Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 33

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34

obama citizenship

the article titled conspiracy theories on obama'a citizenship is somewhat less than neutral. no one but wikipaedea has made referance to any conspiracies. there is a fact, undisputed, that obamas father was is englishman, and so barak is an englishman unless otherwise so declaired. there are no crackpot conspiracy theorists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Your assertions are as incompetent and unsupported as your spelling, punctuation, capitalization and grammar. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Not to mention if the case against Obama was that obvious (ie British not American) he would have been stripped of the presidency years ago.-- (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I havn't seen any credible evidence that questions his citizenship, this is ridiculous. I hope the article makes it quite clear this is a fringe belief. — GabeMc (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Don;t worry the relevant article Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories clearly marks it as a fringe theory. The main article rightly does not even mention this.-- (talk) 05:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Stephen E. Ambrose

Moving this discussion from the BLP/N, as this is not a living person . Stephen E. Ambrose, eminent author of many best-sellers, has been dogged by accusations of inaccuracy. But I think that exploration of these issues in his biographical article has skewed the entire piece, so that it is essentially an attack or hit piece. That is my opinion and I'd like to get other viewpoints from persons not regularly editing the article. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Although my only contributions to the "Criticism" section of the article is to the two paragraph subsection on the Pacific Railroad (a subject on which I have also written several books), it seems to me in reading over the rest of the entire section that all of the other criticism's noted there are well referenced and properly cite objective sources that support many documented instances of factual errors and/or apparent plagiarism in Ambrose's published works. The evidence of patterns of plagiarism, factual errors, and misrepresentations in Ambrose's research and published books continue to be very significant issues in evaluating the reliability of his works as well as judging his overall reputation as a professional historian and scholar. To ignore or minimize them (as CheeseStakeholder appears to suggest) would, in fact, constitute a far greater "egregious case of unbalance" than not including or dramatically reducing the section in the article. Centpacrr (talk) 21:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
The article seems fairly balanced to me in general, afterall, these were not just accusations, but confirmed and admitted by Ambrose himself in certain cases. And while it might seem a shame that such an emminent scholar would be so disgraced late in life and after death, well, that's why he should have used quotation marks, Ambrose agreed. If you want to balance it out more, than perhaps improve/expand the "career" section dealing with his untainted contributions to history, which are numerous. To me this is less of a NPOV issue as a undue weight one, if indeed it is an issue at all. — GabeMc (talk) 22:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Undue emphasis is part of NPOV, isn't it? Here we have over half the article that's devoted to criticism. And you question whether this is "an issue at all"? This article should be titled "The Foibles of Stephen Ambrose." The criticism section is completely disproportionate. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't disagree in general, however the criticisms are notable, and verifiable. If I gave it a closer look, I'm sure they could be trimmed down, but I'm not so sure I want get involved editing there while commenting here. Highlight his accomplishments and expand the "career" section, which is pretty lean IMO, for a scholar of thirty-five years. This will help bring it back into balance. You're absolutely corect, undue is part of NPOV, but what I meant was, the articles overall tone is fairly neutral, its contents however, may be slightly out-of-balance. Expand his career accomplishments section so that its in a more proper proportion to the prominence of the other viewpoints. — GabeMc (talk) 23:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I note some items under Stephen_E._Ambrose#Factual_errors_and_disputed_characterizations are WP:SYN. That is, saying "Ambrose said this. Other sources say that, therefore Ambrose made a mistake". You have to have a source that says "Ambrose made a mistake". I've tagged them. Barsoomian (talk) 23:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. The paragraphs lacking reliable secondary sources specifically mentioning Ambrose and any errors he may have made should be removed if no such sources can be found. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Redirected page to be restored on original one

It is observed that the page has been redirected to This is a case of vendalism. You are requested to restore the original page --— Angpradesh  — talk 15:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

It is observed that the issue seems to be settled by discussion on the talk page. Blueboar (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Beslan massacre

At Talk:Beslan_school_hostage_crisis#Neutrality a user posted an accusation of the article not being NPOV. The claim has not been examined, and it's been a few months... WhisperToMe (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


While trying to assist in a discussion (current thread) that I found at WP:DRN, User:Betty Logan suggested we get input on the neutrality of one of my edits, which was based in large part on some of hers but with additional sources. She and I are both attempting to resolve differences between User:Gothicfilm, who believes the text is undue weight and the three Apes movies in question are not prequels except in an expansive sense, and User:Barsoomian, who believes they are prequels sufficiently so to be listed in the prequel table.

There is technically an open RFC on the talk page, which led to the DRN, but the current active section is as above and the active editors are making progress only slowly. It is my opinion on reviewing both sides of the dispute that some reliable sources refer to the 3 movies as prequels, that a couple give language from which it might be logically inferred they are not prequels (slight OR, but we don't want to force anyone to prove negatives), and that both source sets should be reflected in the article. (Many sources simply ignore the question and use the word "sequels", which begs the unsourced question of whether sequels and prequels are mutually exclusive.)

The language might qualify as undue because it's two sentences focused on a particular franchise; we basically agreed some franchise should serve as an example, and we had been working with Star Trek as a better example, and so having a second example may be straining at a gnat. However, keeping the language in is not the important question: the dispute turns on whether the three films should be listed in the table with the gray coloring to indicate their disputed status. So I reinserted the language to see if all parties agreed with its neutrality as a baseline, as it might answer the more heated table question. One solution is if Gothicfilm should agree that the insertion is correct and thus the table addition would be valid in lieu; another is if Barsoomian should agree that the sources indicating "these are prequels" are only a tiny minority unfit for inclusion; there may be middle ground (graying lines in the table was a good start, I think).

The debate has also been shown to extend to categorization of these three movies just about everywhere else on WP.

Local questions: 1. Does the edit represent both sides neutrally, or what language would be better? 2. Are the sources there sufficient to indicate adding the three movies to the table, or what easy way would demonstrate they are only a tiny minority? Let the fur fly! JJB 01:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought this debate was all but wrapped up, but unfortunately the Dispute Resolution guy JJB for some reason now seems to want to to advocate for Barsoomian, the one user who alone was going against everyone else's consensus both at WT:FILM and at the Prequel Talk page. He closed the Prequel discussion at WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Yet we continue. It now appears JJB wants to override WP:CONSENSUS and declare the last three of the original Planet of the Apes series films to be "prequels". He found a tiny number of sources that imprecisely made less-than-rigorous use that word, and - despite having it pointed out by Betty Logan that People who don't believe it is a prequel are hardly likely to describe it as "not a prequel", they are much more likely to describe it as something else, he wants me to find sources that describe Apes films like Escape from the Planet of the Apes as "not a prequel". He wants me to prove a negative. That's seems unreasonable to me. The fact that only a tiny number of sources have called Escape a prequel ought to be enough. WP:WEIGHT says Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.
JJB is now claiming that WP:SILENT acceptance is (until noted otherwise) a change of opinion, from prior activity to present inactivity, and allows him to override the consensus from a week and a half ago. This is the new way to override consensus? Declare it inactive? Though I note Barry Wom came over there today to comment on how consensus is being ignored, and how some of the citations provided are a bit desperate for calling these films "prequels."
As I explained in the extended conversations above at Talk:Prequel#Planet of the Apes series has no prequels and the following Talk:Prequel#RfC: Planet of the Apes prequels, I agreed to describing Rise of the Planet of the Apes in the article as a reboot film that a large but minority of sources imprecisely called a prequel. But I don't believe that's accurate for the original Planet of the Apes series sequels. I have read a great deal about them over the years, including looking back at contemporaneous articles. They were always called sequels, all four of them. Each film has characters moving forward in their own timeline from the previous film, and they discuss what happened in that preceding film. The narrative as well as the characters of those films continue forward in their own story in each one, even as they go back in time. For the three primary Apes characters, the events of the third film occur after the original narrative. Not before.
To again quote Betty Logan: In the case of the 70s sequels, there really isn't that much out there calling them prequels, just the odd source here and there, and for the most part they are usually regarded as sequels, so the question is whether there is enough opinion out there to warrant the claim that there is a significant view they are prequels? I generally think there isn't if I have to call it.
Again, consensus both here and at WT:FILM is firmly against listing any of the original Planet of the Apes series sequels as prequels. They were against including Rise as well, but I compromised and went along with listing it in gray shading because it's a reboot that a large but minority of sources imprecisely called a prequel. You may be able to find a small number of sources that have called some of the original sequel films prequels, but not enough to be notable. A very tiny number compared to those that called Rise a prequel. Usually when consensus is reached, it's done and we move on. It seems to me this dispute should be over. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah. To clarify to the board: (1) Yes, as a DRN volunteer I closed discussion on that page because it was best moved back to Talk:Prequel. (2) No, I did not count the "inactive" editors like Barry who did not express interest in working toward a resolution. As to the rest, I trust the board volunteers here will determine how much it relates to my two questions in good time. JJB 06:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I note that Gothicfilm's only sources are 1) his own opinion and 2) paraphrases of other WP editors' opinions. The text in question is supported by WP:RS. I have cited quite a few other sources in the long discussion at Talk:Prequel. If more weight is needed I can summarise them here. Barsoomian (talk) 09:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The prequel to the above prequel discussion

I don't see the point of just continuing the dispute on here, so I am going to try to summarise both sides of the argument succintly and fairly.

  1. The definition of "prequel" is not concrete, its usage varies from case to case.
  2. In view of the fuzziness of the definition, it has been agreed by all parties that disputed cases should be sourced.
  3. Due to the above problems, there is conflict between sources: some sources call some films prequels, and others do not i.e. it is really an opinion as to whether something is a prequel or not,
  4. In view of the above factors, it is generally agreed by all parties, that the weighting of sources referring to something as a prequel should be taken into account.
  5. The above approach has worked well in some cases, but there is a sticking point in regards to Escape from the Planet of the Apes, Conquest of the Planet of the Apes, and Battle for the Planet of the Apes. The original RFC is here (it is long and laborious though, and many of the issues have actually been resolved).
The question
  • What we want from NPOV/N is an explicit interpretation of WP:DUE in relation to these three films i.e. whether the RS coverage describing these films as a "prequel" constitutes a significant point of view, to the extent that being neutral dictates its inclusion or exclusion. It is this part of the policy that requires interpretation in this context: Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. We are not particularly interested in interpreting the definition and applying to the films, that is original research given its broad usage.
Case for inclusion

The term prequel has been ascribed to this set of films in several reliable sources. Taken from the discussion page at Talk:Prequel#Apes_source_analysis (I'm listing them here, because the discussion on the talk page is labyrinthine):

Case against

There are sources that have have an extremely minority view in this regard, such as this Empire magazine article that refers to Manhunter as a prequel (which everyone agrees is not). Admitting every film that is described as a prequel would lead to the list losing cohesion. Finding sources that describe the films as not prequels is difficult because it requires proving a negative i.e. sources that do not consider them prequels describe them as something else. On Google the vast majority of sources refer to them as sequels rather than prequels.

In pre-2000 sources (before remakes and reboots came along) Google give the following stats for usage:

"planet of the apes" sequel -rise -Burton – 715 hits
"planet of the apes" prequel -rise -Burton – 122 hits (goes down to zero when you actual look at the context though i.e. being on the same list as Star Wars prequels)

In this respect the usage seems to suggest that the films are overwhelmingly described as a sequels, and not prequels.Please note if you google "prequel" and "Planet of the apes" you will get a high hit rate post 2000, but this is mainly because of Rise of the Planet of the Apes which is included and not disputed.


What we want to know is whether the coverage of these films in reliable sources justifies refrering to these films as prequels in the prose and the table. We do have a key that permits disputed definitions, but in the cases where this is applied there are a vast quantity of sources backing up the alternate claim. The gray shading isn't intended to make the table into a free for all, just to add come perspective. Unless you believe I have grossly misrepresented one side of the argument, I ask the other involved parties to step back, at least until someone neutral gives us an opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betty Logan (talkcontribs) 13:13, 28 April 2012‎ (UTC)

Clarifications: Betty is making a reasonable presentation as well; I would add that in the list Betty quoted there was also originally an Apes comics interview that had supportive implied usage of "prequel" for the films, which also appears in the diff in question. It seems to me though that if Betty is uninterested in applying the dicdef, that would exclude the POV that "if it says sequel it's not a prequel", which is not a sourced POV except by implication in dicdef; and it would exclude the POV that "Manhunter" is not a prequel, because that one is clearly (also) a "predecessor" and the usage section makes clear that everyone agrees on applying the dicdef to exclude the predecessors, which are noncontroversially discerned. In short, it seems to me the only sources in the case against are dicdefs, and no sources specific to these three movies have arisen (even though we are not asking the case against to prove a negative). JJB 14:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC) Oh, I'm sorry, Betty, your section title above uses the word "prequel" as "predecessor", and I thought we had consensus not to do that! :D JJB 14:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
The currently unsigned "prequel to the prequel" above was written by an editor who opposes inclusion. It does not represent the inclusion viewpoint correctly. I will make a few additional points: 1) the fact that the word "prequel" is relatively new. In regards to film, there is no known film review prior to 1979 that uses the word. The films in question were made in the early 70s. So no contemporary reviews of that, or ANY film of the period, use the word. Thus the Google count she cites of scant mentions of the word just reflects that fact. Some retrospective reviews that do call the films "prequels" have been cited. The opponents have provided no reason to discount these, (the Empire article disparaged is NOT one that was cited; she unaccountably also lists several other dubious sources, from blogs, Youtube, etc., under "Case for inclusion" that were never used as references in the real "case for inclusion", that I have never seen before, then discounts them while ignoring the sources actually cited, just trying to discredit them by association) and presents no countervailing sources. 2) She asserts "We are not particularly interested in interpreting the definition". Neither party actually agrees with that. 3) She states "the vast majority of sources refer to them as sequels rather than prequels", which assumes a definition, and assumes that the terms are mutually exclusive. There is no source for the latter assumption, and counter examples are mentioned in the prose in both Prequel and Sequel, the latter stating "A sequel that portrays events which precede those of the original work is called a "prequel."" i.e., prequels are a subset of sequels. 4) "We do have a key that permits disputed definitions, but in the cases where this is applied there are a vast quantity of sources backing up the alternate claim." The works included as "disputed" all have cited sources supporting their inclusion. There are no sources at all opposing them, only the opinion of some editors that these sources are wrong. (In some cases I agree with that opinion, but it remains only an opinion.) The idea that we must have a "vast quantity" of sources to override editors' opinions is not a policy I agree with. Even one good source should suffice to verify this when there are no sources to say otherwise. However, despite the works that provoked this dispute all having sources for inclusion, and none against, their listing, even as "disputed", has been repeatedly deleted by some editors. Ironically, since the "disputed" category was created expressly as a way of accommodating the opponents' opinions. Barsoomian (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
@unaccountably: She's quoting me. I mentioned, solely in passing, several questionable sources in addition to those reliable enough for this in-universe question. While she deleted one RS (a Yahoo interview with an Apes creator), as well as all 4 dicdefs and references to numerous timeline inferential sources, she retained the offhand reference to the QS. Otherwise, your sentence seems correct. JJB 02:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC) Oh, and Betty's original formulation of the question from talk was, "So I suggest we take this edit over to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard and get a ruling on it, and stand by the outcome either way." Commenters, please consider all drafts of the question, thanks. JJB 02:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Third Party Comments

It appears the question is "whether the RS coverage describing these films as a "prequel" constitutes a significant point of view. To review the sources:

A throwaway line in a blog review of Hannibal Rising by a comedy writer is hardly significant.

Only the foreward (by a different author) uses the term "prequel" once, and he encloses it in quotes. The main text refers to the films as "sequels".

Whether a film can be both, and whether "prequels are subsets of sequels" (as suggested above) is debatable. Several dictionary definitions would suggest at the least that the latter three films are more sequel than prequel by defining prequel as "portraying the same characters at a younger age" and as "a film [...] about an earlier stage of a story or a character's life". The "story" in the three sequels is more concerned with a continuation of the story of the characters from the first two films rather than providing a pre-history of the events and/or characters in the first two films.

