there is general agreement with 's view that the term belongs in the article's body, specifically the history section.  Relevant discussions dating back to 2006 (all prior to the most recent discussion  links to) include but are not limited to:
 * Talk:Cleveland/Archive 1
 * Talk:Cleveland/Archive 1
 * Talk:Cleveland/Archive 2
 * Talk:Cleveland/Archive 2
 * Talk:Cleveland/Archive 2
 * Levdr1 lp /  talk  07:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Nicknames are often derogatory or derisive. That does not make them not nicknames. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Be that as it may, the issue has been discussed extensively. Recurring consensus is that the term is not a "nickname" in this context, and that it does not belong in either the article's lead or infobox.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  08:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I have asked for additional input from members of both WikiProject Cleveland & WikiProject Cities.  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  08:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well it has been discussed extensively. Badly in the case of the 'remove' camp.
 * Discussion 1 - Consensus is that MotL is a valid (if not presently used) nickname.
 * Discussion 2 - Consensus agrees it is a nickname, discussion is about placement given the mention under 'History'
 * Discussion 3 - Again its clear people agree it is a nickname but discussion is about placement due to its negative connotations. Since the argument devolved into 'well its not nice so it shouldnt be in the list of nicknames' - thats not actually a policy-backed argument and holds little weight given its a far more widely used nickname than most of the others in the list at the time.
 * Discussion 4 - no mention of MotL
 * Discussion 5 - Again, discussion basically 'its a negative nickname so I dont like it'. No policy-backed argument for exclusion. Consensus is that it is a valid nickname.
 * Were any of these formal RFC's weight and validity of arguments are clearly on the side of 'if nicknames are in the infobox, then MotL should be in the infobox'. 'Its negative' is not a valid reason to exclude something. 'It is not well sourced' would be. But as has been proven time and again, it is extremely well sourced and in far greater usage than most of the other nicknames. By any standards your statement "Recurring consensus is that the term is not a "nickname" in this context" is inaccurate. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've commented on the most important issue below, but I can't let your bogus claim about sources pass w/o comment. "In far greater usage" implies the present and that is simply not the case. While the term may still occasionally show up, it is very rare that it will show up as saying that MOTL is today an applicable term for the city.  In fact, if you go through the archives you will find that most of the references have to do with sports, comedians, or articles saying that Cleveland is no longer the MOTL. Inevitably the term will be resurrected when the GOP formally nominates Trump in Cleveland ("the biggest mistake ever on the lake"), but that doesn't make it a current nickname for the city.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * - I reread the archived discussions, and there is more reference to MotL as a "nickname" than I remember. I have stricken my previous comments accordingly, including the link to the fourth discussion which does not mention MotL (error on my part- past discussions were listed primarily to demonstrate that this is not a new issue as Nobody1231234 claimed).  For what it's worth, I don't particularly care where the term is placed in the article, so long as it's somewhere.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  10:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * At best you could make an agument there was no consensus, but the discussions are quite clear. 'Its not nice so we dont want it in the infobox, lead, list' etc really is a low-weight argument. The begrudging acceptance that it should be in the article body is a compromise. Either way it fails neutrality by not giving even the nod towards representing significant differing points of view. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * - You're not wrong. I can really only speak for myself, but I do think it's difficult for members of the Cleveland Wikiproject to accept that the subject we devote so much time and energy to has so often been ridiculed by the national (& sometimes international) media- more so in the 1970s & 80s, but still to this day.  Cleveland has both positives and negatives- "Mistake on the Lake" obviously emphasizes the negatives.  But coverage dictates content, no matter how unflattering.  This isn't easy, but... I think I'm forced to concede that MotL is significantly underrepresented in the Cleveland article.  Perhaps some experienced editors, each with a solid reputation for maintaining neutrality, could step in to revise the article regarding MotL.  It may be difficult to find such editors among those with ties to the city.  Or maybe there are some who are willing.  I just know that whoever attempts to step in and change this will likely encounter resistance.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  12:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't have a hardline opinion on this asnd I'm open to including nicknames in addition to the historical Forest City but I do believe that there should be some requirements:


 * The names need to be both cited by reliable sources and a commonly used local nickname -- not some flavor-of-the-month thing that some kids on the corner or a musical artist came up with.
 * We don't need an extensive list of everything but the kitchen sink. A short list of a few nicknames is sufficient. And if we include the derisive MBTL, it needs to be clearly defined contextually and labelled as derogatory.
 * The entries need to be worded in such a way that it communicates (concisely) a chronology -- such as 'historical nickanmes include... while more modern nicknames are...'