Again, this source suggests that Conquest is both a prequel and a sequel, but it also goes on to suggest that this is against the normal usage of these terms by saying "How is that possible you ask? Come on, this is science fiction!" Further, as has already been pointed out under "Case against", asking for counter-examples is asking to prove a negative ('Escape is not a prequel'). Since "the vast majority of sources refer to them as sequels rather than prequels", mentioning them in an article on prequels is to give undue weight to a minority view. Barry Wom (talk) 11:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Barry, but I don't think fellow WT:FILM contributors are the group Betty meant by "third parties". Otherwise, thanks for representing the sources essentially accurately. It would be helpful to cite some supportive view, some POV such as that "films cannot be both", or the synthesis argument that not portraying the same characters earlier in life precludes prequel, or that "the Apes story is less about prehistory". In most list articles I've worked with, a single RS is sufficient for entry as long as the list criteria are met, but here the zero-source entries are kept and the multi-source entries are fought. It is the criteria that are fuzzy, not the sources; we clarified the criteria with graying but that didn't remove the fuzziness in people's minds. Your objections to the sources are not objections to the criteria (the sources requested would be objections if they arose); notability for list inclusion is not notability for article-length treatment, and so the question of whether we are dealing with a "tiny minority" (5% was suggested) of sources that have considered the question is still in play.
Again, ladies and gentlemen of the board, Betty's presenting question was whether the edit text represents both sides neutrally or unduly, and thus whether one side is so tiny-minority as to leave the movies out of the table. She appears to have added that she feels definitional implications are excluded, but if they were I think it would remove all sources from the "no" side, so that add bifurcates the question; please answer as best as possible, thank you. JJB 15:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Re Barry Wom: "this source suggests that Conquest is both a prequel and a sequel, but it also goes on to suggest that this is against the normal usage of these terms" -- The writer introduced the term, he wasn't critiquing someone else's use, and we have no reason to assume he didn't think it was valid. He just asked rhetorically "How is this possible?" The answer of course is that the story uses time travel. So, an unusual kind of prequel, yes; illegitimate, no hint of that. As for "minority view", no sources at all say otherwise. This is not a case of 1% of sources saying something and 99% saying the opposite. It's an esoteric, geeky question, and only 1% have considered it worth discussion. There are none cited who have who dissented. The "minority/majority" only makes sense if it is with respect to the proportion of sources that discuss this point. Not sources that just mentioned the films. Barsoomian (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
The most reliable rule of thumb consistent with the dictionary definition is that the characters in a sequel are aware of the events in the predecessor story and the characters in a prequel are not. That is why a film can't be a sequel and a prequel: since some of the characters in e.g. The Godfather, Part II remember the events in The Godfather, that is a sequel, even though there are events in the second film that predate the first. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments from NPOVN regulars

Medical records of birth defects in children of Gulf War combat personnel

In Gulf War syndrome, this edit removed mention of US Department of Veterans Affairs Chief Epidemiologist Han Kang's examination of the medical records of children born to Gulf War combat veterans after surveys found evidence of two times as many birth defects in the children of male troops, and about three times as many in the children of deployed female soldiers. The study of medical records was done in response to the concerns raised about the reliability of surveys in an earlier review and in the survey reports themselves, and it found that there were actually more birth defects than had been described in the survey reports. The editor deleting the medical records check source had earlier included a description of concerns about bias in the surveys, and deleted mention of the surveys in favor of the general conclusions of a review of all troops including those from countries such as Australia and France whose soldiers' children do not have any excess birth defects. At Talk:Gulf War syndrome#Dubious, the editor calls the government publication describing the medical records check "just a newsletter" and therefore says it fails WP:MEDRS. I disagree because it is a government publication held as reliable as scholarship per WP:MEDRS#Choosing sources, describing the work of the preeminent authority on the topic, and as such it presents an opposing view which would be obscured to the point of inaccuracy if it were omitted. I am interested in others' opinions. (talk) 23:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you referring to the discussion on page 10 of the Gulf War Review, published by the Department of Veterans Affairs? I have looked at that discussion but I am not convinced that it stands for the statement in question: "A subsequent check against medical records by the Department of Veterans Affairs' Chief Epidemiologist found more birth defects." For one, the footnote mentions ongoing research so the results are not final and there is no opportunity to review the work in progress. I agree with you that this publication might in some cases be considered a reliable source under this section of WP:MEDRS:

Medical and scientific organizations Statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies may be valuable encyclopedic sources. These bodies include the U.S. National Academies (including the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences), the British National Health Service, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization. The reliability of these sources range from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, through public guides and service announcements, which have the advantage of being freely readable, but are generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature.

But the statement in question is quite strong and affirmative as compared with the language of the footnote, which speaks of preliminary results. A statement to the effect that preliminary research that involves cross checking the survey results against medical records seems to support the findings would appear more appropriate, in my opinion.Coaster92 (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes: "Dr. Kang found that male Gulf War veterans reported having infants with likely birth defects at twice the rate of non-veterans. [see [1]] Furthermore, female Gulf War veterans were almost three times more likely to report children with birth defects than their non-Gulf counterparts. The numbers changed somewhat with medical records verification. However, Dr. Kang and his colleagues concluded that the risk of birth defects in children of deployed male veterans still was about 2.2 times that of non-deployed veterans." (p. 10, emphasis added.)
I agree describing it as a "preliminary examination of medical records" would be superior. (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

After editing the article to reflect the suggestion from Coaster92 here, the editor who I was concerned about asked another editor for help, and they have reverted the disputed statements and much more of the article in ways which I believe make the NPOV issues much worse. I'm going to try to address their points when I get more time. (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Kid Ink

Articles has been deleted 4 times as an A7, once as a G3, and once as a G11. When created, the article often has unverified claims and reference claims whose references do not back up the claims made at all. I've recently cleaned up the article and I believe that the subject is now most likely notable but I think it would be helpful if a few other users added the article to their watchlist to guard from more NPOV and promotional editing. OlYeller21Talktome 17:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


I would appreciate some uninvolved eyes at Covance to check for neutrality, particularly the neutrality of the lead.

Covance is a contract research organization, and one of the kinds of research it offers is animal testing. Between 2003 and 2005, there were two undercover investigations by animal advocacy groups, the first by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection and the second by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, in Covance's primate laboratories in Germany and the United States. Both produced footage showing what the groups said was abuse of monkeys. In Germany no action was taken against the company; in the United States there was a small fine.

The issue now is that several new or sporadically used accounts (User:BrainSnail, User:Tbd-r1 and User:Cromng) are arguing – on article talk and a user talk page (see User talk:Tbd-r1) – that any mention of the controversy should be removed from the lead, and the rest of it moved to another article. I've added the company's perpective to the lead and clarified the response of the authorities, but I don't agree that it should be removed entirely (per WP:LEAD). One of the accounts also wants to rewrite the article from a corporate perspective; see his version of the article.

As the new accounts have adopted the company's perspective, and as I have animal rights sympathies, it would be helpful if uninvolved editors could take a look. The key questions are: (1) should the undercover investigations be mentioned in the lead? (2) if yes, are they summarized appropriately? and (3) is the current section about the controversy written appropriately?

For anyone wanting to review the undercover footage, here is the BUAV video, and the PETA video. (The BUAV video is hosted on the PETA website because there was some litigation in Germany between BUAV and Covance, which I believe resulted in BUAV agreeing to remove it from their site, but I'm having difficulty finding good sources on that.) There is also a BUAV summary. There are secondary sources in the article; for example Nature and CNN. For other sources, see footnote 5. I can email the Nature article to anyone who can't see it.

Many thanks in advance for any input. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

SV, Thanks for raising this, as I was one of the users named here I would like to clarify what I am suggesting: The article how SV is posting it is based on valid references, however ~ 50% of the article refers to what SV is standing for, however it ONLY reflects ~10-15% of the companies' activities. I am recommending to create (or change the current page to) a Subsidiary: 'Covance Laboratories',like Johnson & Johnson, Verizon Communications, ExxonMobil, General Electric etc and re-instate the page 'Covance Inc.' as the parent company page. This way another subsidiary can explain the Phase 1 testing with human volunteers etc.
I will copy this link to the talk pages of the other users mentioned so they can provide their input to the Neutrality board. Thank you! Cromng (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Cromng, we don't seem to be getting much response here. There are other ways to attract uninvolved editors, so we can try elsewhere if needed.
To address your argument, the fact that animal research represents 10-15 percent of the company's overall activity misses the point (also, not sure what 10-15 percent means exactly, so if you have sources that would help). For a recent analogy, Rupert Murdoch told the House of Commons in the UK that the News of the World (a newspaper people were complaining about), represented only one percent of his business, but this was seen as a distraction. The point was that that one percent had become controversial.
The Covance abuse allegations caused a lot of concern, with the result that (for example) Paul McCartney opposed a Covance planning application in 2006, [2] and Gloria Steinem asked that Covance not sponsor an event she was speaking at in 2007. [3] For public-relations reasons, a company in that position might prefer to have the material removed from the lead or the article as a whole. But to do that would be a violation of Wikipedia's neutrality policy, as well as a guideline that cautions against moving criticism into sub-articles; see WP:POVFORK. So I would be opposed to any attempt to do that. Having said that, I'd be willing to work with you on the wording. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • There is no way I am getting involved in this, but I refer the editors to WP:WEIGHT, which states neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. I don't know how much of an issue this animal testing thing is, but the percentage of animal testing that takes up company activities is not relevant. What does matter is how much the animal testing is reported by the media in relation to its other activities. For example, if nearly all news articles are about the animal testing then it's perfectly ok for the article to focus on that. If only 10% of the news stories are about animal testing then only 10% of the article should be about it. My recommendation is to do a company name search on some news providers, and assess the frequency of news stories about the animal testing. As for the lead, that should be like a synopsis for the article rather than an introduction as per MOS:LEAD i.e. try and relate the whole article to the reader in a couple of hundred words. If animal testing is covered in any detail in the article, then it is proper to mention it proportionally in the lead. Betty Logan (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

NPOV vs mainstream science

Is there a difference in understanding between NPOV and mainstream science view ?

Take a contentious topic like cold fusion (I am SPA for that).

  • We must discuss the mainstream view and the minority view.
  • We must make it clear which of the views is the majority view and which is not.
  • In an article about a mainstream topic we would give a fringe view DUE mentioning, if any at all.
  • In an article about a minority topic (=cold fusion) we can discuss the minority topic in great detail.
    • However, discussing a minority view in great detail, leaves the impression and accusation of POV pushing, ie giving the minority view more "flesh" than the majority view, ie undue WEIGHT.

I always thought I understood NPOV for fringe topics as: describe the majority view clearly and denote it as the majority view and describe the minority view clearly and denote it as the minority view.

It appears that other editors see it differently as: describe the majority view clearly and denote it as the majority view and describe clearly what the majority thinks of the minority view and don't give the minority view undue weight.

A NPOV article on a minority topic should have 4 "sorts" of content (i do not mean in form of blocks or sections):

  • Describing what the majority (mainstream) view is
  • Describing what the minority (fringe) view is
  • Describing what the majority thinks of the minority view and its promoters
  • Describing what the minority thinks of the majority view and its promoters

So provided that the content comes from reliable sources, adding content for these 4 parts is not POV pushing, it's trying to keep NPOV. So what is POV pushing anyway ?

To me it seems that "POV pushing" or let's call it reducing NPOV can be:

  • deleting content for either one of these 4 sorts to "keep the WEIGHT"
  • giving a prominent place to either of these 4 sorts
  • describing or implying any of these 4 sorts as untrue

What do you think about this ? --POVbrigand (talk) 12:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

While nothing you say above is wrong, you do start off with a misconception about the policy... You state: "We must discuss the mainstream view and the minority view". Not quite right... The policy is that we must discuss all significant views... we don't have to discuss non-significant minority views (per WP:UNDUE) Of course this does not answer the question of whether a particular minority view is "significant" enough to mention or not. Blueboar (talk) 12:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree, like Jimbo said here tiny minority should not get mentioned. --POVbrigand (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Eliminating tiny minorities, the analysis is basically correct but with two caveats. (1) To correct an error, it is not POV-pushing to give a prominent place in minority-view articles to the two "sorts" of minority-view content per WP:UNDUE: "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space." (Obviously deletion may be used as a tool for significantly overweighted focus on aspects of the minority view inconsistent with the space given aspects of other minority views in their own articles; but there the policy is reliable sources instead.) (2) Application to any particular article (such as the article the original poster is probably involved in debate about) requires local consensus and application. You may also be interested in a related thread I just started, as per my comments at this page's talk you may not get much response here. JJB 16:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Your structure of:
  • Describing what the majority (mainstream) view is
  • Describing what the minority (fringe) view is
  • Describing what the majority thinks of the minority view and its promoters
  • Describing what the minority thinks of the majority view and its promoters
by its very nature gives equal time to minority views—as well as giving the minority view the last word. Many editors mistakenly believe (or advocate for their POV pushing purposes) that "he said-she said" constitutes NPOV content. It most certainly does not. VєсrumЬаTALK 16:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
I did not intend it as structure, I only classified the "sorts" of content. And yes, in an article about a minority view, the minority view can get much more attention than in an article about the majority view, where the minority view only get a WEIGHTED mentioning, if any at all. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
@JJB, thanks for noting - I should have written "giving a prominent place to one of the 4, but denying a similar prominent place to another", well that's a dead giveaway for not being NPOV. Of course grossy overdoing one "sort" is not ok. An article about a fringe topic that starts with: "OK, the mainstream doesn't believe this, but ..." is surely not the way to do it. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Nigel Farage

A poor article. I have particular NPOV issues with the 'Views on the Euro' and 'Quotes' section added yesterday in Nigel Farage, the UKIP leader. Both appear to be a list of editorially selected links to primary sources -please feel free to disagree. If I'm right, I'd like some help finding a suitable template to explain to other editors and advice on a better source. I can't possibly summarise 300 odd links. I added "primary source" to 'Views on the Euro,' removed by Special:Contributions/ so I added 'Views on the Euro' note on the talk page. The template was once again removed as it referred to the whole article, not just the section.
I'd like to delete the quotes section and replace views on the Euro with a summary of a BBC Question time discussion as it shows his views and his opponents responses but this has disappeared. A youtube video is available from UKIP but has comments. Would you suggest I gave the BBC details of the broadcast omitting the UKIP link? Thanks in advance JRPG (talk) 21:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


Looking for help with Neutrality of Company article

I created an article for the company I work for Mirus Futurues LLC. The first article I created was marked for deletion due to neutrality. I have since gotten the page back on my user folder and have removed sections that I could see as being bias.

I would appreciate it if other editors could take a look at the page and make changes or suggestions so that I can move the page live once again without worrying about it being deleted.

Here is the page url:,_LLC

Any help would be appreciated.

Slosh3719 (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the article and the references except reference number 2 wouldn't open because there were too many redirects to the page. Most of this article reads like an advertisement contrary to WP:ADVERT. There are no references cited for most of the article and none of the references cited looked like reliable secondary sources. Instead, the references seem to be blogs or press releases. As a result, the article does not have a neutral tone in contrast with WP:NPOV and the subject does not appear notable. See WP:Notability. You might review these (and other) sections of [WP:NPOV]]:

Explanation of the neutral point of view: Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as "neutrality" means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them clearly and accurately.

Attributing and specifying biased statements: Biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and cannot be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre." Opinions must still be verifiable and appropriately cited.

The article uses terms such as "reliable," "fast," "constantly searching," "Mirus believes." These suggest an advertisement. What have reliable secondary sources such as the New York Times or Time Magazine said about this company? That is what you need to look at and write about. Also, I am not sure what the limitations are about editors posting articles for which they have a conflict of interest. Other editors may know this. Good luck.Coaster92 (talk) 05:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the information you have provided. I went through and trimmed a lot more out of the article. One question I did have is on information that is true, but only displayed through the company website. For example, the opening section about the founding. I dont believe a secondary source has ever printed that. Can it not be included unless a secondary source somewhere has printed it?
I'm not sure why the reference links did not work for you. I just tested them again and they all seem to be working fine. Any additional help you can provide on this would be very appreciated. Do you know if there is a way for me to go about having other editors work on the article? Slosh3719 (talk) 20:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:Verifiability, information from self published sources can be used in some circumstances. The problem with this company is that there don't seem to be any reliable secondary sources that cover it, in which case the subject is not notable and the article would be subject to deletion under WP:Notability. This is the policy I found about when self published sources might be used:

Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves: Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as: 1. the material is not unduly self-serving and exceptional in nature; 2. it does not involve claims about third parties; 3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; 4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources. This policy also applies to pages on social networking sites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook.

To get more help, you might try posting a note on the conflict of interest noticeboard WP:COIN or posting your article idea on WikiProject. Here is a relevant section of WP:Conflict of Interest I found:

Suggesting changes to articles, or requesting a new article: See also: Wikipedia:Suggestions for COI compliance An editor with a conflict of interest who wishes to suggest substantive changes to an article should use that article's talk page. The request edit template should be used; it must be added manually to the talk page. When making a request, please consider disclosing your conflict of interest to avoid misunderstanding. To request a new article, you can present your idea on the talk page of a relevant article or WikiProject.

I still think a major problem is the lack of notability of the subject. Good luck.Coaster92 (talk) 04:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

WOT Services, Ltd.

On page WOT Services, Ltd. a user operating through 7 proxies tagged the article as 'advert'. Inappropriately so, in my opinion. The unknown user fails to sufficiently motivate his/her actions, and neglects my invitations to adjust any POV, so I reverted the tag several times. Please see for yourself, thank you. WeatherFug (talk) 11:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record, where was it that you invited the IP to "adjust any POV", besides edit warring with them in the article? You also seem to have neglected to inform them of this thread, which I will shortly correct. I don't believe that the user is operating through a proxy, the IPs appear to belong to an internet service provider. SpinningSpark 13:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
See Revision history of WOT Services, Ltd.[4] for my invitations to mr. ever-changing-Nepalese-IP (ok, it may be different from proxies but the obfuscating effect is kinda similar), I wrote "if you find any obvious promotional content, please do make an effort to rewrite it, if you can", "I'd rather see proof than loudmouthing", "Then please substantiate your allegations, if you can", and "Come on, rewrite any POV to NPOV, if you can.". Well, he didn't. And I happen to think that he does not really intend to do it, because he knows is unable to add any content to the article that meets Wikipedia standards. All he did is take advantage of this situation and copy his allegations and hyperlinks on Wikipedia again. I will answer mr. ever-changing-Nepalese-IP within a few days, I am busy in real life. Best regards WeatherFug (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Those are all edit summaries. The IP has posted on the talk page. You have not replied. It is really rather inappropriate to bring the matter to a noticeboard without even a cursory attempt at discussion. My apologies to the regulars on this board, I was asked on my talk page to intervene in an edit war and it has spilled over here. SpinningSpark 23:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Dear Spinningspark, my apologies if I didn't meet the etiquette, but I think it's useless to discuss unproven allegations. The only question here is a very simple one, concerning NPOV: does the article read as an advert, or not. Who is to decide, and where? WeatherFug (talk) 12:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It is a PPPoE connection without static IP. It sounds as if anyone who disagrees with the WOT system is some kind of malicious spammer, who's views have no validity.

There are several sources of criticism cited in the talk page by other users. Some of those pages criticizing the WOT system have been downvoted as phishing sites because they take a critical view of myWOT. Take a look at the review forum (, especially some of the longer threads where site owners are asked absurd requests from the technically illiterate. There are examples of people with alternative medicine sites being flagged as phishing sites because users disagree with the content. Despite all of these available sources(listed on the talk page) of criticism, there are a measly 3 sentences listed under 'reviews'

"The rating tool has received favorable reviews in the press, sometimes with mildly critical remarks.[3][4][5] Some people vent more harsh criticism, saying the system is too susceptible to faulty results caused by targeted, malicious efforts of biased users. The company claims the system is extremely difficult to abuse and says that attempts usually get noticed.[6]"

This sounds like minimizing, and in Wikipedia terms, I would describe that as containing 'weasel words'. Other users posted critical sections to the article, which were removed. Those may or may not have been appropriately worded for the Wikipedia standard. I will not debate that. I am not an expert of Wikipedia, and I did not create those edits. It stands to reason that those edits would be replaced by a more appropriate summation of criticisms, instead of being deleted all together. That is, unless there are no valid criticisms of myWOT as it exists beyond reproach. For those reasons, I had flagged the article as sounding like a PR piece.

I admit my biases in this situation, and have no problems with stepping aside to let someone more objective examine the issue. I wonder if Weatherfug can say the same. It appears from where I stand that the user Weatherfug is towing the myWOT party line, or at least looking at the issue with an uncritical eye. Why was the article flagged as Advert in the past, if there are no concerns to be addressed? Are we to accept that fans of the service have decided that it is no longer a PR piece and a balanced representation?

Quoted from the talk page: "Another response to this article was posted here Convello 10:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC) With very little research, a lot of bad user-experiences and interesting in-depth reviews can be found and would probably need to be represented on MyWot page. An in-depth look at MyWot system illustrated with information taken directly from MyWot Another review of MyWot Complete blog dedicated to exposing MyWot flaws A response to this article exposing abusive ratings An entrepreneur gets crushed by MyWot ratings Convello 10:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)"

Some of those are overly hyperbolic. However, it does not mean that no valid criticisms exist. It is telling that the only critical sections available involve a legal judgement that myWOT has won and the minimizing text I mentioned above. Wikipedia should not be a platform for this group to whitewash public opinion. Fans of the service should not take the final decision on the objectivity of the article.

Dear mr. ever-changing-Nepalese-IP , You have your answer at [5]. WeatherFug (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Article on Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh

I am asking for assistance from administrators to investigate the article on Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) for POV. The article on Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a Hindu nationalist militant paramilitary movement, is denying that the movement's well-known violent political behaviour towards Muslims in India and mostly focuses on its philanthropic efforts towards Hindus, stating in the intro that all statements on its violence are "alleged" - meaning that they are contested. This is not supported by mainstream sources. Efforts in the talk page to address the controversial aspects of the RSS have failed, the discussion descended into angry rebuttals, assumption of bad faith in violation with Wikipedia policy, and character assassination against Wikipedia users. The Encyclopedia of War Crimes and Genocide on page 186 includes evidence compiled by the internationally-respected Human Rights Watch that says that during the 2002 Gujarat violence, "A plot to uproot the Muslim population of the state had been underway for some time: the RSS had circulated computerized lists of Muslim homes and businesses that were to be targeted by the mobs in advance." [6]. This has not been the first time that the RSS has incited violence against Muslims - it vouched for the demolition of Babri Masjid mosque in 1992 against fierce opposition by Muslims, resulting in the ancient mosque being torn down and eruption of violence between Hindus versus Muslims in which the RSS took part in anti-Muslim violence that resulted in the Indian government banning the RSS. The RSS has claimed that non-Hindus - including Muslims - are not considered by the RSS to be citizens of India and rejects any citizenship rights for non-Hindus, because it claims that the only "true" citizens of India are Hindus.--R-41 (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The RSS is a highly controversial movement in India, for instance there are multiple books by scholars on fascism such as Stanley Payne, Walter Laqueur and others who investigated the RSS' connection with fascism - such as the former RSS leader's praising of Hitler's "purification" of Germany into ethnic German-only citizenship that he claimed should be a model for India to become a Hindu-only citizenship, as well as investigations that have uncovered that the RSS was inspired by Italian Fascist youth organizations. It is well-known to have participated in planned violence against India's Muslims, this needs to be stated in the intro, and material outright denying this needs to be removed from the article.--R-41 (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Arana-Southern Treaty

The article Arana-Southern Treaty is about a treaty that ended the Anglo-French blockade of the Río de la Plata, a XIX century conflict between Argentina and the United Kingdom. Although the conflict was not related to the Falkland Islands, some historians think that it may influence it.

The article includes several external links at the end. Cambalachero removed them because, with the exception of the first one, and the "Historia de las Relaciones Exteriores Argentinas..." one (which Cambalachero turned into a footnote) the others are merely generic links to "history of the falklands" pages, which do not contain a single mention of the treaty. Cambalachero thinks that such pages go against WP:ELNO item 13 (same as if we include generic pages of Argentine history). However, the author of the article, Nigelpwsmith, insists to restore them. I would appreciate uninvolved opinions.

Cambalachero insists on claiming that the above Treaty was derogated. He provided a link to a foreign history page provided by the Argentine Government, but he is unable to provide any proof that the Treaty was derogated. The Treaty was added to Wikisource and is still in effect. It has been quoted by numerous sources as proof that the Argentine Government acquiesced on British sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. I believe that Cambalachero is making alterations without any validation or corroboration to support the Argentine position which is untenable. I have repeatedly asked him to desist from making these alterations and even suggested that if he feels strongly about his points he should alter the Argentine Wikipedia only, but not the English version.

He has included some interesting information which improves the overall article. However, his actions recently have been nothing more than unsupported vandalism to support a political and nationalistic point of view which can not be validated or supported by external documents in the UK. In fact, I do have documents in the UK which support the claims I've made.

Title: "False Falklands history at the United Nations: How Argentina misled the UN in 1964 - and still does". Cambalachero questions whether this is a neutral and unbiased document? He agrees that there is Argentine nationalism towards the islands, but there is British nationalism as well.

Yes the reference does present the facts from the British point of view and the view of the Islanders, but it highlights the deliberate lies put forward from the Argentine side. User Cambalachero is admitting the Argentine nationalism towards the islands and in the documents. The British documents show a different version of the truth. The page was added to Wikipedia the Arana-Southern Treaty, because it shows a glaring omission by not including the history of the treaty and what it says about the legal position with respect to Argentina's claims. However, nothing which Camalachero has provided shows any proof that the treaty was derogated in any way. Especially not by the British Government, who included it in their released papers. He makes unsupportable claims that it was when it was not and then tries to say that at least he has external links - when those external links are biased and incomplete, belonging as they do to the Argentine Government (or rather an Argentine educational establishment).Nigelpwsmith (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC) I re-iterate, there is no proof that this treaty was derogated by the British. I accept that the Treaty was not added to Wikisource by the British Government, but it was added from Volume 37 of the British and foreign state papers - a verifiable source. Nigelpwsmith (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I accept that both sides to this dispute have strong nationalistic claims. However, Cambalachero has to provide proof that the Treaty was derogated by Britain - otherwise his alterations are just unsupportable claims. Even the Argentine Government source does not show that the Treaty was derogated by the British. Merely that diplomats discussed it. Diplomats discuss a lot of things, but it is Governments that make pronouncements on Treaties and this treaty is still in effect.

As neither side is willing to agree on the point of the derogation, I would like to make the following proposal to Wikipedia. Either Cambalachero provides the proof that the British Goverment derogated the treaty, or the paragraph on derogation is removed altogether and the document locked.

Can I also suggest that Cambalachero creates a separate page titled the 'Hotham Mission Saint Georges (August 1852)' and reference that to the Argentine source and remove the Derogation section of the Arana-Southern Treaty.Nigelpwsmith (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

True Finns

Some prominent members of this Finnish political party have made colorful statements on the record. At issue is if they should be mentioned on the party article. There's been a slow-running dispute for a while; I think it could benefit from the attention of outside editors. a13ean (talk) 13:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

This is an older post but I don't see any response here so far. Reviewing Wiki policies seems to lead to the conclusion that these statements are not appropriate in this article. The statements are peculiar to the speakers and do not purport to assert the position of the party. They just happen to be made by people who associate themselves with the party. WP:Relevance states:

On Wikipedia, relevance is simply whether a fact (in an article) is useful to the reader and is in the right article. If a fact is not relevant to the topic of the article, it should not be mentioned in that article. This does not mean it can not be mentioned in some other article. Mentioning things that are irrelevant to an article's topic can give them Undue Weight.

Per WP:Relevance of content

Wikipedia articles should be written in summary style, providing an overview of their subject. This overview may touch upon several related topics or subtopics, but any details not immediately relevant to the primary topic should be moved into other articles, linking to them if appropriate. If coverage of a subtopic grows to the point where it overshadows the main subject (or digresses too far from it), it may be appropriate to spin it off into a sub-article.

These statements seem to belong in articles about their speakers, not in this article.Coaster92 (talk) 03:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I would agree; comments made by individual party members may or may not reflect the perspectives of the party as a whole and as such belong (where due) in their articles as individuals. Unless, of course, one individual's comments have gained either widespread documented support by party members in general or in some way have created an issue that the party has responded to in some official manner, in which case it has become a party matter and suitable for the party page. Autumnalmonk (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Bruce L. Edwards

Talk: Bruce L. Edwards

This article was created and has been maintained unimpeded for 5 years by Aslandad, who is Bruce L. Edwards per: Aslandad "It is a personal photo of myself."Part of the WP article is copied verbatim from this website: Bottom of page: "Bruce L. Edwards is Professor of English and Africana Studies…" I'm sure he doesn't know he is violating any policies as the bottom of the WP article shows that he is transparent about writing his own article with the heading: What I am Interested in Besides C.S. Lewis. Didn't seem to be any point in posting on the talk page, as there are no entries there, so in case someone here is interested and has time to address any issues, I'm posting it here. Thanks, Agadant (talk) 02:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

BTW:I ran across it while researching for the Joy Davidman article, but don't want to get personally involved with making changes to the article, as I have used his work as one of the references. Other points: The Bruce L. Edwards article uses no references and has a link farm for External links. Agadant (talk) 12:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
He certainly seems notable enough to have an article... and as an article, it is not actually all that bad (although it does need sources - I have tagged for that). I have cut the personalized "What I am interested in" section (that belongs on his user page, not in the bio article). Blueboar (talk) 17:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Svan people


  1. Talk:Svan people#source (+Talk:Svan people#Ethnic groups)
  2. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#user:GeorgianJorjadze reported by User:PlatonPskov (Result: ) and
  3. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:PlatonPskov reported by User:Kober (Result: ).
  4. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts #Svan people — Preceding unsigned comment added by PlatonPskov (talkcontribs) 18:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

User GeorgianJorjadze (and Kober) they refuse to constructive discussion, GeorgianJorjadze waging a war of edits without explanation (other than as a game with rules: that there is no consensus. However, I have arguments. They - no.)

I need help! --PlatonPskov (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Repeat problem editor injecting POV in article

I recently had to revert an edit by user:Lexlex at the Parents Television Council article for inserting POV against the PTC in the article. Lexlex has been inserting this original research, non-neutral claim for months now, dating back to January. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 00:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I read the NYT article and the diff. I didn't read the WP-article. The NYT article seems a reliable source for showing that there is a POV against the PTC. NPOV means showing all significant views, so this view against should also be shown. There might be a (tiny) bit of synth or implying in the deleted content, but the general idea of the NYT's article should be visible in the WP-article somewhere. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Just because material is critical of the PTC does not make it POV-pushing nor should that by itself prevent it from being included. If the material is reliably sourced and an accurate reflection of what is in that source then it should be included. The goal is not to have an article entirely complimentary to the subject, the goal is to present, from a position of neutrality, all reliably referenced viewpoints. Autumnalmonk (talk) 12:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
I just read the NYT article and there is a problem with WP:OR here. user:Lexlex seems to have taken the number of contributers reported in the NYT article and the population of the U.S. (from some unknown source), made an independent calculation, and is reporting that information. The only thing attributable to the reference is the number of contributers in the parenthetical statement.
I would suggest that, rather than simply edit-waring and risking sanctions, that you use the article talk page and clearly and tactfully explain your objections as based on WP:OR. Autumnalmonk (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Andrewlp1991, I have requested you to post in talk so we and other editors can work this out - and am frankly perplexed by your actions here. Simply pulling significant content with no notice because you don't like it isn't something I've seen you do elsewhere. What gives? I am more than willing on good faith to dig into sources to make specific cite clarifications, etc. if you ask - especially since this article is actively tweaked by many and regularly vandalized, but give me time. Talk about it! My goal is to make this a balanced article. I started because it seemed only to parrot PTC marketing material and was overly glowing. With a source like the New York Times and others directly contradicting many claims, it seemed ripe for a re-write. I will be careful Andrew, and will ensure my sources match, but dialogue is required to make it work. Would you care to move this to the talk page and perhaps we can start again? Lexlex (talk) 03:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Achieving NPOV on Vietnamese article with different American and Vietnamese views

Sorry if this is not the right board. I am seeking assistance in resolving a NPOV dispute on Vietnamese article about the organization Viet Tan. The equivalent English achieved NPOV by stating both that the Vietnamese government considers Viet Tan to be a terrorist organization, while the US government does not. However, the Vietnamese version only states the view of the Vietnamese government. Attempts to rectify this with many verifiable sources continue to be completely reverted. AFAIK, paragraphs with references should not simply be reverted to achieve NPOV, but instead should be modified instead. This NPOV has been raised multiple times on the corresponding talk page already to no avail. I couldn't find a Vietnamese version of this noticeboard. What are you recommendations? Jaydeek (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The different language versions of Wikipedia are separate entities, with different policies and guidelines... and those of us here on the English version have no say in what happens on the Vietnamese version. They could have a vastly different NPOV policy than we do (or even no NPOV policy at all). Blueboar (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Wow, that is surprising. I thought that the policies are the same for all languages. Thanks. Jaydeek (talk) 01:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
They do have a lot of commonality and as far as I can see the Vietnamese one is about equivalent in its policies. But yes about the only overlap in the various versions as far as control is concerned is that User:Jimbo Wales has a page on the English Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation is in overall control but have devolved everyday running to the individual versions, it would have to be some common fairly bad overall problem or some good new idea to engage their attention. You'll need to fix any problems within the Vietnamese Wikipedia itself rather than looking elsewhere for content issues like this. Dmcq (talk) 08:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Disabled Veterans National Foundation

This article looked terrible, had several single-purpose accounts, and has been in the news recently. I did a massive cleanup, which was reverted by one of the SPAs. I started a talk page discussion, but I'd love some oversight to confirm I made a net improvement. tedder (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Comparison of rugby league and rugby union

Hi. There is a disagreement on the neutrality of the lead in the Comparison of rugby league and rugby union article. There are a few issues, but the major one revolves around the use of a quote:

"Thirteen-man rugby league has shown itself to be a faster, more open game of better athletes than the other code. Rugby union is trying to negotiate its own escape from amateurism, with some officials admitting that the game is too slow, the laws too convoluted to attract a larger TV following."