 * Articles on living things (cities are living things after all)need to reflect that they are constantly in flux. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The issue is placement. This as been discussed in detail in the past but NOBODY and ONLY have neglected to address this. MOTL is included in the body of the article in the context of a decade or two when the term appeared predominantly.  The article lede, as presently constituted, has one single sentence about the city's history: "It was founded in 1796 near the mouth of the Cuyahoga River, and became a manufacturing center owing to its location on the lake shore, as well as being connected to numerous canals and railroad lines."  The "History" section of the article has 10 paragraphs.  It is the task of the folks who want to add the epithet MOTL to the lede to explain why adding this single historical reference, w/o any historical context at all, is consistent with the guidelines established in Manual of Style/Lead section.  In fact, adding this to the lede as proposed would itself be a violation of NPOV which states, "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which 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."  Folks for inclusion need to explain how it is fair and unbiased to add an outdated epithet covering a small period time to the article's lede.


 * Indeed, I'm not sure why one of the three paragraphs in the lede is even about nicknames since the subject isn't even discussed in the body of the article. I suggest eliminating the paragraph and leaving the infobox as is. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. One of the options I tried to show in the original posting here was to remove all the nicknames from the intro section, except maybe the most popular one, as it is neutral and there's little reason to have a discussion on various nicknames there.  In the infobox, it may make sense to link to an article on nicknames, like Chicago and city articles. Nobody1231234 (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Clarifying what I meant with the infobox, Chicago has a "(for more, see full list)" link that goes to Chicago's nickname list. Alternatively, Pittsburgh has a link to all nicknames if you click on the nickname in the infobox while Cincinnati just lists an article to nicknames in their "See Also" section.  I feel like going with the way Pittsburgh or Chicago handled this makes the most sense for neutrality (as the information is easily accessible from that location).Nobody1231234 (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I could support something like the Chicago example. The Cincinnati article has too much separation between the infobox nicknames and the nickname article link in the "See also" section.  I also think the group-piping in the Pittsburgh infobox is unclear as it potentially implies there are standalone articles for each of those nicknames when really there aren't.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  02:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Universal Windows Platform apps
Hi! I'm posting here in hopes of getting some feedback from uninvolved editors about the issue I started a discussion about at Talk:Universal_Windows_Platform_apps. The article is Universal Windows Platform apps. The dispute seems to lie in that I perceive the tone of the article text in the "Distribution and Licensing" and "Lifecycle" sections as non-neutral, but not everyone does. I'd be very grateful for some more opinions from the community about what the best solution is here. Thanks! :) —&#123;&#123;u&#124;Goldenshimmer&#125;&#125;&#124;✝️&#124;ze/zer&#124;😹&#124;T/C&#124;☮️&#124;John15:12&#124;🍂 18:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Islamic State war crimes & POV tag
Article: Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War

Perceived problems:


 * 1) The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and Jaysh al-Islam militants have been accused of using civilians and prisoners as human shields. This information has been repeatedly removed by User:My very best wishes and User:Iryna Harpy see diff, diff, diff, diff. – link to discussion: . I think this is violation of WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE.


 * 2) The "neutrality dispute" notice reads: "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." I have placed the notice on the article "Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War" on May 4 (diff), at which point an edit war began. The neutrality notice was removed by User:Volunteer Marek (diff) and User:Iryna Harpy (diff). It was restored by User:EtienneDolet (diff) and User:Dorpater (diff).

Proposed changes (see diff):

"Civil rights activist told ARA News that "ISIS militants prevent the people of Manbij and Jarablus from leaving their hometowns despite the fierce airstrikes by Russian warplanes". The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and Turkish-supported Jaysh al-Islam rebels were accused of using civilian residents of towns, Alawite civilians and captured Syrian soldiers as human shields."

References used in the proposed text:


 * – "The [Islamic State] fighters are hiding in civilian neighborhoods and preventing anyone from fleeing, activists said. ... Activists from Raqqa say the northern Syrian city’s estimated 350,000 residents are gripped by fear, rattled by powerful Russian and French airstrikes that shake the city daily"


 * "ISIS extremists use Syrian civilians as human shields against Russian strikes". ARA News. 24 January 2016. – "ISIS militants prevent the people of Manbij and Jarablus from leaving their hometowns despite the fierce airstrikes by Russian warplanes," civil rights activist Issa al-Raei told ARA News in Manbij. "The ISIS terror group is using those civilians as human shields against the Russian airstrikes," al-Raei said.


 * – "The militants, one of the most powerful rebel factions operating in the Douma suburb of Damascus, have been videoed driving at least 100 cages around residential areas on pick-up trucks to pressure the government to call off Russian airstrikes, according to the anti-government Shaam news agency. Air strikes have routinely targeted Douma and other neighbourhoods in the Eastern Ghouta region of the country while rebel groups have retaliated by sending rockets in government controlled areas of the city."


 * – "Hundreds of people believed to be from President Bashar al-Assad's Alawite community have been put in cages and paraded through besieged Damascus suburbs, apparently to deter Syrian and Russian aircraft from further bombing the city of Douma."