— Ian Thomsen, The New York Times, 28 October 1995, [1]

Some editors are claiming that the use of this quote in the lead violates WP:Lead and WP:NPOV. Another editor is saying that it is a reliable, third-party source that summarises the article, so it should be in the lead. The full discussion can be found at Talk:Comparison of rugby league and rugby union#Quote in the intro. It would be good to get some opinions from people who are not part of either the rugby union or rugby league Wikiprojects. AIRcorn (talk) 08:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I've played both codes. The quote is undue weight in the lead, and in any case is 17 years old: much has changed in that time. - Sitush (talk) 08:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I've also played both codes, but that could hardly be less relevant. As you would expect with an article of this title, the lead deals with issues such as rugby union's amateur history as opposed to rugby league's professionalism, the differences in gameplay between the two codes and the result on their physical demands, as well as from a spectators' perspective. This quote (from a source whose neutrality is beyond question) therefore seems remarkably at home there. The date also appears alongside it for all to see. According to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."--Jeff79 (talk) 09:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Haven't played either! The quote is interesting and relevant, but also out of date. It should be introduced with something like "in the 1990s one commentator said...". Shouldn't be in the lead. No quotes in the lead. Should be in a paragraph later on. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) My point was disclosure, given that I am not a member of either of the projects that are referred to. I can well imagine what the article covers but have no intention of looking at it because it will be the usual Us vs. Them palaver. I do not deny that the quote has may have a place in the article, but it has no place in the lead section - and that is apparently the bone of contention here. It is an op-ed. - Sitush (talk) 09:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Do we have to report a false claim as true from a certain POV

[7]Argentina claims as a "fact" that a civilian population was expelled from the Falkland Islands in 1833 but the contemporary historical record shows this claim to be false. I have an editor claiming that to meet WP:NPOV we have to state the Argentine claims as a true fact "from the Argentine POV". At present the article merely notes the Argentine claim but notes that show this is contradicted by contemporary records (both British and Argentine btw). Wee Curry Monster talk 11:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

"contemporary historical record" from 1833 needs to be interpreted, even if it is argentine records. So when you state that contemporary historical record shows the claim to be true you are leaving out the question of who it is that is stating that this is the case. Presumably current pro-Argentinian experts makes no such claim?
The fact that we are reporting is "...Argentine population that Argentina claims was expelled after the re-establishment of British rule in 1833". Which is an uncontested, and easily sourced, fact, ie. nobody is claiming that Argentina is not claiming this. NPOV requires us to report all significant views, and the Argentine view is certainly germane to this discussion, so we can not leave it out. Taemyr (talk) 12:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
A few thoughts on this... first we (Wikipedia editors) should not be interpreting "contemporary historical records from 1833"... that is known as Original research... what we should do is report on the interpretation of published historians.
As for POV... we don't report on the claims from an Argentinian POV - we report on both the Argentinian and British claims from a Neutral POV. To put this another way: We (Wikipedia editors) must be neutral when reporting on the non-neutral claims of our sources. The best way to do this is through attribution. Tell the reader exactly who says what. For example... we might say: "Argentinian historian Juan Doe Y Smith contends that the Islands contained an Argentinian population that was expelled after the re-establishment of British rule in 1833 <cite source>. British historian Jane Jones disagrees and contends that the islands were unoccupied at the time <cite sources>." (note... ... obviously, I am making this up here... you would have to adjust the exact wording to match what the sources actually do say). Blueboar (talk) 12:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks guys, the article currently pretty much follows the guidelines you suggest. It reports on Argentine and British claims from a neutral POV, there is no WP:OR as the claim is attributable to a reliable secondary source. In answer to Taemyr, we do report the Argentine claim, we don't assert the Argentine claim is untrue but merely note that its contradicted by the historical record. This would be primary sources such as the logs of the two captains involved (Pinedo of the ARA Sarandi, Onslow of HMS Clio) and other contemporary records such Charles Darwin and Captain Fitzrpy's diaries, the Falklands census and the diary of Thomas Helsby. Then there are secondary sources such as the History of the Falkland Islands by Mary Cawkell. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm the editor Wee mentions in the first comment. The discussion is still going because I'm not convinced by the arguments presented. Simply put, the sentence that fails to convince me is the last one in this paragraph: "Argentina argues that the islanders do not have the right to self-determination, arguing that they are not aboriginal and are descendants of those brought in to replace the Argentine population that Argentina claims was expelled after the re-establishment of British rule in 1833, although this claim is contradicted by the contemporary documents relating to the occupation.". It wasn't referenced at first but now an editor has added a source. The source says:
Laurio H. Destéfani, The Malvinas, the South Georgias and the South Sandwich Islands, the conflict with Britain, Buenos Aires, 1982. pp. 97-98. (The author tracks the fate of the Argentine settlers who stayed on the Falklands after 1833, quoting contemporary sources such as the Argentine Augusto Lasserre who visited the islands in 1857 and 1869.)
I argue that the use of this source is WP:OR since it doesn't actually say anything about a contradiction of any claim whatsoever. The author of that book does not say that he has found that the contemporary documents contradict the Argentine position(*). That conclusion is, as I see it, drawn by the editor(s).
So far around 4 editors have told me my interpretation is not correct. What am I missing here? Thanks. Gaba p (talk) 23:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
(*) I haven't read the book and I don't have online access to it since Google doesn't show me a preview. I asked several times if someone could transcript the part of that source where it states that "that claim is contradicted" but nobody did, so I have to assume it doesn't exist. Gaba p (talk) 23:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Indo-European and Baltic languages

There is a group of editors trying to push a POV on the position of two language groups in the Indo-European languages tree, namely, the Baltic and Slavic languages. I have been observing this behavior for a few years, and it is obvious that the is a systematic ignorance of an increasing number of provided references, that the proposed Balto-Slavic group of languages within the IE is not a widely accepted view but rather a topic of ongoing debate and discussions. On the Talk page there are a number of reliable references, which list Baltic and Slavic as two individual branches of the IE. Also, there are ongoing disputes in articles like Baltic languages and Balto-Slavic languages. Especially there one can see that users Dominus Vobisdu, Ivan Štambuk , Angr, and most recently - Heironymous Rowe, have been systematically ignoring the provided references, and by collaborating, providing SYNTHESIS of their preferred literature are publishing their OR.

The latest example of this manipulation and WP policies misusing is here:

Somebody with the right experience in the field and also in handling nationalism-flavored disputes would be appreciated in this dispute that ultimately has to be settled.Count du Monét (talk) 08:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Balto-Slavic may not be universally accepted, but surely it is widely accepted unless every book I've ever seen came from a cranky minority. (Admittedly they're all at least twenty years old.)
Did you really intend to show one of your own edits as an "example of this manipulation and WP policies misusing"? —Tamfang (talk) 19:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Psychotherapy page

The psychotherapy article needs a balanced critique section. The current article contains a section called "criticisms and questions regarding effectiveness" in which a few random studies have been cited, and a laundry list of random arguments are put forward. It is not a comprehensive precis of the effectiveness literature. The article neglects a wide body of work that points to a) the success of some types of therapy with specific types of disorders, b) discipline-agnostic characteristics of therapist behaviour that contribute to success, c) superiority of psychopharmacology & psychotherapy combined, vs either intervention on it's own, d) characteristics of clients/patients that seem to benefit most from psychotherapy, and e) vested interests of stakeholders in swinging research to one side of the debate or the other and other inhibiting factors - consider the two APA's, the various laws and licensing authorities, the separate academic communities in psychiatry, philosophy, social work, occupational therapy, the professional jealousies, the profound neglect of mental illness and psychological wellbeing in public health and health insurance, and the impact of the pharmaceutical industry's deep pockets on the dominant discourse.

Please note that I am editing anonymously in protest against the tyrrany of the editing majority. Wikipedia's non-negotiable, amateur editor norm might be appropriate for certain article categories, but in more nuanced technical spaces there is invariably a segment that make nuisances of themselves by wanting to debate every word and angle. I have watched the development of articles on schools of psychotherapy since the early 2000s, and I'm afraid time and multiple amateur edits have not improved them much. In the specific case of psychology their mistakes add to the perception that this is a wishy washy discipline void of a body of knowledge and ANY facts. I suspect that this is partly why self-respecting people who are knowledgeable don't want to be involved in what is otherwise a very worthy undertaking.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:52, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Sections headed "Criticism" are rarely conducive to achieving NPOV in articles. I wondered whether this section could be renamed "Effectiveness", and then positive, negative and neutral/nuanced academic views on effectiveness could all be included. The only bit that didn't seem to fit was the last paragraph about feminist, constructionist and discursive views on power, which could be expanded and go under a heading "Power", incorporating recent approaches in psychotherapy that address these critiques. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Donald Tsang

Donald Tsang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I request your comments on Talk:Donald Tsang for an on-going RfC to decide whether the title "Sir" should be used in the lead section. It should be noted that the subject himself does not use the title.Nearly Headless Nick {c} 10:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

  • I feel that the second sentence of the above post patently fails WP:NPOV and could be in breach of WP:CANVAS, and should be removed. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I have stricken off the problematic statement based on bb's commentary on ANI. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 16:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

1RR proposal at circumcision

I invite editors to this proposal for a 1RR restriction to the circumcision page: [8] Pass a Method talk 16:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Ramapough Mountain Indians page - NPOV/Close Relationship


I want to highlight an article that, I think, is hopelessly lacking in a neutral point of view - 'Ramapough Mountain Indians'. From the looks of the talk page, there's a long history, with, ramapoughnative1, a member of the "tribe" (not meant as scare quotes - they're not officially recognized (and that's a part of the problem)) engaged in a multi-year edit war against everyone else who try to edit the article into something resembling neutrality. The article appears to have been tagged in the past with either NPOV or Close Relationship (or both), but the tags have been removed by ramapoughnative1 as everyone else has given up in the face of his dogged resistence to a more neutral article.

I don't have the time or expertise to edit the article or engage in a edit war, but it's one of the most slanted articles I've seen on wikipedia, and I have no dog in the fight - I was just checking the page to settle a wager with a friend regarding whether the Ramapo Indians were part-Dutch or not. I think that those invested in the neutrality of wikipedia would want to intervene.

Thanks, D.R.Z. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I asure you my friend .. you have lost your wager. We ARE recognized by the states of NY and NJ and the Supreme Court. It's because of people like you with your tired comments who have to question who we are that makes me so mad and aggressive. Why are we Indians the only people that have to have more proof than any other race to show who we are? It is especially frustrating when we didn't have a written language and the only proof you people understand is what's in your books. You are correct in one thing.. You don't have the expertise so...have a good day. Ramapoughnative (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
one more little tidbit.. I have not a drop of Dutch blood.. but i do have Irish. John Suffern, the founder of Suffern, NY was my 6th great grandfather. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramapoughnative (talkcontribs) 16:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Martyrdom of Polycarp

What am I supposed to do with this? I mean, I don't want to just revert it, there's good info in there with actual references. But it's also formatted horribly and is written rather non-neutrally at parts. SilverserenC 08:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Looking here, I see that it is a part of one of those school projects. I want to be helpful with a new user, but I don't know where to start with this. SilverserenC 08:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Greenwashing and bias in BP article?

Hi there, Would anyone here be willing to add their 2 cents at the BP article? It appears to me that there is 'greenwashing' in the intro and editors are unwilling to allow a more neutral read.

This is my change which was labeled POV:

BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence.
In 1997 the company became the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change, and in that year established a company-wide target to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases. BP currently invests over US$1 billion per year in the development of renewable energy sources, and has committed to spend US$8 billion on renewables in the 2005 to 2015 period. By comparison, BP invested $8.5 billion in exploration and production of fossil fuels in the year 2001.

This what how it looked before:

BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence. In 1997 it became the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change, and in that year established a company-wide target to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases. BP currently invests over US$1 billion per year in the development of renewable energy sources, and has committed to spend US$8 billion on renewables in the 2005 to 2015 period.

To me it is obvious that to mention only the investments in green energy and to be unwilling to mention (the vast majority of BP's) investments in petrol is classic greenwashing in on no way neutral. These stats for BP's petrol investments were the only ones I could find in a pretty exhaustive search online. However, there is an employee of BP who is giving suggestions for the article, he might be willing to help with those numbers. Secondly, the statements about green energy appear tacked on to the "BP has been involved in..." as a rebuttal. It makes no sense for these unrelated statements to even be in the same paragraph, unless in fact some editors do want this page to make BP look good. petrarchan47Tc 22:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, [here] is the link to discussion. petrarchan47Tc 22:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC) You might take note also that the editor who favors the more biased (imo) paragraph is also taking direct suggestions from a BP employee on how to improve the article. petrarchan47Tc 22:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

IMO the statement about the amount BP spends on exploration of fossil fuels puts its monetary amount spent for renewable energy in proper perspective. I agree that the sentence should be added. Otherwise undue weight is given to its renewable energy efforts.Coaster92 (talk) 04:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Do editors here also take these opinions to the discussion page of the articles in question? I am wondering how this works, as the editors on the BP page don't quite see things this way.petrarchan47Tc 04:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
This is #4 from this page, above: "Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Give a link here to that discussion, and the final answer to your question will be posted there where other users can read the result." Hopefully, some other editors will give their feedback here and you can take a summary back to the article talk page.Coaster92 (talk) 05:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
That is most helpful, thanks.petrarchan47Tc 06:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Are statements for a sources notability POV?