Related Articles:
 * Gaza War (2008–09)
 * 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict
 * Libyan civil war (2011)

Thank you for any help you are able to provide. -- Tobby72 (talk) 13:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * As formulated above or here your text is not about Russian military, but about crimes by ISIS, which belongs to other pages we have. Note that the title of your thread here was "Islamic State war crimes". Yes, exactly, this is about Islamic State war crimes and therefore should be included in appropriate page(s). Simply noticing that "during strikes by Russian aviation people were prevented from leaving their homes by ISIS" in the end of a paragraph somewhere might be OK, but you need a consensus for this on article talk page. My very best wishes (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Throwing together a bunch of SYNTH diffs and casing aspersions about other editors (yet again) is not the same as actually presenting a case for inclusion. Firstly, in the sequence of things, the matter had been discussed and resolved by 17 April: a month prior your slapping the tag on the article in this dedicated talk page section here. Suddenly, unsatisfied with the fact that your content had been rejected as being the WP:SYNTH that it is, you tag the article on 14 May and try to justify it by adding another complaint on the talk page thread a few hours later on 15 May.


 * Secondly, you've also misrepresented Étienne Dolet's rationale for the POV tag which was over a different issue altogether which was resolved within an hour of discussion on the talk page with his own removal of the tag. If any of these other editors believe this 'human shield' content to be of consequence, why have none of them joined in the discussion on the talk page? The last comment by me was left on the relevant thread on 17 May. No one else has bothered responding. You suddenly picked up on it again on 21 May and have started a thread here because...? There's hardly a lack of editors involved in the article, so there's no justification for using the NPOVN other than your refusing to drop the stick. That's not what the NPOVN is for because there is no ongoing dispute over your proposed SYNTH. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:21, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * the matter has NOT been resolved by 17 April.


 * Volunteer Marek removed the POV tag on 2 May (diff) I've restored the neutrality notice on 4 May (diff).


 * the POV tag was restored by 3 editors (not counting Étienne Dolet) - me, Dorpater and Dbdb (diff).


 * I have started a thread here because... WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE.


 * Another unresolved NPOV issue is WP:POVTITLE. See links to discussion -, . -- Tobby72 (talk) 09:46, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This thread is about the WP:UNDUE content you want to add about the use of 'human shields' as pertaining to the article in question. It has been made clear to you that this is an ISIS war crimes/human rights issue, not the misunderstood SYNTH you've been trying to get into the article. Per MVBW, "Simply noticing that "during strikes by Russian aviation people were prevented from leaving their homes by ISIS" in the end of a paragraph somewhere might be OK, but you need a consensus for this on article talk page." Instead of discussing this rationally on the talk page, you've thrown various issues into the pot. Please don't use this noticeboard as a general complaints department board about all of things you don't like across articles. The ISIS business has been dealt with: it was not a tactic used specifically as insurance against attacks by the Russian military. Your other content complaints are being discussed on the talk pages of the relevant articles, so prolonging this here is inappropriate. You are explicitly using this board to point your finger at specific editors as being 'culprits'. If that is your belief, it's an issue for the ANI, not for the NPOVN, the RSN, or any boards dealing with content issues. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello Toby72, I'm not sure what assistance you're requesting. The matter has been discussed to a stalemate on the talk page, right? In terms of Wiki politics, how can this be moved forward? I'm new here, this question is coming from a naive point of view, I have no idea how such matters go from here.
 * As to the complaint that your argument is synthetic -- I would begin by asking, why is the information relevant to the article? The obvious answer would be, that the Russians might well have been doing their best to avoid civilian casualties, and ISIS is primarily responsible for any casualties that have occurred, because of their use of human shields. If this is correct, then including the information would not be UNDUE WEIGHT, but rather it's essential for NPOV balance. But, is my argument really synthetic? Have one or more of the sources specifically mentioned this reasoning? If so, that could be cited and quoted, avoiding the charge of SYNTH. It seems to me that this so-called 'synthesis' is as obvious as WP:BLUE, but that's just me.JerryRussell (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi JerryRussell, thank you for your opinion. No, ISIS is NOT responsible for all casualties that have occurred, but the use of human shields in armed conflict is a war crime ("The militants have been videoed driving at least 100 cages around residential areas on pick-up trucks to pressure the government to call off Russian airstrikes" ... WP:SYNTH? UNDUE WEIGHT?).


 * Per WP:DUE: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources." Since the publishers of The Independent, International Business Times or The Japan Times think the story is relevant, I see no reason why we shouldn't. The compromise text was proposed here. -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Tobby72, thanks for the clarification. I agree that the information seems relevant and should be included. I think the problem the other editors are complaining about, is that the proposed text doesn't explain the context, as to how the use of human shields has effected the Russian military intervention. The concern about WP:SYNTH, if I understand it correctly, is that by juxtaposing the information without context, readers are tempted to jump to conclusions, just as I did, that some of these 'human shields' have in fact been among the civilians killed by Russian attacks. With the new information you're providing, one might be tempted to conclude that perhaps the Russians are avoiding attacks on cities where ISIS is using human shields. But if I simply state the conclusion, without evidence from the sources, that's 'Original Research'.


 * Do the sources say anything that would help create a complete picture, which would include the Russian response to ISIS use of human shields? I think the information would be very helpful, if not necessary -- considering that the article topic is the Russian military intervention. JerryRussell (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Too much defending of ISIS and Jaysh al-Islam – the whole section "Reports of war crimes and attacks on civilians" (btw, per WP:POVTITLE: "avoid judgmental and non-neutral words", see diff) only includes real or alleged Russian war crimes. It violates our WP:NPOV policy. Per WP:DUE: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources." It was reported that Jaysh al-Islam rebels were using human shields in 2015 to prevent Russian air strikes, by placing captured civilians in cages in public areas. International law considers the use of human shields to protect targets a war crime. The Fourth Geneva Convention forbids the use of any civilian as a shield: "The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations." (Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War). -- Tobby72 (talk) 09:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, I've boldly put the text back in the article, worded as follows to hopefully address the SYNTH and OR issues:


 * Civil rights activist told ARA News that "ISIS militants prevent the people of Manbij and Jarablus from leaving their hometowns despite the fierce airstrikes by Russian warplanes".[257] The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and Turkish-supported Jaysh al-Islam rebels were accused of using civilian residents of towns,[258][257] Alawite civilians and captured Syrian soldiers as human shields against Russian air strikes.[259][260]


 * We'll see if this wording satisfies My very best wishes and Iryna Harpy. JerryRussell (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * No, this is still textbook WP:SYNTH. Two different aspects - war crimes by Russian military and use of human shields - are being put together (synthesized) from separate sources to make a novel conclusion about the nature of Russian war crimes (basically, to try and excuse'em). Unless you have sources which discuss the Russian war crimes and attacks on civilians in the context of the use of human shields, rewording the text in different ways is not going to work. It'll still be SYNTH. What you need here is a rewording but more sources, if you want to include it (personally I don't think this should be included in this section at all).Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Here is the relevant wording from the policy for reference:
 * "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source."
 * I've emphasized the "or imply" part to make it explicit that this is SYNTH even if Tobby72 doesn't come right out and say that it's okay for Russia to attack civilians because ISIL is using human shields - it's still SYNTH if he's only trying to imply it (which he is).Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello Volunteer Marek, what the sources say is that ISIL and Jaysh al-Islam were using human shields to try to prevent Russian attacks. If the problem is that the use of this information implies an unwarranted conclusion, why do you say that more careful rewording can't prevent the reader from making this conclusion? For example, the article could add: "According to Amnesty International, war crimes by one party to a conflict do not justify war crimes by the other." Ref: https://www.amnesty.org/en/press-releases/2015/03/palestinian-armed-groups-killed-civilians-on-both-sides-in-attacks-amounting-to-war-crimes-during-2014-gaza-conflict/

On what basis are you asking for more sources, and what would you like those sources to say? If it doesn't belong in this section, perhaps it belongs in a new section? The article includes many items describing responses to the Russian military intervention, so this information certainly is relevant to the topic.

It would be more helpful if you would contribute to the process of finding a way to include this information that's compliant with all Wiki policies, rather than trying to exclude it. I agree completely with Tobby72, that simply excluding the information is a violation of NPOV, and does not make Wiki a better encyclopedia. JerryRussell (talk) 21:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus for including the content other than your own tête-à-tête with Tobby72 well over a month after any active discussion took place here, yet you took it upon yourself to reinstate the content in the article without bothering to make an appearance on the talk page... which is where any discussions of content took place, and where any further discussion should take place. You've been provided with policy and guideline based reasons for non-inclusion by Volunteer Marek. Pinging My very best wishes and myself from this board is not a substitute for the use of the article's talk page, nor is this a WP:BATTLEGROUND involving only the editors who responded here. WP:SYNTH is WP:SYNTH, it isn't WP:NOTSYNTH. Conflating sourced content in order to POV push a position is disruptive at best. It does not enhance Wikipedia in any shape or form. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * More careful rewording won't help because it doesn't change the fact that different sources are being synthesized to reach a conclusion which is none of them. In particular, this is the section about Russian attacks on civilians and war crimes. Putting in stuff about human shields *into that section* automatically implies that these war crimes and attacks are a result of the usage of human shields and/or that they're ok, given the usage of human shields. That is not in the sources.
 * Note that I am not against using this info somewhere else. I believe I indicated this on talk previously. But you can't put it in this section without having sources which explicitly make the connection. Obviously the "basis" for me asking for more sources is WP:SYNTH itself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What? This discussion still continue? Just in case, to clarify my opinion, inclusion of such material in this section of that article does represent WP:SYN and undue. However, this is a sourced material which can be used on other pages, for example, on a page about crimes by ISIL or about this war in general. My very best wishes (talk) 01:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello Iryna Harpy, I've been working with Tobby72 since last May 30, trying to understand how to include this material. As a relatively new user, I am puzzled by your view that this noticeboard is not an appropriate venue for discussing content issues. I was not meaning to exclude other editors from the discussion, much less to engage in battleground behavior. But, I would be happy to continue discussing at the talk page. JerryRussell (talk) 04:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, . My apologies if I came across as not assuming good faith in my response. Ultimately, discussions here are not protracted. Regular editors (particularly those who have already been involved in the salient talk page discussions) state their piece and the thread is understood to have gone stale very quickly on articles dealing with controversial subject matter (a week after the last comment is already at the stale stage). It just sits here until it's eventually archived (a sporadic event as it's usually archived by editors who use this board from time to time). In other words, we stop watching the discussion here, so it's highly unlikely that anyone previously involved in the discussion even knows that a few exchanges have come to pass unless we stumble onto it.