At Ramapough Mountain Indians an editor insists that a statement by the first of a long list of sources say "*Herbert C. Kraft Considered a "Noted Scholar" by peers in his field". I am not arguing that this isn't true, Kraft's an expert, but that this form of wording is pov and argument by authority. I suspect that there is quite a bit of pov in the article. The main editor is a member of the tribe who is, understandably, quite sure they are right about everything to do with the subject - a read of the talk page is recommended. If I ever have time I'll take a more thorough look at it. Probably quite a bit of OR also, I just reverted an obviously OR recent edit by the same editor but this isn't NOR. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Its not a WP:NPOV issue per se, to state that someone is a "noted scholar", "preeminent authority", or even a "tribal expert", if WP:RSs back that up. — GabeMc (talk) 05:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Also, being a "member of the tribe" does not exclude the editor from being NPOV. As far as the AbA concern, is the editor the source for the article, or do third-party reliable sources verify the material? — GabeMc (talk) 05:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
As it was written, the use of "noted scholar" would seem to imply additional weight should be given to his views in the paragraph concerned; simply describing him by profession would be more neutral. Part of the problem is that the section concerned is currently a sequence of eclectic statements presented as bullet points, rather than as decent prose describing the different perspectives. Some of those bullets are definitely POV in tone. If it was rewritten, then the prominence of the most respected or authoritative academic opinions could be highlighted in a more encyclopaedic fashion. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for this, it is a clearer restatement of the problem as I see it. I agree it should be rewritten. Right now it's almost a list. I'm not sure how to go about it and I suspect that it might be difficult. Dougweller (talk) 08:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Another example of what I think is pov (and OR) is a statement about a BIA report added by the editor 3 years ago, which says "The BIA failed to recognize the written eyewitness accounting of former county judge James M. Van Valen in his book History of Bergen County", published in 1900." This is an observation by the editor and thus OR, but it's also IMHO a pov comment, part of an argument the editor is making about his/her tribe. Dougweller (talk) 09:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I have written exactly how it was stated in the links provided but no one bothered to read them. It is not WP:POV when I am copying what was written. I have provided the links and still you have persisted to call it 'Puffery'. Regardless if i'm a member of the tribe or not, if it's written as such and verifiable, explain how it is POV? Ramapoughnative (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

As far as the part about the BIA, how would you write it? The information was supplied them but not utilized in their decision. (Since then, we now know why. It had nothing to do with our history and everything to do with the state's concern for Casinos.) Ramapoughnative (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

You've been pointed to WP:PEA and the supplment at WP:BETTER#Avoid peacock and weasel terms which explains how to handle this. The article now reads " a professor of archeology at Seton Hall University who conducted extensive studies of the Lenape" which is much better. As for your question about how would I write the part about the BIA, I wouldn't. There have been many times when I'd like to point what what someone overlooked, but as that is my observation it would be original research. Without a reliable source pointing it out, we leave it out. Dougweller (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Senator_letter.pdf My link for my above statement. also, WP:PEA states.. "The examples given above are not automatically weasel words, as they may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, where the article body or the rest of the paragraph supplies attribution. this is what is followed.. The BIA statement is not "my observation", it is fact because of their statement "None of the interested party or third party comments provided substantive proof that the earliest proven RMI ancestors descended from a historical tribe of North American Indians. Therefore, the third-party comments were not directly pertinent to criterion 83.7(e)". I am not here to discuss the opinions of the BIA, just present the facts. It is a fact they ignored eyewitness accounts from verifiable sources. Ramapoughnative (talk) 16:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Also i consider this "The article now reads " a professor of archeology at Seton Hall University who conducted extensive studies of the Lenape" which is much better." This is your POV, not mine and I find unacceptable as it is not how it was written in the links I provided. Ramapoughnative (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

"With the death of Herbert Kraft in 1999 and that of C. A. Weslager several years ago, we lost the leading Lenape-Delaware historian-ethnographers of the latter decades of the 20th century." This the description of Kraft from "a Kansas Delaware and a former Kansas Delaware Chief and and now Ceremonial Chief." on their website Still think he's just an archeologist? Ramapoughnative (talk) 16:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you find it unacceptable because it isn't the way you like it is I'm afraid irrelevant. Not only do you not have consensus for your preferred text (see WP:CONSENSUS it is pov. No one has said he's "just an archeologist", and it is not a good idea to put words into other editor's mouths.
As for the BIA, if they didn't use any of the third party comments, then we shouldn't be singling any out. Perhaps this is a pov problem rather than an RS one after all. Dougweller (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

You did! (16:37, 31 May 2012‎ Dougweller (talk | contribs)‎ . . (38,579 bytes) (-32)‎ . . (→‎Historical perspective: remove 'noted scholar', we should never try to use adjectives in this way to make someone sound authoritative) (undo)) Is this not your name on the edit? So the only argument you can use as a defense is WP:Consensus? Total BS and you know it. Despite the fact it is documented as such and 'not' implied, you want to go with your opinion of what is WP:PEA, contrary to what is described within as valid.. Discussing this with you is pointless and we need a third party to get involved who's unbiased. Ramapoughnative (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Please learn to WP:Indent. That is my name on the edit, it clearly does not say "just an archeologist". And note that the article history shows 4 editors, including me, disagreeing with you. So are all of us biased? Is editor Hchc2009 who posted above also biased? You've had a 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th party already. Dougweller (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Ramapoughnative, I'm straying a little from the NPOV noticeboard purpose here, my advice would be to focus on the structure of the historical section. If it began by describing, in its own words, rather than lots of quotes, the mainstream, modern view of the Ramapough Mountain Indians's origins pre-1790, you'd have a good couple of initial paragraphs. You could then explain that there are differing views about whether there has been continuity in the group over the entire period, especially 1790-1830. You could then neutrally describe Kraft and Pritchard's position - that there was continuity - and Cohen's view - that there wasn't. Many of the other named individuals in the section could probably be reduced to footnotes or eliminated altogether (e.g. Pierson, who doesn't seem very significant in the debate). This would set the scene for the Bureau of Indian Affairs application section, although perhaps cleaning up the structure and perhaps reducing the long quotes a bit? You'd then have a neutral article, but which captures (if I'm reading the material in the article correctly, I'm not a specialist) the point that a majority of the academics agree with the continuity argument. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
thank you Hchc2009. All I asked for was clarity. Every link I posted a valid link, it was met with a WP:whatever and not explaining their issue with it. Kraft had many lifetime achievements and should be respected for his accomplishments. He was top professor at Seton Hall (a scholar) and most of his work was the basis for other's work. He is recognized by the state of NJ and as well by various Delaware Tribes. (well known and respected) How does this not equal "Noted Scholar"? David Cohen was Herb Kraft's student. Ramapoughnative (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
@Dougweller.. mincing words now? "Archeologist Herb Craft" = 'just an Archeologist' when you don't recognize his achievements. Ramapoughnative (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. And you are dropping insults all over the place, please stop it. It's against WP:PEA and seems totally unnecessary. Why is it so important to you? You have 4 editors disagreeing with you at the article, you can't just ram it in. Dougweller (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
where are you seeing insults? I have not posted one insult to you yet.. Believe me if I were being insulting, you would know it.. What I can't understand is if it's in print as such in a verifiable source, why you're fighting so hard to exclude it. It was not my description but the description from others in print. If this is considered unusable, then it seems any source can be challenged by anyone who doesn't like what you print. Now i have others questioning federal documents and a lawyers submission to the Supreme Court as POV.. Totally ridiculous. Ramapoughnative (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for using indent, it makes threads easier to follow. "Mincing words" and "What language did you think we spoke before 1st contact, english?" are what I mean by insults. Now back to the issue. It isn't whether it is true or not that is in question, no one is questioning the fact that Kraft is considered an expert, the issue is about what we call puffery. I note that yet another editor has posted to the article talk page with links to puffery. We need to be careful that we aren't telling readers that one author is right and the other is wrong. As I've said elsewhere, we want to avoid a situation where we have "notable author x says y, not very notable author a says b, and dubious author c says d". What is wrong with Fat & Happy's wording? Dougweller (talk) 05:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I think it would be satisfactory.. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramapoughnative (talkcontribs) 00:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I think we can put this to bed. Ramapoughnative and I hope to work together to improve the article. Dougweller (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Cynthia Tucker bio

This sentence from the Cynthia Tucker entry requires little consideration before being removed:

"She blogs regularly but no one reads her drivel"

Further in the article, her characterization as a "radical leftist" is very debatable by anyone familiar with her writing. This sentence should be edited to include "considered by some" or be completely rewritten to reflect an objective POV.

No need to respond, I am not engaging in discussion. I am simply trying to report this & I do not see a simple place to do so.

Thank you (whoever) for your effort and consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Those cracks were inserted two weeks ago and have now been undone, possibly because of your nudge. —Tamfang (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Rich Nugent

I have edited parts of the Rich Nugent page, but was still looking to see if I can could get another opinion on this one, Nugent's page reads like someone who is a supporter of his has written it, I've removed some unnecessary detail that was on there but this really needs a look at by the board. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Americium-con (talkcontribs) 02:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, where to begin. The article reads like a promo or campaign ad for Nugent and needs to be rewritten with a more neutral tone.Coaster92 (talk) 05:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
A user just cleaned a lot of the article up - see here. I think that it is better now because of recent attention. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


A couple of editors are insisting that the term feminazi is not comparing feminists to Nazis. The rest of us think that's absurd, but User:Paul Barlow, one of them, just removed a link to reductio ad hitlerum from the article, calling it unsupported. I feel that when you call your opponents "nazis" you have committed the reduction ad hitlerum by definition; but wish to get some outside input on this before we get into a real edit war. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

  • This is the edit in question: [9]. I deleted it because it was original research. If there's a source for the claim that the term is a form of reductio ad hitlerum then let's see it, and restore the sentence to the article (sourced). The Sound and the Fury (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I added two good sources to the talk page thread. Let's see how that goes for the article's editors. Binksternet (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Orange Mike is completely misrepresenting the issue. 'Feminazi' is a comic-polemical portmanteau word design to piss-off feminists. It does even apply to all feminists, only those deemed extreme. So it is not comparing feminists as such to Nazis at all, but alleged hard-liners among them. My argument is that this is the same as many other similar expressions, such as “health Nazi” or “fashion Nazi”, which refer to alleged extremists with dictatorial inclinations in those areas. No one doubts that this involves a comparison to Nazis. But the argument is that this is not an example of the Reductio ad Hitlerum, a logical fallacy in which a particular point of view is condemned because it was shared by Nazis. It's as absurd as saying that “fashion Nazi” [10] is a Reductio ad Hitlerum, and then 'disproving it' by expaining that in fact the Nazis had no special interest in haute couture. Even leaving aside the obtuse humourlessness of such an argument, that would be actually the opposite to the Reductio, comparable to Steinem's quoted words on the page (i.e. 'we are not Nazis because our views are quite different', whereas as the Reductio depends on sharing some views). Of course if you can find a source that says it is an example of Reductio, it can be included and attributed, though it would remain my personal view that this is a logical error and misuse of the concept. Whatever the case, it is not the case that "when you call your opponents nazis" you have "committed the reductio" by definition. That only applies to a particular type of logically fallacious comparison, not to any comparison. Paul B (talk) 08:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Agree, but going further than that, I think that it is using a newer meaning of the word "nazi", (which arose from but isn't Hitler Nazism) e.g. from "a person who is fanatically dedicated to or seeks to control a specified activity, practice, etc." North8000 (talk) 12:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Ought we redact Soup Nazi etc.? The modern use of the word is much broader than the WW II use now, whether we approve or nay. I certainly think it may be objectionable, but on a Wikipedia scale - it passes. Collect (talk) 12:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
What strikes me is that the line in question is part of the "Criticisms" section of the article. At the moment it is an unattributed criticism - which means it is being made in Wikipedia's voice. That is a POV problem... Wikipedia should not criticize anything in its own voice. Instead, we should neutrally report on the criticism of others. This is done by attribution. In other words, we need to tell the reader who objects to the term as being a "Reductio ad Hitlerum". Blueboar (talk) 12:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
First of all, even if original research were allowed on Wikipedia, the claim that feminazi is an example of reductio ad Hitlerum would be problematic. That is because examples of reductio ad Hitlerum are necessarily association fallacies. But that is not even relevant here, since original research is not permitted on Wikipedia. Therefore, whether the claim should be made in the article is not issue of neutrality, but of original research (Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Reductio ad Hitlerum). --Joshua Issac (talk) 19:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Again, this can be resolved through attribution. I would assume someone outside of Wikipedia has complained that the term is an example of "reductio ad Hitlerum" (and if not, then mentioning it would be giving this complaint UNDUE weight). Blueboar (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
We got there in the end. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Shen Yun Performing Arts

This edit is being disputed, on the grounds that my removal "Basically calling into the question the editorial independence and integrity of the newspaper without evidence."[11]. I'd just like to establish whether a performance write-up, not a review and not sold as such, should be used to endorse a glossy description of a performance. I mean, is it sufficiently reliable or neutral to be used in this manner; or ought it to stay go? --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Some salient points: the review in question is here[12]. It's published in the entertainment section of the St. Paul Pioneer Press, and is written by a regular arts critic for the paper[13]. Ohconfucius wrote in his edit summary that it was an "obvious advertorial" as a reason for deleting it. It is not an advertorial. It is a theater review. Advertorials are advertisements and are labelled as such. Calling a theater review an advertorial is tantamount to impugning the editorial independence of the writer and/or the newspaper. Homunculus (duihua) 05:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

David Irving

I find it hard to believe that the article on David Irving meets WP:NPOV by any stretch. I tried putting the not-NPOV tag on it, but it was quickly removed. In part because I did not provide a list of specific things that make it clearly NPOV. This is due in part to the fact that the NPOV issues with the article will be *obvious* to anyone who has read it- and because the Talk Page and Talk Page history are filled with examples of NPOV objections (which went unresolved.)

I am neither pro nor anti-Irving, per se. But after reading the article I was left with the strong impression it was one of the least "balanced" and "fair" articles I'd read in some time. I'm listing this here so any fair-minded editors/admins can take a look at the page and decide for themselves whether they think it meets Wikipedias WP:NPOV stance. (Especially enough for it to qualify as a "Good Article".) Emeraldflames (talk) 03:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The article appears to reflect the preponderance of scholarly opinion. You would need to specify your concerns, because they are non obvious. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you Emeraldflames. That whole sector of Wikipedia en is biased and written and controlled by opponents of the groups and living people. Here is a list of the contributors if you want to investigate. There is no chance to do anything about it through editing, I suggest promotion in the public realm of the sector balance might be a better solution than attempting to edit it. It is impossible to write an informed neutral article about such contentious people or groups under English Wikipedia's current guidelines. The policies and guidelines are not strong enough to stop people coming to attack them, and such people have a lot of opponents, so rather than write a neutral informing article about the person , their opponents want to use the Wiki project to attack them - and that is what is happening in this sector - as happened in the climate change sector and the new religious movements sector and anything "fringe" - any attempt to correct the content bias is lengthy and massively disruptive and rises to Wp:arbitration before it is dealt with.Youreallycan 04:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Re: Fifelfoo, it is difficult for me to believe that anyone who has read that article believes it is even remotely fair and balanced. But I'll assume good faith.
Re: Youreallycan, I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, but what you said was the impression I've been forming. Especially after reading the Talk History of the article, I realized that my attempting to edit it would be pointless. I figured the only other thing I would do was to list it here and on the "Good Article" forum. (Although, I think it violates WP:BLP as well.) Thanks for your feedback. Emeraldflames (talk) 06:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I eagerly await your analysis of how and why the article fails to meet our policy. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I can't see how one could 'balance' his stuff like the TV stations try to do. At least with Hitler you could say he got people working and developed industry and patronised a style of art and architecture and patted little children on the head sometimes. What's there to say about David Irving that would make the article more 'neutral'? Dmcq (talk) 09:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia requires that even Satan get a neutrally worded article - which means Irving is worse off than Satan. Saying :we can;t find anything good to say about him at all" or the like is a direct statement that NPOV is allowed to be ignored. It isn't. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Irving is notable for his engagement with historical writing. The preponderance of scholarly opinion regarding Irving's engagement with historical writing has a clear and overwhelming opinion, and the WEIGHT to hold such a view, and the article we have seems to present this opinion. As Collect observes, we don't get to debate the value NPOV here (major policy reviews happen elsewhere). The article presents and centrally weights the key and singular scholarly view regarding Irving, just as required by NPOV. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
A good number of the editors of the article have made statements consistent with great disdain for the person on the Talk pages- and it certainly shows in their work. It shouldn't take much beyond the first sentence to see how overwhelmingly POV/hostile the editors are to the subject.
Let's just take the first three paragraphs: The editors have decided that a)he's not even a historian (some say he's not- others say he is- that isn't for WP to decide whether sources say it or not), b) that he denies the Holocaust (which is an apparent oversimplification of his actual position- and something the subject has denied. Again, not WP's job to decide that, whether sources say it or not.)
Surely his positions on the holocaust deserve a special section, since a lot of notoriety was created from that. A criticism section is obviously justified. But the entire article is almost singularly *devoted* to his controversial views on the Holocaust. And it does it *over* and *over* and *over* again. Just about every section is colored by it.
I don't know this subject terribly well, but based on some of the discussions in the Talk page history, it seems like- apart from his views on Jews- his historical work and expertise have been established. There are also plenty of examples in the Talk Page history of other criticisms of the objectivity of the article. Emeraldflames (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
So you don't know the subject well, but you claim to have mastered the current scholarly opinion on Irving's work sufficiently to criticise the article's correct implementation of NPOV. Wikipedia follows the preponderance of scholarly views, and dismisses FRINGE claims. People that suppose that Irving is a historian hold fringe views. This view may change, the position that Irving is not a historian has changed from the early 1970s, but the article reflects the current scholarly consensus; which is its obligation under NPOV. You seem to have a problem with our NPOV policy, the correct place to discuss major policy change is the village pump. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I know enough to know that some of your characterizations aren't true. For example, I checked online and have seen many mainstream (not fringe by any means) sources refer to him as a controversial historian. That's just one point though- there are numerous other issues with the article. But this isn't a battle that is worth fighting to me. The article is what it is. Emeraldflames (talk) 02:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
The standard for scholarly articles is the current scholarly view; not newspaper characterisations. The Lipstadt trial, and its reception by the community of historians, is a clear and overwhelming indication of Irvings current professional status. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I really don't understand this claim that the non-neutrality is supposed to be "obvious". Neutrality is defined by the major points of view taken toward a subject by reliable sources. Unless you expect everyone to be familiar with the mainstream literature that reviews Irving and his work, I don't see how whatever you see is going to be obvious. I mean, of course it is obvious that the point of view of the article is decidedly anti-Irving, but if that's the only significant viewpoint, then it's the neutral one as well. We're not going to sugarcoat the article and hand Irving a lollipop because the big bad historians were mean to him. If you think there is a significant viewpoint that is neglected by the article, or that the mainstream viewpoint is misrepresented, then it's your job to show that. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality means that articles reflect how subjects are reported in reliable sources. Generally mainstream sources say very little good about people who promote far right fringe views and find themselves imprisoned and deported or barred from liberal democracies for their activities. However, for this discussion to go forward, you need to provide specific examples. TFD (talk) 04:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
A neutral point of view ought to be maintained *regardless* of how a subject is reported in reliable sources. The point of view of the article should *not* be decidedly anti-Irving. And there are quotations that others had wanted to add to the article that were more sympathetic to Irving which were denied. This was one of them:
Judge Gray on Irving
"As a military historian, Irving has much to commend him. For his works of military history Irving has undertaken thorough and painstaking research into the archives. He has discovered and disclosed to historians and others many documents which, but for his efforts, might have remained unnoticed for years. It was plain from the way in which he conducted his case and dealt with a sustained and penetrating cross-examination that his knowledge of World War 2 is unparalleled. His mastery of the detail of the historical documents is remarkable. He is beyond question able and intelligent. He was invariably quick to spot the significance of documents which he had not previously seen. Moreover he writes his military history in a clear and vivid style. I accept the favourable assessment by Professor Watt and Sir John Keegan of the calibre of Irving's military history (mentioned in paragraph 3.4 above) and reject as too sweeping the negative assessment of Evans (quoted in paragraph 3.5). But the questions to which this action has given rise do not relate to the quality of Irving's military history but rather to the manner in which he has written about the attitude adopted by Hitler towards the Jews and in particular his responsibility for the fate which befell them under the Nazi regime.