 * If it's something you feel needs to be discussed again, it needs to go back to the relevant article's talk page where all editors watching the article itself are going to know what's going on as a matter of transparency. I hope that helps to clarify how this noticeboard works. I'm afraid it's clunky, but at least it works as a method to get some third party feedback. As per the other editors commenting here, I don't believe it to be WP:DUE in the article in question, although there are surrounding articles on the subject matter where it would be due. Editing Wikipedia is a steep learning curve, so I can understand your being bewildered. I'm sure you'll get the hang of things quickly, although it's inevitably a trial by fire experience. Happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Having a section titled "Alleged use of human shields" seems a case of over emphasis to me, as well as having a title open to misunderstanding. If there are sources that say IS has been using "human shields" (or has been restricting civilians leaving towns being bombed) as a tactical response to the Russian use of airstrikes then that would be suitable content to include, but not in a whole section by itself. It is not synthesis to connect that some civilian casualties killed by Russian airstrikes died because they were put there in possible harms way by IS, because that would be the tactical purpose of having human shields. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Use of non-standard nomenclature in infoboxes - WP:UNDUE?
This is regarding a content dispute at the chess article. User:Ihardlythinkso wants to include the term "orthochess" as a synonym for chess in the article's infobox. By way of explanation, "orthochess" is used by some to distinguish "orthodox chess" (i.e. chess played by standard rules) from the many chess variants. It is rarely if ever used in standard works on the game of chess; google book search and google ngram confirm this. The word appears to be the invention of one David Pritchard, an expert on chess variants, and appears in David Parlett's Oxford History of Board Games. IHTS is arguing that this single source justifies inclusion in the infobox. My argument is that the term "orthochess" is not widely used or accepted either by chess players or by the general public, and to include the term in the article's infobox is giving it too much prominence, amounting to undue weight. The term is mentioned in the section on chess variants and that is more than enough. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Sincere thanks to MaxBrowne for opening this item. The full discussion is here. As far as MaxBrowne's arguments, of course the term is "rarely if ever used in standard works on the game of chess" -- why would a work on chess have any need to use any term other than 'chess'? The term is used in contexts of other varieties of chess to distinctly identify the standard game defined by international chess body (FIDE) rules. When Partlett says in The Oxford History of Board Games "Variously known as International Chess, World Chess, Orthochess, and so on", it seems plain those alternate names would only be used where there might be ambiguity with the standard game. The term "Western chess", which also appears in the article infobox as synonym for 'chess', is the same (would only need to be used in a context where there could be ambiguity), and, MaxBrowne clearly has no problem with that. In fact all of the game name synonyms listed are really only needed or used in that same context. The idea of an encyclopedic article is to provide readers pertinent info. How the game might be referred to in the context of other varieties of chess is part of that info. And sourcing it from The Oxford can't be a better reliable source. ¶ There is no WP requirement on the template 'AKA' (Synonyms) parameter to be "widely used or accepted either by chess players or by the general public" as MaxBrowne states. (How do I know this? Because I am the editor who added the AKA parm to that template! I did so as a parallel to the same parameter which exists in template, and as can be seen by many article examples using both templates and the AKA/Synonyms parm, there's never been the requirement that MaxBrowne states. Rather, the synonyms listed just have to meet verifiability w/ a reliable source. (MaxBrowne specifically got involved to clean up synonyms at article Danvers Opening, and none of those synonyms meet the requirement MaxBrowne has stated above; again, they were acceptable to be included as synonyms by MaxBrowne if they met verifiability/RS requirement.) ¶ As far as the term having "too much prominence" in the infobox, my gosh, it is at the bottom, and the last synonym listed. (To be fair, an editor at one point changed the location of the AKA parameter which I had added, and moved it to the position of first parameter in the template. I moved it back to last place, like in the template, contending that the synonyms list was "nice to know" info, but shouldn't be displayed first, which could distract/obscure the more substantive subject content in the infobox. In other words in that case I would agree w/ MaxBrowne, that info would be in "too much prominence" in the infobox if listed first. At the same time I can also see the logic of the editor who moved the parm to first position, since in articles, MOS policy wants any article name synonyms listed in the lede opening in bold. In the case of game Nine Men's Morris, synonyms are listed in the lede opening according to MOS, but I still think listing them first in the infobox would be ill-advised for reason already stated. In the case of Chess, *none* of the game name synonyms in the infobox are listed in the lede, and I agree with that choice, since again, all those synonyms are in the context of other varieties of chess, whereas when synonyms are not in another context, e.g. Nine Men's Morris or Danvers Opening, they are best listed in the lede per MOS. So this is a bit more complex than first look. For example I'm wondering how MaxBrowne would feel if the infobox synonyms he does accept in the article Chess infobox, are listed per MOS in bold in the Chess article lede? If the answer is that he does not like that, then I would argue, that the entire Chess synonyms list in the infobox, should therefore go away. Bottom line is I think there are two different functions that infobox game name synonyms lists are serving, and current MOS doesn't reflect that, and we shouldn't force a policy onto something new which wasn't envisioned by the policy, unless were're consistent about doing so. And even then it'd be a bad idea, since it squashes useful info to the reader.) Ok, IHTS (talk) 06:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I really would appreciate some uninvolved admin intervention at this point because this guy (sorry to say) is utterly exasperating to deal with. Rather than discuss, he WP:BLUDGEONs with walls of text that are impossible to address point by point, mixed in with plenty of irrelevant ad hominem stuff. He has no consensus to introduce the obscure term "orthochess" into the infobox, giving it undue prominence, and is attempting to get his way by bullying. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Zero credibility. (Please see this history of this editor's ANI complaints, when he was under mutual IBAN which he requested, then dismissed as not applying to himself, because he was "improving" an article and refused to check article history if he was overlaying my edits, and at same time recommending admin action against *me* on that basis! There is lots of bad blood with this editor and lots of WP:DROPTHESTICK needed on his part. For example see Talk:Chess for accusations that I'm "lying", and reverts to hats of off-topic thread noise, which he makes a WP:POINTy about, by opening an AN thread which only confused admins. The editor shouldn't accuse of being "exasperating" when he uses WP as WP:BATTLEGROUND for inability to put away past bad blood, and continues to take shots at me, as above. I'm sick of it too, but I don't go around throwing block suggestions in front of admin. I had a tiff once with admin Future Perfect at Sunrise, who's blocked me on occasion admin Bbb23, and when this editor sensed a re-emerged tiff was present, opened an ANI thread on a supposed IBAN violation for an edit that was what, 4 months old!? Clearly user MaxBrowne saved the ammo for his most opportune moment to strike at me. His suggestion above for admin intervention is part & parcel of the same ongoing battleground/bad-blood attitude that dominates his editor conduct re me, and yeah, I'm sick of it, but WP permits it, while I try be professional and ignore as much as I can. I have no interest in another IBAN, this editor had lots of fun tracking my edits and opening ANIs on the slightest excuse under that ban, yet had no intention of abiding by the ban himself, as history shows. So I don't know what he wants to pull in his conduct. Apparently a never-ending retaliation for some perceived long-ago "misdeed". WP supports that kind of shit and it isn't very pleasant to wade thru time & time again.) IHTS (talk) 12:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

"Western culture regards Chess as a particular game with a particular set of rules governed by an international authority (FIDE—the Fédération Internationale des Echecs). Variously known as International Chess, World Chess, Orthochess, and so on, [...]" and "The form of chess most people know—which is sometimes referred to as Western chess, orthodox chess, or orthochess—is itself just one of many that have been played throughout history." , from two board games experts, and I'm being accused of "POV/Undue" when incorporating into an important article, and also accused (by user Quale) of incorporating the info because it's "fun" to put my own personal "stamp" on the article", and not because I try to be a serious & conscientious editor. Great. And also from Quale, term "orthochess" is an "abortion". Yeah. IHTS (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

See what I mean? The guy is a bully. Intervention is required. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * First accuse of lying. Now a name-call. IHTS (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Not a "name-call", an accurate description. MaxBrowne (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I've little to say on the heart of the matter, and didn't read the wall of text above. Even less about the behavioral matter, only pointing out that doesn't seem to have consensus on their side for the time being (so the mainspace content should follow the more apparent consensus until matters are resolved). Just that at first glance this makes me think about flute/Western concert flute situation. The first is often used as a synonym for the second, but in fact covers many more variants. If the current chess article is an article about Western chess and variants (which it apparently is), it would perhaps be better not to list any synonyms that indicate a particular variant (even if that's the most common variant) in the infobox. Otherwise the chess article should only describe "predecessors" and move all non-predecessor variants to a "See also" section. Alternatively make a separate article on the Western ("ortho") variant (compare Western concert flute) and keep the chess article as an overview, treating the Western variant maybe a bit more extensively than lesser known variants, but not from the perspective that chess is a synonym to Western chess (compare flute). Don't know if this line of thought can be helpful to get out of the conundrum? --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The analogy falls down because while it is proper to refer to a variety of traditional instruments as "flutes", there is really only one game that should be called "chess". "Xiangqi" rather than "Chinese chess" is the correct name, also "shogi" rather than "Japanese chess". They are fine games which share a common ancestor with chess, but they are not "chess". MaxBrowne (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, there's Shakuhachi rather than "Japanese flute", etc; "... makes me think of ..." is also not steering for an "analogy", just something I offered as an idea to get out of dug-in positions. If shogi is not a chess variant it should not be in the "Variants" section of the chess article.
 * I agree with below that the choice of synonyms in the infobox is an editorial decision. This means: there is no "right" or "wrong", so nothing has to be "proven" one way or another. All that is needed is a consensus of editors on whether or not the orthochess synonym is a significant enough synonym to be taken to the infobox. Although WP:WEIGHT is ultimately the policy by which such significance is measured, there is no NPOV policy transgression whatever the consensus develops around (i.e. the decision is "editorial"). So not really something for this noticeboard where all solutions that conform to NPOV are equal. If after the discussion here no consensus is found, maybe consider informal mediation, or initiating an RfC on the topic on the article's talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It's clear from your above that you obviously don't understand, and didn't make any real attempt to understand, the issue. (So I'm perplexed why you're rendering judgement here, or even authorized to. Wow. ) IHTS (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This sort of ridiculous argument is why I think infoboxs need to go. People arguing over useless filler/clutter. However since you insist - Ultimately, if a reliable source describes it as such, it can go in the article (infobox) - a decision over if it *should* be there is an editorial one. I cant see any argument given the sources provided that would make 'Orthochess' not a neutral descriptor. Unless it was *only* use was by the person who coined the phrase, but that doesnt appear to be the case. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The term is not used by chess players and does not appear in chess literature; the only publications that use it (and there are very few of them) deal with chess variants and board games in general, and when they do use the term it is only in passing. It is a rare jargon term and putting it in an infobox gives it undue prominence; not neutral in other words. It would be preferable to have no "synonyms" in the infobox. MaxBrowne (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. IHTS (talk) 14:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I think we've somehow managed to come to a satisfactory resolution - no "synonyms" in the infobox, not even the standard Asian synonym "international chess". Stick dropped, arms laid down. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Charlotte Mason