Emeraldflames (talk) 06:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Emerald, what do you think neutrality is? I get this feeling that when I say neutrality and when you say neutrality, we are actually talking about different things. Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Neutrality isn't about being kind, or balancing "bad" opinions with "good" opinions. That's a writing strategy for journalists with no spines. But regarding the Judge's comment, can you link to the discussion that decided it would be excluded? Someguy1221 (talk) 07:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Exactly! WP:NPOV does not mean we have to go out of our way to treat somebody nicely, or to pretend that their views are rational or backed by the facts, when the overwhelming preponderance of evidence is to the contrary. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Emerald: I’m not clear what the problem is either, as far as neutrality is concerned.
The article starts by saying Irving “is an English writer”, “best known for his denial of the Holocaust, who specialises in the military and political history of World War II, with a focus on Nazi Germany”; that “His work on Nazi Germany became controversial because of his sympathy for the Third Reich, antisemitism and racism” and that “He has associated with far right and neo-Nazi causes”.
That seems pretty accurate, and a "fair, proportionate and unbiased" description of the man. What exactly is the problem?
It is hardly a breach of neutrality if an article on a con-artist says "x was a con artist" (viz) or one on a serial killer saying "y was a serial killer" (viz); why is this one un-neutral for describing Irving in the way it does? If that is what he is notable for, then that is what the article will (and should!) say.
And why is it an admin issue? If you have specific concerns about neutrality they should be discussed on the article talk page, preferably (seeing as the issues are self-evidently not self-evident to the majority of people reading this) by responding to the request for specific issues and suggestions. Xyl 54 (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
The serious writing about Irving is overwhelmingly negative about him - he's been found to be a falsifier of history and a Holocaust denier, for instance, and he has no credibility as a 'historian' as a result. See, for instance, Richard Evans book Telling Lies About Hitler for a good example of the poor regard in which he's held. The article notes that some historians think that Irving's work is OK (though they almost always add some provisos in regards to his views on the Holocaust), but the general consensus is that he's discredited. As such, the article reflects the weight of opinion on Irving. Specific suggestions about areas in which the article could be improved would be more helpful than sweeping generalisations. Nick-D (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
The majority of editors here believe that the David Irving article meets WP's standards for WP:NPOV. I accept that and have pursued the issue as far as I intended to. Emeraldflames (talk) 01:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The inclusion of various incidents of discrimination/intolerance against Christians in Israel in regards to NPOV

The article on Anti-Christian Sentiment concerning Israel was recently rewritten to sound more like an apologist essay replete with WP:OR statements including reduced numbers and minimized frequency of incidents. One editor in particular has shifted NPOV significantly with her/his contributions. I have since tried to find a compromise and get the article back to encyclopedic standards. An RfC has also been opened. Feedback from a broad background of editors would be greatly appreciated in stating how NPOV can be achieved.

Here is a reference of the most significant edits concerning this:

  • The article previous to Avaya1's initial changes here
  • Avaya1's original edit here (After reading this edit, I began to contribute seeing NPOV sorely lacking.)
  • How the section reads today here

The discussion is currently taking place on the article Talk page:Anti-Christian Sentiment#Israel.

Thanks for any and all participation. Veritycheck (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: We still have a couple of issues to iron out to achieve a clear consensus. I would welcome the further participation of any editors who could drop by the talk page and leave their 2 cents worth.
Once again, the discussion is currently taking place on the article Talk page:Anti-Christian Sentiment#Israel. Thanks. Veritycheck (talk) 12:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian race controversy

This is an article under ArbCom sanctions. It was split from a larger article (which covers modern scholarship on this subject) and states at the top of the page "Please note: this is not the article for discussing actual evidence pointing either way in this debate. This is a "history of controversy" article: please discuss it in this way, bearing in mind academic consensus, this is not a referendum on Afrocentrism or Eurocentrism." When you edit it, there is a yellow message above the edit window that says "Please note: this is not the article for discussing actual evidence pointing either way in this debate. This is a "history of controversy" article: please discuss it in this way, bearing in mind academic consensus, this is not a referendum on Afrocentrism or Eurocentrism."

An editor with no previous edits arrived at it a few days ago and made major changes which were basically arguments about the "actual evidence pointing either way in this debate" and if they belong anywhere belong in Population history of Egypt. Attempts to discuss these on the article talk page and at WP:DRN have resulted in statements saying that the editors disagreeing with him are bullies, censors, etc although I and another editor have tried to explain the problems (I don't want to focus on editors' behavior, just pointing out that it is because of this behavior that am bringing this here). Last night the editor reinstated his version saying it should stay pending discussion. I was about to bring this here when that was reverted, so I want to discuss his earlier version and get more input. His version is at [14].

The first obvious thing is the use of quoteboxes. Our not-guideline on this says, correctly I believe, "As a matter of style, quoteboxes should generally be avoided as they draw special attention to the opinion of one source, and present that opinion as though Wikipedia endorses it." I haven't done much editing of this recently, but even before his edits there was too much use of quoteboxes (I'd remove most if not all of them), and his use of them in the lead and in the section on Modern scholarship made this worse and are, I and the other editor on the talk page, being used to push a pov as well as being in the wrong article.

Leaving aside the use of a block quote in the lead, he uses them heavily in his addition to the Modern scholarship section. This section starts with a paragraph stating:

"Since the decisions of the UNESCO Conference of 1974 several authoritative Encyclopedic references have made conclusive statements on the "race" of the ancient Egyptians based on contemporary research, which disputes those earlier claims. The 1984 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica concludes that the Negroid element of Egypt was stronger during predynastic times."

Wikipedia articles should clearly not be claiming that there are any 'conclusive statements' on a subject which is still disputed (and complex). There's an RS issue about Britannica which I may bring up at RSN, so we don't need to discuss that there, but the use of a blockquote from it is I believe not appropriate in any case.

The rest of his addition here is basically blockquotes. I can't see how an exhibition at the Fitzwilliam can be a conclusive reference to anything, but he firmly states that it represents mainline scholarship.

He also introduces a large blockquote about the introduction of sheep. It looks to me as though the original use of that source from the National Georgraphic wasn't accurate in that it doesn't seem to say what it is referencing, and I'll look at that and fix it if needs be shortly, but the blockquote was at best overkill in an article about the history of the controversy, which it doesn't mention at all.

I'm going to take the liberty of adding a post from Wdford on this subject: "SirShawn, the material in the "population history" article is all relevant here, as a "modern hypothesis", because there is still controversy and a lack of consensus among 'scholars". However this article was spilt a while ago, because it was getting too big. The basis of the spilt was decided - with much acrimony – to be along the lines of a “history of the debate” article and a “modern scholarship” article. It’s a bit arbitrary, but a split had to be made. "In line with wikipolicy, the “modern scholarship” section in the “history” article is thus just a very brief summary, with a clear link to the other article for those who are interested. Lovell etc are mentioned in the “modern scholarship” article already, as is the discussion about languages, skeletal proportions, DNA analysis etc etc. The short summary is supposed to be short, but you have been adding lengthy quotes (which co-incidentally all support a certain POV) while leaving out the huge corpus of scientific study which doesn’t support this viewpoint. Feel free to add your Lovell quote at the appropriate section of the “modern scholarship” article, alongside the info that contradicts her, but we don’t need to duplicate material across the two articles."

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

These are the edits that I've proposed to add [15]

Let me first start off by saying that every single contribution that I have made to that article are as mainstream and contemporary as it gets in regards to this discussion. In the modern scholarship section of the article I have added in the official statements of the "Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt", "The Encyclopedia of Archaeology of ancient Egypt", University of Manchester, "National Geographic" (which in itself cites a dozen scholars for their statements), and the Encyclopedia Britannica. The issues that several posters are having is that every one of these modern authorities have pretty much plainly come out in the support of the "black African" theory in regards to ancient Egypt. Their rejection of these sources is clearly a reflection of their own biased. Doug has attempted to argue that the contextualized (in terms of the social concept of "race" which is relevant to the article itself) statements by every one of those authoritative sources belongs in an article which is supposed to deal with individual studies dealing with strictly with biology and culture ("Population history" article). The population history section is dealing with conflicting individual studies, and almost none of which deal with "race" in the social sense. Doug is also hypocritical on what he perceives the purpose of the article to be. He states that it is somehow only to reflect the "history" of an on-going debate, while simultaneously acknowledging a section of the article devoted to MODERN scholarship and disputing the inclusion of the most MODERN and accepted theories in regards to Egypt's origins TODAY.

Interestingly enough another issue with the article is that a blatant lie in regards to a claim that modern Egyptians are "90%" genetically identical to ancient Egyptians is cited by a source that does not state it anywhere in the link. This claim prior to my contributions was posted THREE TIMES throughout the article (clearly a POV). Now why should that original research be repeated throughout the article, yet the contextualized (keyword) statements dealing with race of the Fitzwilliam, Oxford, Manchester, Britannica ect be excluded? It's makes absolutely no sense.

Another issue is that they are saying that my sources are basically biased to support my POV. Well is it at all possible that one particular POV is well...where the facts lay in regards to this issue? If not, then why not simply cite another modern institute of the same academic integrity (as the Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, Encyclopedia of Archaeology of ancient Egypt ect) which opposing contextualized statements? If it's really that much of a dispute amongst modern scholars shouldn't it be easy to cite other recent views, rather than censor the one side to make it appear as though no decision has been reached? Clearly there are emotional attachments to this issue, and imo anyone who wishes to censor any of those top notch sources should not be taken seriously.

One poster (WDford) attempted to say that somehow argue that including these sources were a POV because they were cited "Afrocentric" scholars. When I pretty much debunked that assertion (see the talk page), he nor anyone else responded.

As evident by the talk page these users aren't trying to be logical in their decisions. They are emotionally attached to certain ideas, and are simply trying to bully their views into place with a so called "consensus" to be unreasonable.SirShawn (talk) 21:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I think SirShawn's stuff is inappropriate for that article and should be in Population history of Egypt, And even there something should be done about removing the big quotes. Basically I agree with Dougweller that the split of the articles should be respected.
However I think the Ancient Egyptian race controversy would be helped by a bit of revision to make its scope clearer. The position of modern scholarship should be put at the very start and be more clearly a summary of part of the population history of Egypt article. The title 'Specific current-day controversies' is a bit strange, 'Current controversies' would be shorter. The history section could go at the end as it is historical. Dmcq (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for those suggestions. I've never been a major editor of this article and don't want to be, but I will do a bit more. SirShawn, despite being warned that this article is under probation, continues to edit war to include all of his desired version. In doing so he's ignored my edits, so he's removed from the lead "Recent studies suggest that the modern population is genetically consistent with an ancient Egyptian indigenous to northeast Africa." and replaced it with the Redford block quote, and in the body of the article he's removed my edit "In 2008, S. O. Y. Keita wrote that "There is no scientific reason to believe that the primary ancestors of the Egyptian population emerged and evolved outside of northeast Africa.... The basic overall genetic profile of the modern population is consistent with the diversity of ancient populations that would have been indigenous to northeastern Africa and subject to the range of evolutionary influences over time, although researchers vary in the details of their explanations of those influences." and replaced it with his 'conclusive evidence' material. He's misrepresented what I've said. He doesn't acknowledge, possibly because he didn't actually look at my edits (although I was specific about this removal in my edit summary & he uses edit summaries) but just put reverted to his version, that I'd removed the 90% claim (I apologise for not seeing a similar claim that says the same thing in a different way, but I would have if he'd discussed it). His edit summaries keep saying things such as "Other participants must be willing to discuss rather than running off." but discussion doesn't get anything but insults. Dougweller (talk) 05:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
National Geographic and Encyclopedia Britannica are non-scholarly tertiary sources which are incapable of bearing any weight in an article that ought to rely on scholarly field reviews; they are not appropriate to establish a scholarly point of view that bears any WEIGHT—their summaries and conclusions are not part of the neutral discourse on the topic. I have not looked into the other sources, as I have never seen a full citation on a noticeboard. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Fifelfoo why are you ignoring the fact that I've also cited statements from Fitzwilliam (University of Cambridge), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (written by Donald Redford) and the Encyclopedia of Archaeology of Ancient Egypt written by Kathryn Bard? Please explain how these are not authorities on the matter of ancient Egypt? Why would these sources not convey points that are agreed upon by most scholars, or in other words "fringe theories"?

Also interestingly I was not the one who initially the National Geographic page which contains S.O.Y. Keita's summarization of multiple scholarly works. That source was inaccurately being cited to support a claim of Demic Diffusion into the Nile Valley from the Middle East in the modern research section of the article. I took the exact same source that was misinterpreted and posted an actual passage from the article to verify what was truly concluded on the matter. That being the misinterpretation of that article is still being presented in the modern scholarship section. If there is opposition to the passage being presented from the national geographic page, then perhaps the misinterpretation of what is actually being said should also be excluded.