This U.K. educator has apparently a bit of a cultus among home-schoolers and school reformers. The existing article is a rather hagiographical account of her life and methods, breathlessly recounting every detail of her doctrines and practices, almost all sourced solely to Mason's works and those of her advocates. NPOV is not preserved; and the total effect seems to me to push the walls of WP:UNDUE as well. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  12:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Non-neutral section heading: "Conspiracy theories"
I the name of a section heading in Ahmed Mohamed clock incident preceding speculation on ulterior motives from Hoax allegations and conspiracy theories to simply Controversy. Some editors insist "conspiracy theories" must be maintained in the section heading. I find no clear support in RS for classifying all speculation as "conspiracy theories" or even that the suggested motives involved conspiracy. I'd be open to other neutral wording but I strongly object to including "conspiracy." D.Creish (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The content of that particular section is about the allegation that it was a hoax/conspiracy, which is specific. "Controversy" is extremely broad and could mean almost anything. controversy sections should, when possible, be avoided. I see no problems with the previous section header. If there are reliable sources about other speculations, whatever those might be, they should be added elsewhere, as lumping them all together implies that they are of similar significance. That doesn't appear to be the case. Grayfell (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Your contention that "conspiracy theory" in the heading refers to allegations of conspiracy (rather than a description of the allegations) is contradicted by the first sentence of the section: The Dallas Morning News ... referred to some comments and claims that emerged in the aftermath of the incident as conspiracy theories. Labelling something a conspiracy theory is contentious and should be avoided unless there is clear consensus, which is not the case here. D.Creish (talk) 01:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * For a section describing hoax allegations and conspiracy theories, the title is remarkably accurate. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Multiple sources (WaPost, DallasNews, DailyBeast, etc) specifically use the phrase "conspiracy theories" to refer to the rumors and allegations described in that section so I don't see a problem with the header. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Multiple sources [...] specifically use the phrase "conspiracy theories" You're correct. Here are a number that don't: Dallas News which cites "police skepticism" about Ahmed's claims, a Guardian piece on doubts raised by Richard Dawkins, The Hill, National Review, Fox News. The claim is clearly contentious. I argue contentious claims make for non-neutral section headings. D.Creish (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Do the sources you've listed argue that there are no conspiracy theories, or just describe other things that are not the conspiracy theories? PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion that sources which don't explicitly refute a characterization implicitly endorse it, is incorrect on a logical level and per policy. D.Creish (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * My suggestion is simply that you cannot provide sources not talking about a thing in order to contradict a thing. If the sources are not even discussing the conspiracy theories, they are of no use when you argue that they should not be described as conspiracy theories. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * On the contrary. The claim was made that the consensus of reliable sources characterize skepticism and doubt WRT Mohammed's story as "conspiracy theories." I provided a number sources which addressed or expressed such skepticism without categorizing it as "conspiracy theory", so the claim of consensus is incorrect. D.Creish (talk) 04:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That claim does not appear to have been made by anybody but you. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The claim is not at all contentious and the sources you cite don't do anything to dispel that notion. The Dallas News "police skepticism" source is an article written by Avi Selk from September 15, before all of the facts were known and the investigations completed. One week later, Selk wrote the article debunking the hoax claims and calling them conspiracy theories, in an in-depth article clearly based on a week's worth of investigations and reporting. The later source clearly supersedes the prior source, and we as encyclopedists do what encyclopedists do — use editorial judgment. Similarly, Richard Dawkins is an interesting internet figure, but his entirely-unsupported opinion about Mohamed is irrelevant and prejudicial here — there is no evidence that Dawkins is an expert on anything related to what Mohamed did and there doesn't appear to be any reason to include his unsupported speculations here. He's an evolutionary biologist with a popular Twitter account, and just because he tweets something doesn't make it suitable material for a biographical article. The National Review op-ed you cite presents literally nothing resembling evidence in support of its claims, and curiously skirts all the way around ever actually directly claiming that Ahmed Mohamed did anything illegal. Instead the author just tries to use a lot of weasel words and thinly-veiled implications, presumably because even that right-wing house organ didn't want to set itself up for a libel suit by a sympathetic elementary school student. Interesting example of of victim-blaming, but it doesn't actually directly allege that it was a hoax. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * No, Selk characterizes the police spokesman's views as skeptical. His later piece says nothing to supersede that.