So what I propose is that rather than getting rid of my contributions they should be placed in the "black African hypothesis" section as a opposed to the current research section. SirShawn (talk) 09:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Provide adequate citations, amongst the other criteria required, on WP:RS/N and we'll see just how reliable they are. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Also please explain why the 2010 genetic analysis pinpointing the land of punt in Ethiopia/Eritrea continues to be deleted as well? SirShawn (talk) 09:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

This editor has now reinserted his block quotes which start with the obvious pov paragraph "Since the decisions of the UNESCO Conference of 1974 several authoritative Encyclopedic references have made conclusive statements on the "race" of the ancient Egyptians based on contemporary research, which disputes those earlier claims. The 1984 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica concludes that the Negroid element of Egypt was stronger during predynastic times." His edit summary says "Any objections to these contributions being specified in this section please explain why each individual source should be removed on the talk page" I and other editors have made it clear that Wikipedia should not be claiming 'conclusive statements', that the block quotes should not be used, that the Britannica is not a reliable source for this, etc.
SirShawn says "I've also cited statements from Fitzwilliam". This is not true. He is using the fact that the Fitzwilliam put on an exhibition which posted the question ""Were the ancient Egyptians Black?’ as we use the term in Britain today." as though it was some sort of source for what he refers to in the article as a 'conclusive statement', rather than just an exhibition. He also uses a blockquote for this tiny question. I think it may be time to go to Arbitration Enforcement, it isn't as though I and others haven't actually discussed these edits. Dougweller (talk) 10:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Frank L. VanderSloot

Request opinions on relative compliance with NPOV for these two edits: [16] (edit summary; that's not NPOV wording) [17] )edit summary: LGBT issues: NPOV wording)

The question is whether the linking of the living person to "Mormon pedophiles" by saying

he responded to a series on Mormon pedophiles working with children as part of the Boy Scouts of America.<]] by purchasing full-page advertisements in the investigating local paper criticizing the coverage and discussing, among other things, the sexual orientation of the journalist breaking the story

is more or less NPOV with regard to VanderSloot than is saying

he placed ads criticising articles linking child abusers with the Boy Scouts of America. Collect (talk) 07:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • WP:FORUMSHOPPING -- Collect has already been to BLPN and Jimbo's talk-page with this one. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Nope. This is a specific NPOV issue - and as such belongs here. Were I to raise it at BLP/N, I would be told it was not an issue to raise there. Cheers - but making such aspersions about intent when a noticeboard is being properly used to gain opinions fromothers is rather less than utile. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately it's true that you did raise it there. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
        • ROFL! Did you note who started the section on that page? GreyFell, not I. The issue as to the BLP content was raised by a different person - so accusing me of anything is simply absurd - this is the board wherein I suggested it was less than NPOV. And this is the board where such is a reasonable query to pose. BTW, making personal asides on a noticeboard is "not done" - the folks reading here do not wish to see wikilawyering done either as a rule. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

After reading the source on this topic, I think the first sentence linking VanderSloot to mormon pedophiles is fair considering that he took out multiple adds in the newspaper linking himself to the series via his critical full page ads. His bio does not accuse him of being one of them so imo it is OK in light of the weekly ads he had published in his name.Coaster92 (talk) 05:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you note the character of the "source"? Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
As I've stated at the recent BLPN post and on the talk page of the article. The sources are weak and this is not a major event in the context of this man's life. Therefore, it deserves only a minor and very neutral mention. Having read both sources, I consider the first (current) version to be highly inflammatory and non-nuetral. For example the first sentence says "among other things" but then cherry picks the most inflammatory aspect of the ads (the sexual orientation of the journalist) as reported by the newspaper that VanderSloot attacked (ie. the primary source). A neutral wording would be: "He paid for six full page adds which criticized that newspaper's articles linking child abusers with the Boy Scouts of America". Personally, I am not a fan of VanderSloot and I question his actions, but I will not support POV pushing on his BLP just because I or someone else doesn't like him.--KeithbobTalk 14:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

VS' actions are not in dispute. He took out the ads. His ads criticized and were in response to a series on mormon pedophiles. The first sentence is more accurate. The second attempts to shield VS from his own actions, which are undisputed. This is POV imo. The sentence and entire section are not out of proportion in his bio. Again, it looks fair in this case.Coaster92 (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I read the article completely and it appears the first text is indeed somewhat inflammatory. For example, the article never says the pedophiles are all Mormon. It refers to them as "Boy Scout pedophiles" and not "Mormon pedophiles." As written, the bio suggests VS was criticizing the paper for attacking the Church rather than for attacking the Boy Scouts. It's unclear to me what VS's rationale was for criticizing the paper (the story doesn't make this entirely clear), but it would be unfair to assume that he did so because he was Mormon. Also, context is important. The sentence in question is in a section titled "LGBT Issues." The ads he ran pertain to LGBT issues in that he devoted several paragraphs establishing that the author was gay and pointing out that the Church opposes gay marriage. The implication is that he criticized the reporting based on the fact that the reporter was gay. But the article doesn't actually say that. On the contrary it includes a sentence where VS says it would be unfair to conclude that the reporter's motives stemmed from his being gay. So what does the article really say about VS's views on LGBT issues? Not much really. Therefore inclusion of so much detail based on this article seems to demonstrate a clear POV bias in that it refers to a paid advertisement in order to tarnish VS's image by implication without appropriate detail on what was in the advertisement itself. To develop the section on "LGBT issues" there should be better sources than this. Coastside (talk) 06:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Metej Bel Univ. Student Organizations

I have tagged this article with a WP:COI tag since the major recent editor seems to have a close relationship with the subject which may make adherence to a neutral point of view difficult. As it stands, the "Student organizations" section, reads more like a promotional leaflet. Also most of the text in the "Student organizations" section is simply copied either form other Wikipedia articles or from Facebook fan pages of the clubs. I would like an unbiased third party opinion . Also I have a second problem, it is that every time I fix the article's (grammar, links, facts) the major recent editor puts the same things back. What should I do about it?SelomITC (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Moved the above post from the WP:RFC/BOARD Coastside (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I see a few places, like here, where someone is changing your good grammar to bad grammar. The content about student organizations does not belong. The debate about whether this is promotional or NPOV does not come into play because the information does not mean notability requirements because it is not verified in third party sources. I am deleting it now. It should stay gone until an argument for notability can be asserted.
For the grammar issues, post a note asking the person to talk to you about grammar on the talk page. I am sure that the person means well.
Thank you for posting on this board. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead on Kirsten Gillibrand

Engaged in a discussion regarding the relative length and the content of the lead on Kirsten Gillibrand. At this point we seem to just be going around in circles on Talk, so I think it'd be constructive if some other folks could weigh in. Thanks! Arbor8 (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

IMO the third and especially the fourth paragraphs of the lead contain more detail than a concise summary ("a summary of its most important aspects") as is indicated per WP:LEAD and could be scaled back. As a result there is a somewhat WP:UNDUE effect especially in paragraph 4.Coaster92 (talk) 04:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Soka Gakkai

Personally I am trying to stay clear to edit the article on Sōka Gakkai ... I am not sure if I can be called unbiased anymore, but the latest edits got rid of basically all critical views on this organisation ... could someone look into that? --Catflap08 (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

You do not specify which edits concern you but it looks like this is being discussed on the article talk page.Coaster92 (talk) 05:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

Dubious as to whether this edit is neutral or supported by a reliable source [18]. More eyes welcome. (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I replied on that article's talk page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Bluerasbery's comment on the talk page, i.e., the language of the edit in question is inflammatory in tone, not neutral, and not based on an accepted reliable source.Coaster92 (talk) 05:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Requesting assistance with Safetray

As creator of the Safetray page I have a conflict of interest in that I work for Safetray Products Ltd. After some debate about deletion the article is being kept, and I would like to ask more experienced Wikipedians to check it over for Neutral Point of View and for them to make any changes they deem necessary to ensure it meets Wikipedia neutrality guidelines, plus any other issues they might spot. Thanks very much for any help and advice you can give Carolinewhitham (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The tone of the article is sufficiently neutral in my opinion. And the article is an accurate statement of the information contained in the references. The article could use more development, which can happen as the product receives more news coverage in reliable secondary sources.Coaster92 (talk) 04:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your feedback! Carolinewhitham (talk) 11:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

"Erroneous" position in the Alternative Vote debate

User:Nemo20000 has been editing a number of pages about politicians who were on the "No" side of the United Kingdom Alternative Vote referendum, 2011. He will edit their page to put in that they were on the No side, which is fine, but then says that one of the arguments is "erroneous". The argument that particularly annoys him is that there will no longer be a "one man one vote" as minority parties will be able to vote for their candidate and after the candidate is eliminated then they can get counted again for their more mainstream second choice.

This is incorrect, as the record shows. I did not add the wording that they are on the No side, I have only reverted the usually anonymous removal of the word 'erroneous' and its legitimate citation. nemo (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The claim that this is erroneous is backed up by a briefing paper from the Political Studies Association. There is no page number given, although it seems that what Nemo is referring to is a section on page 10 "The claim that AV gives some voters extra votes is a fallacy". It firmly takes the point that as it only turns up in one final total that this means that there is no real value in a vote being seen more than once. It's a legitimate point of view, but I don't think that it's that authoratative that it can override the NPOV policy.

Some examples are John Reid, Stephen Mosley and David Cameron. There are more.

There are issues of WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE, but can we ignore these for the moment?

I could be wrong on this and have missed some subtlety in the policy, but I think that this is a fairly clear breach. However I think that the editor feels very strongly on this particular issue and this could easily become an edit war.

The editor is fairly experienced, having first made edits in 2007, but seems to have until recently not attracted any attention on their talk page, so I think they've avoided controversy and I think that it would be a good idea to be gentle.

JASpencer (talk) 07:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the summary of the situation. I also went to this user's talkpage and invited them to this board. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
The paper about voting does not mention particular politicians votes and therefore shoud not be used in articles about them. This is straight WP:Original research and synthesis. Dmcq (talk) 16:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Dmcq. We never go into the rights and wrongs of the policies that politicians espouse. We might note their political positions, but only where those are notable. If a number of politicians supported a campaign, it makes more sense to describe the campaign's position in its own article rather than in the articles one each politician. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unless we have a source that both reports what someone said and says it was erroneous, it is synthesis. Even if such a source is found, it may need to be expressed as an opinion not a fact. Also, a politician's position on AV is probably too unimportant to be included in their article. It is better to explain all the arguments and various positions in the AV article. TFD (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I apologise for any terseness but I had got a bit tired of anonymous edits and political arguments. This is not a matter of opinion or politics, but of fact. May I direct anyone unsure about the AV vote issue to the existing Wikipedia content on the matter, or if that's too long, go direct to MORI's document via this wiki citation (page 3). AV is also known as 'Instant run-off voting' and its Wikipedia article debunks the same myth.
So, MORI says the claim is erroneous, the University of Reading says it's erroneous, Channel Four News says it's erroneous, and the Michigan State Court have ruled it erroneous. This is rather more than what JASpencer would have as "a legitimate view but not authoritative". In addition, though not admissible as a citation, I spoke by telephone to the Electoral Commission themselves who said "Every ballot paper counts once in every round" and I encourage anyone unconvinced by MORI, Reading Uni, Channel4 and Michigan State to give them a ring via their main switchboard number (020) 7271 0500.
So the claim that AV gives some people more votes than others is erroneous. This is not a matter of opinion. It is akin to claiming that the Earth is flat. It is not, and a politician claiming otherwise does not make it "a matter of opinion"! As to its importance, this was an oft-repeated and defended position taken by a number of prominent politicians despite being completely and provably untrue. Mr Cameron in particular was vigorous in espousing this myth even when challenged by the BBC.
Secondly we come to the claim that "Unless we have a source that both reports what someone said and says it was erroneous, it is synthesis" (maybe the BBC's John Humphrys?). So we know A is erroneous, and we know that person B said A, but we cannot write that person B said the erroneous A? This is absurd and pedantic weaselling. If a politician were to claim that the Earth is flat, we would not be defending their "opinion" or dithering about NPOV.
Ultimately though, the fact that a collection of Wikipedia Editors should have any doubts about the issue is proof itself of its importance, the necessity of documenting the facts, and the requirement to promote the baselessness of the claim to any mention of it, rather than bury that fact in a linked article. Otherwise, readers will see "Joe Bloggs claimed that the planet Mercury is made of Titanium" and will probably not follow the link that reveals the absurd fallacy.
Spreading untruths is not what Wikipedia is for. nemo (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Putting in that citation and saying their claim is erroneous is against Wikipedia policy. And I'm saying that as someone who thinks their claim is silly. If we could stick that sort of stuff in then others would be also right in putting the other side in and then each of those articles becomes a WP:COATRACK for the argument. The argument should be in an article about the topic. Any more about it could only go in if the person had got into a debate about it and the debate was being reported. Wikipedia articles are not places for people to pursue their arguments, they should just summarize what reliable sources say about the topic of the article. Dmcq (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for responding so quickly. By "that sort of stuff" do you mean "facts"? Do you doubt the citations I have provided? As to others putting "their side", there isn't another side to a fact, they wouldn't be "right" to put in such a thing. That's the thing about facts versus opinions. As it happens, Cameron DID get into a debate on this issue with John Humphrys (link above), but I don't think a debate about whether the Earth is flat has any relevance to whether it is or not. Finally as we should "summarize what reliable sources say about the topic of the article" would you agree to David Cameron's article including reference to John Humphrys telling him he got this wrong? :-) I must also reiterate: Contrary to JASpencer's claim, I did not author these passages, I have maintained them against repeated anonymous edits - check the history. JASpencer's are the first attributed redactions. nemo (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
The BBC item about the interview with Cameron is probably okay but it should summarize what the people said rather than say Cameron was wrong. I would have thought it had rather too low a weight for the David Cameron article but it might possibly go in the United Kingdom Alternative Vote referendum, 2011 article. Looking at that bit from the BBC it didn't say what David Cameron said was wrong, it said John Humphrys said that what David Cameron said was not true, and it also said John Humphrys had been unclear about the point of contention. That is hardly a ringing endorsement of your position. Personally I think the citation is fairly worthless for anything.
Please do not start going on about the truth and that it must go in. We summarize what is in reliable sources about the topic and we don't drag in things which don't relate directly however important editors think they are. If you want to change the policy then Wikipedia talk:Original research is I believe the right place, but really I don't think you have a leg to stand on about this. I have explained why the policy is in place and we are not in the business of writing our own analysis dragging in whatever strikes our fancy. Dmcq (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
For what it's worth I think you're wrong in your analysis - this is not original research (surely you aren't dismissing MORI, Michigan State Court etc as "original research") so are we agreed that the point of contention is not whether the claim is untrue, but whether that should be part of the articles concerned? nemo (talk) 09:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Linking the Michigan case to the Alternative Vote referendum is original research (at least until someone show that it has been used in the actual referendum debate). Linking Mori or the PSA to individual politicians who weren't named in the reports is original research. JASpencer (talk) 08:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The Humphries debate is actually quite a nice illustration of Nemo's underlying problem here, and that is that he is misunderstanding the point - as Humphries does (although in a different way). Humphries (who the BBC later partially disowned on this) was proved wrong on two points. Firstly he claimed that second preferences would get counted for all votes whether they voted for one of the two main candidates or a knocked out candidate. This was clearly wrong. He also seemed to claim that there was only one round of counting as well as voting, although this may have been confusion or Cameron simply allowing the argument to be framed on his terms (something that appears to be happening the other way here). Both these claims are actually wrong on the face of it (as was Humphrey's claim that no other democracy uses First Past the Post).

It's a useful illustration as it shows that there is a misunderstanding of what the opponents of AV claimed. The idea that if you have 10,000 voters you would somehow have a 12,000 vote total at a later round was never made by Cameron or the anti-AV campaign (it may have been made elsewhere). However that is the argument that is being refuted by Nemo and the Political Studies Association.

The argument is that if someone's first preference is for Labour then her second preference won't be counted while if someone votes for a string of minor parties then there vote will be "seen" in a number of different rounds is the objection. It's also closely tied in with the argument that "extremists" are encouraged in this system compared to First Past the Post. In London I voted for a minor party and then a major one with exactly that expectation - first for who I wanted then against who I didn't want. That's why the Greens scored a good third place while most of their votes then went into an attempt to block the Conservatives afterwards. This is not the argument that is being refuted by Michigan which is about equal representation rather than how that equal vote is counted in many different ways.

But I don't want to dwell on the idea that you shouldn't claim that an argument is wrong by refuting another similar sounding but quite different argument. That's a political debate.

The argument is whether it's OK to claim that a viewpoint is erroneous when (a) the particular person was not mentioned and (b) there is only one source in a lively debate with a number of views. I think that this is a clear breach of NPOV.