 * You cite Darkins lack of engineering expertise immediately after arguing Selk's (a journalist) is relevant. That's, silly.


 * Regarding the NR's lack of evidence, sadly none of the RS I can find present evidence. Any unofficial conclusion is by definition opinion and all (that I could find) by laymen. If an overwhelming majority agreed nonetheless I might be concede, but as I've shown that's not the case. D.Creish (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The police investigation later concluded that Mohamed had no malicious intent or intent to provoke a reaction, as noted by the reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm aware there was no police investigation into the clock's origins (whether the young man built it himself or it was commercially manufactured, which is the main thrust of what you're attempting to label "conspiracy theories.") If you have a source suggesting otherwise please provide it. D.Creish (talk) 04:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No, that's not the "conspiracy theory." The "conspiracy theory" is that this was some sort of an intentional hoax committed by Mohamed to draw attention to... what, exactly, nobody has quite explained. Which is one reason it's considered a conspiracy theory, along with the utter and complete lack of evidence for such a claim. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That is one of the skeptical theories which you're arguing should be included in a section titled with "conspiracy theories"; so while I agree it's not a conspiracy theory the section title you advocate would imply it is. D.Creish (talk) 13:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking over your list of sources that don't use the term 'conspiracy theory', one doesn't mention it at all (talking only about the immediate police justification for arresting him), and all but one of the others are opinion pieces. The only news piece that mentions the theories that arose on the blogosphere afterwards without terming them conspiracy theories is a single Fox News article (and, furthermore, that one source is from relatively early in the controversy, before the theories had gotten the more thoroughly debunking elaborated on in the other five sources).  If that's all you can find to weigh against the five-plus sources currently on the article, then I think it's entirely reasonable to say that there is an clear consensus among reliable sources that they're indeed conspiracy theories.  The five sources currently used for it are all high-quality, and the fairly startling degree of unanimity across a wide range of reliable sources in using the term as the debate settled down clearly shows that the description of the theories as "conspiracy theories" eventually became widely-accepted. --Aquillion (talk) 06:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know by what test you're dismissing the skeptical sources as opinion pieces. For example, the Dallas News source by Selk you dismiss has the text But officers still didn’t believe Ahmed was giving them the whole story. under the heading Police skepticism. Is this the one you suggest "doesn't mention it at all" or does it qualify as opinion, where Selk's later article in the same paper which is critical of the skepticism and currently cited qualifies as fact? D.Creish (talk) 13:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Have to say I agree with the rest here, while I dont particularly like 'conspiracy theories' as a section title, the reliable sources describe them as such and there is nothing that contradicts this. Merely not mentioning something is not enough to say its disputed or incorrect. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I had hoped this discussion would attract at least some disinterested noticeboard regulars... D.Creish (talk) 13:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You have six opinions that disagree with you. For a relatively simple question on a noticeboard thats actually quite a good response. And I assure you, I have no interest in the subject at all. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen you comment in the article or express a strong ideological bias so I thank you for your input. But please re-read the comment you just replied to; I lamented the lack of disinterested responders and your counter-argument was to state the total number of responders. One has nothing to do with the other. Responses like that make reasoned debate difficult. D.Creish (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems like you're only interested in counting the opinions of those who agree with you, which is not how this works. I agree with the others as well, WP:STICK time I think. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's an odd thing to say. You only have to look one line up to see me thanking an editor for participation whose opinion opposed mine. D.Creish (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

POV Issues on Expulsion of Muslim Chams
See discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Expulsion_of_Cham_Albanians#Balkan_Wars_-_OR_.2F_POV DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 00:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)