JASpencer (talk) 07:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the section cited in the AV. Hopefully it's a bit better now, but it still needs work. JASpencer (talk) 20:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


There is a huge debate going on at Talk:Homophobia about the wording of "homophobia". Numerous editors have expressed concern over this wording and the pro-gay stance this article takes. However, myself and other editors are being bashed by the militant homosexuals on Wikipedia that consider all religious or conservative sources unreliable and want pro-gay liberal fodder sources to prove our points. I just want to make this article a little less biased and more centered. I want the title or a paragraph explaining that there has been disagreement as to weather homophobia is truly a "phobia". Most people that speak out against gays are not scared or fearful of them, but this is the exact wording of the article. EVEN THE LEAD PARAGRAPH DOES NOT MENTION FEAR! A phobia, by definition is a fear. Heck, some dictionaries even do not define opposition to gays as "homophobia". Homophobia is a made-up word invented my the militant homosexuals to label people with just reason to oppose gays. Call it anti-gay, or opposition to gays! That is my opinion, it reflects a NPOV, and many editors agree with me! AndrewrpTally-ho! 15:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It is, unfortunately, the sort of article which intrinsically can not be made NPOV as it involves certain sociological assumptions related to the topic. And this is not just true of LGBT issues - it applies to a slew of social, economic, political and religious articles. Collect (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
It may be hard, but it can't not be. Can we try to possibly include this differentiated viewpoint, as should be? "Their point of view must be mentioned if it can be documented by notable, reliable sources, yet note that there is no contradiction " AndrewrpTally-ho! 15:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I understand the phobia is internal, the irrational fear of one's own homosexual tendencies, this fear directed outward at others. Social theorist and professor Andrew Sparkes says that a change happened to the word "homophobia" in the 1970s, that homosexual behavior changed from being deviant to normal, and that prejudices against homosexuals became deviant. For those who think homosexuality is deviant, the old meaning is hard to give up. Binksternet (talk) 16:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Just because the title has 'phobia' in it does not necessarily mean the topic is a phobia per a dictionary definition. Wikipedia articles are about topics, not words. The article should distinguish carefully between internal states ascribed to people acting in a particular way and actual actions that might be due to such feelings. This is difficult as people are always ascribing reasons to actions and I think the article has gone some way towards it but there will always be this problem with things like this. It is perfectly possible for a person to commit a homophobic crime without having homophobic feelings or reasons and it is perfectly possible for a person to have homophobic feelings without doing homophobic actions. Dmcq (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Based on comments the OP has made at Talk:Homophobia#A_Mislead_Article_and_a_Good_Point. it appears they are WP:NOTHERE. a13ean (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Could we concentrate on elucidating possible issues rather than people's motives for just a little longer please. Dmcq (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There is already a section on the development of the term, and if reliable sources can be found, it may be interesting to document how the word came to refer to anti-LGBT sentiments, as opposed to very specifically a fear. However, Andrewrp and co. have utterly failed to provide reliable sources, and also to come at the issue from an appropriate angle (the question is not whether "homophobia" is a legitimate term - it is, because it's what's used in reliable sources; this "but I'm not afraid of gay people, I just hate them" is getting very tiresome - but rather how the term evolved). I don't see that this debate is going to go anywhere, due to the lack of interest on one side in complying with WP policy or working with others; it seems like Andrewrp just wants to take an opportunity to whine about "homosexuals" oppressing him. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 19:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, duh, it's a parallel with Xenophobia. Cf also Antisemitism, which is something of a misnomer in that it isn't hatred of Semitic peoples, but specifically hatred of Jews. "The meaning of a word is its use in the language."Itsmejudith (talk) 19:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Could I point out again that homophobia has also been applied to actions irrespective of internal feelings or motivations. Getting hung up about internal mental states would make a complete mess of much of that article. If a person is convicted of homophobic violence their internal mental state is not really relevant, and in fact it is quite possible thy did it for some other reason like wanting to fit into a gang. Dmcq (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Attacking an LGBT person because they are LGBT is homophobia, biphobia or transphobia despite the actual feelings of the person. If person A says to person B to attack person C to be part of a gang and person C was chosen for their sexual orientation or gender identity then it automatically becomes a form of discrimination. Technically if person C was straight and cisgender and was picked by an LGBT person that would be heterophobic.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 04:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
There is no phobia of any sort involved in the normal meaning of the term phobia or of the lead of the topic to homophobia. What you are describing is akin to racism which has become the current main meaning of homophobia. Since that has become the main meaning the way it is described should be more like the start of the racism or other .ism articles. However there is also an older meaning referring to a psychological fear which is covered by a separate term xenophobia in the racism article. This as far as I can make out is what people have tried to point out at the homophobia article but the current form seems to have been defended with a war type mentality. Dmcq (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I've been involved there. The core issue is that there two significant viewpoints regarding what is included in homophobia:

  1. That it be used to refer to true phobia, by the common meaning of the term
  2. Those who want to apply this "phobia" term to any and all opposition to homosexuality or to the societal normalization of it. Thus to call folks who simply think that homosexuality is wrong "homophobic"

That article both implicitly and explicitly makes and builds an article upon the unsourced and implausible assertion that #2 is the ONLY view. I've been trying to raise this issue and gotten very nasty treatment there. (A new version of wp:ver, you aren't allowed to challenge an unsourced unless you have sources to prove that it is wrong) They have been asserting that I needed to have sources to bring up that the article is built upon an unsourced assertion, and that I mis-behaving by continuing to say that such is not the case. Also have endured the usual range of nasty stuff like straw man misstatements of what I said, accused of being "disruptive" etc., saying that it is illegitimate for me to pursue this on the talk page, saying that I'm beating a dead horse, 100% inventing that I said there is a "conspiracy", etc.. After enduring all of that, I can see how this has remained unresolved despite this concern having been raised by an immense amount of people throughout the entire history of the article. Also because the "#2 is the only view" view is so deeply embedded in the article it will take much work to fix it. For example, it goes on the list any and all opposition to homosexuality as being "homophobia" and saying that in the voice of Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm the one who used the word "disruptive", but only after you'd been repeating yourself for nearly three months over the course of five separate threads. Per WP:IDHT, the word does apply, but that's a behavioral issue, not a content issue, and this isn't the best venue to discuss it. Suffice it to say that I have assumed good faith from the get-go and have tried repeatedly to respond constructively to the points you're making, as have several other editors, but you just keep asserting the same thing over and over, using only your own point of view to back up your assertions. Your claim that the article violates WP:NPOV by failing to include what you term a "significant viewpoint" has no evidentiary basis. If evidence exists of a noteworthy off-wiki controversy over the usage of the term "homophobia", then it probably would merit a certain amount of weight in the article. But if evidence exists, there will be reliable sources to show that it exists, and that—no more and no less—is what we keep asking you for. Without evidence, your assertion remains only that—your assertion. That you've been backed up by an ever-shifting array of IP and new-account editors who use pejorative terms like "militant homosexuals" to refer to their fellow Wikipedians and offer YouTube rants and Catholic catechism links as "evidence" doesn't exactly bolster your case. Rivertorch (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
More of the same tactics that have been used on the talk page. Again, you just ignored and sidestepped the main argument above which is not about adding new material, it is about an unsourced implausible assertion that is currently in the article, that #2 is the ONLY view. And in the final sentence you picked only the weakest cases of the immense amount of people who have pointed out the problem, and somehow imply that those are relevant to the issues that I'm bringing up and their validity/ invalidity. North8000 (talk) 19:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
North provide evidence or get off your soap box, this does nothing to aid the article and you are behaving inappropriately. You have been quoted multiple policies and ignored them all just to assert that the article is biased by not showing the "most common meaning", which still after 3 months is only in your head and completely unsourced. Source it or give it up. Thanks Jenova20 08:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
You have again sidestepped the main point. That the article has unsourced assertions that your preferred meaning is the ONLY meaning. North8000 (talk) 11:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
North your assertion of you being right does not allow you to ignore policy. You know full well and have been asked for 3 months to provide evidence and refused
Your arguments are not worth listening to simply because you know you need to prove your opinions but simply won't/can't.
Talk:Homophobia has 3 months of this. Thanks Jenova20 11:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
What you both just avoided / mis-stated again is that I'm talking about an unsourced assertion that is in (multiple times) the article. North8000 (talk) 12:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
North8000, we can't hear you over the lack of reliable sources to back up what you assert is so obvious. Without reliable sources no change you seek will occur. First present WP:Reliable sources then suggest how they can be used, this will solve the problem that you seem to have about asserting the truth yet providing no verifiability. Insomesia (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
My claim is that something in the article is unsourced. So you are saying that I'm supposed to find a RS that says that the statement in a Wikipedia article is unsourced? More of the same lunacy. North8000 (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Explain the logic to us of how you challenge an "unsourced" statement with another unsourced statement then North. Thanks Jenova20 16:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
You were asked by me, and you agreed to note any statements that needed to be sourced. You have thus far not done so. There is a section on the talk page created just for you to do so. No one is preventing you from improving the article. Insomesia (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I think this conversation has gotten off track. The initial post was talking about the article not having a neutral tone overall. Somehow this has gotten off on a discussion about specifically what people think the word means per dictionary references.
Let's take a look at what the article says in its own lead.
  • "Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality"
  • "Homophobia is observable in critical and hostile behavior such as ..."
  • "Recognized types of homophobia include institutionalized homophobia, e.g. religious homophobia and state-sponsored homophobia, and internalized homophobia ..."
Per the wide definition given in our Wikipedia article, even openly homosexual people themselves could be labeled homophobes if they have *any* degree of critical thought or speech toward anyone or anything homosexual. This seems to be a biased definition that has no real meaning. Per this approach, "anti-homosexual bias" seems to have the exact same meaning, yet the article spends a LOT of time dwelling on stong themes relating to violence and death and so-called hate crimes.
A very small part of the article near the bottom recognizes that a number of people feel that the use of "homophobe" or "homophobia" is an ad hominem attack, and that the theoretically-opposite word "heterophobia" is confusing for a number of reasons. I think the article itself provides the evidence that the definition is neither clear nor concrete, and is perhaps too sweeping a generalization for every anti-LGBTQ case. -- Avanu (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
How do you suggest things could be made more clear? Insomesia (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not an expert in this subject. Find an expert, rewrite the thing. First step is acknowledging that the article needs improvement. -- Avanu (talk) 17:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't see anyone supporting that there is no need for improvement, the point is what specific steps besides finding an expert would make it a better article? With North8000 we have been getting loads of generalized complaints and no specifics or supporting reliable sources. That's what we're looking for. Insomesia (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Please point out the part in the lead where it says that "all opposition to homosexuality" is "homophobia."

The current article states that the "definitions refer variably to antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, irrational fear, and hatred", modifying the "negative attitudes or feelings" in the previous sentence. (These definitions are all reliably sourced.)

Definition of homophobia according to the lead: Hatred (antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion are just more synonyms) and irrational fear toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT).

To add to Itsmejudith's comment, see:

....islamophobia Islamophobia is prejudice against, hatred or irrational fear of Islam or Muslims. A person who exhibits such prejudice is an islamophobe.

....xenophobia Xenophobia is defined as "an unreasonable fear or hatred of foreigners or strangers or of that which is foreign or strange."

....antisemitism Antisemitism is suspicion of, hatred toward, or discrimination against Jews for reasons connected to their Jewish heritage.

Antisemitism may be manifested in many ways, ranging from expressions of hatred of or discrimination against individual Jews to organized violent attacks by mobs, state police, or even military attacks on entire Jewish communities.

(in the Homophobia article: "Homophobia is observable in critical and hostile behavior such as discrimination and violence on the basis of sexual orientations that are non-heterosexual.")

While the term's etymology might suggest that antisemitism is directed against all Semitic peoples, the term was coined in the late 19th century in Germany as a more scientific-sounding term for Judenhass ("Jew-hatred"), and that has been its normal use since then.

(Yet, I don't see North8000 arguing on the Antisemitism talk page about how the article should be about Semitic peoples instead of Jews, if he's going to use the same logic to argue that homophobia should literally be about the fear.)

Andrewrp, "EVEN THE LEAD PARAGRAPH DOES NOT MENTION FEAR! A phobia, by definition is a fear. "

Read the definition again. Irrational fear is listed.

North8000: "The core issue is that there two significant viewpoints regarding what is included in homophobia:

1. That it be used to refer to true phobia, by the common meaning of the term 2. Those who want to apply this "phobia" term to any and all opposition to homosexuality or to the societal normalization of it. Thus to call folks who simply think that homosexuality is wrong "homophobic"".

1. To reiterated what Dmcq stated above:
"Just because the title has 'phobia' in it does not necessarily mean the topic is a phobia per a dictionary definition. Wikipedia articles are about topics, not words."
The common meaning of the word homophobia is antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, irrational fear, and hatred towards LGBT people, which is already stated in the lead. Irrational fear (phobia) is already mentioned.
2. Where in the article does it label those against Homosexuality as homophobic?
Currently the article states: "Two words originate from homophobia: homophobic (adj.) and homophobe (n.), the latter word describing a person who displays homophobia or is thought to do so."

I do not see anything "un-neutral" about this article, just as I don't see anything un-neutral about xenophobia, islamophobia, or antisemitism. Those are just articles describing the definitions.

North8000, the current lead (with reliable sources to back it up) is the definition of homophobia, get over it. You can't just change the definition of a word just because you happen to disagree with its meaning. Arguing about the meaning with no reliable sources to back you up is your POV ranting. It is plain unhelpful and just a waste of time. Twøcents (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

He was told he couldn't redefine the word using Wikipedia by me more than 3 months ago and still started a new argument about it after i told him to go to admin if he disagreed. It's all on the Talk:Homophobia page. Thanks Jenova20 08:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Request to examine the POV of the article entitled, "the Murder of Meredith Kercher"

In the article entitled, "the Murder of Meredith Kercher," Nina Burleigh's book (written in support of defendant Amanda Knox) is very heavily cited, whereas alternative theories and points of view are cited much less often and worded in a way that makes them sound suspect. In addition, in the Media Coverage section of the article, only (supposed) bias against Amanda Knox is listed, whereas numerous examples of bias in favor of Amanda Knox are not. This bias in the article makes it seem likely that Amanda Knox was "railroaded" by the media, which her supporters often argue. However, there are numerous examples of bias in the other direction which have been edited out of the article. On the whole, this article is extremely biased in favor of Amanda Knox and her supporters and PR team (Gogerty Stark Marriott, a Seattle-based public relations firm).' Siamesekat (talk) 23:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I read a fair amount of the article but did not find a section in particular that seemed slanted from what I could tell. You mention other sources that present another perspective. If these are reliable secondary sources, you could include information from these in the article. You do not specify what has been edited out and why you believe it should not have been. More specifics could help for purposes of this noticeboard.Coaster92 (talk) 06:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


In the article, Cristiada (film), I've deleted the misuse of a Washington Post source.[19] The source appears to have been misused by Lionelt (talk · contribs) to attack the Obama administration and to promote an extreme, minority Catholic POV. This was done to create a DYK that was recently featured on the main page. Because Lionel will attempt to add this content back into the article, I'm starting this discussion here for review by others. Viriditas (talk) 10:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Serious accusations not supported by the facts.

For Catholics enraged by the Obama administration's proposed contraception mandate, the film about the Mexican church's fight in 1920s is a heartening and timely cinematic boost in the American church's battle to preserve "religious freedom" in 2012. (underline mine)

The author describes the controversy as between the "American church" and the Obama admin. Yes, there is a tiny, passing mention that rank and file Catholics support the mandate--but Markoe's article is not about rank and file Catholics. The main thrust of the source is that it is the Church v. Obama admin--and that is what was added to the article. Viriditas is certainly entitled to his views on what constitutes the American church: but in this instance we only care abot what Lauren Markoe wrote.– Lionel (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Reasonable people may disagree about how best to summarize the article, but that can be taken care of in the normal course of editing and on the talk page. I don't see any misuse of the WP source, nor any soap-boxing for a fringe pov, certainly not in the current version. No opinion about the DYK question. Tom Harrison Talk 01:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
The current version has indeed improved, with the unsourced parts removed by Lionelt, and expanded by Tom harrison. I consider this incident report closed now as it currently sticks closely to the source, whereas before it did not. Viriditas (talk) 04:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Update: this may need to stay open as Lionel is now claiming that the version which removed his unsourced additions and POV pushing is not neutral. Clearly, Lionelt needs a lesson in sourcing and NPOV. Viriditas (talk) 23:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

POV language in the Portal:Current events Euro 2012 discussions

Twice now over the past two or three days, I have had to de-POV reports in the Portal:Current events page concerning Euro 2012 matches. I'm not sure if it's the same person or not, but somebody keeps writing extremely POV reports concerning matches, teams and players. I wanted to discuss this on the Portal's Talk page, but it's protected, strangely, since the Portal itself is not. (talk) 22:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I looked but I cannot pinpoint your concern without specifics. Which articles in particular concern you?Coaster92 (talk) 06:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
This and this. (talk) 00:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I see what you are saying. It sounds like the author is a sports writer. The tone and language sound to me like the 11 o'clock news sports report. Catch-y but it's true, the tone is not Wiki style NPOV. It looks like you fixed the problem nicely with your edits. I guess just stay on top of it? Best wishes.Coaster92 (talk) 06:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Catholic sex abuse cases

I'm running into a problem on Catholic sex abuse cases, and as a result it is running as a slow-moving edit war, which doesn't help anyone. I have attempted to raise this on the talk page, but as the problem is with one or more IP editors, and engagement on the talk page isn't working, this isn't making progress.

Quick summary: the IP has been adding claims which I believe are strongly POV to the lead [20]. My particular problems are with "... casts doubt on whether or not the Church truly apologizes or even cares about the sadistic actions of its priests" and "While there have been few if any responses from the Pope to the scandal, many have been criticizing the slow and careless nature of any actions taken to mitigate the crisis". Neither is supported by the sources. Rather than just revert, I added the sources to the lead based on their content, [21], but without including the opinions. That didn't work.

Discussion is here. Assistance either way would be much appreciated. Thanks! - Bilby (talk) 14:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I left my comments on the article talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coaster92 (talkcontribs) 06:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Can't this page be semi-protected if this is an obstinate IP editor? That way they can set up as an editor and then be engaged more effectively? JASpencer (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The phrasing/sourcing as the IP put it may be a problem, but leaving out content about the church's resistance to prosecution and openness makes the lead heavily unbalanced. I'll head to the talk page as well. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 22:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
All these article written by Catholic apologists make me sick! They are not neutral and calling them fair is like saying "Bill O Reilly is a democrat". You have to expose the Catholic attempt to wipe away their crisis of child rape. Any neutral Admin.s should come here and change the wikipedia page to reflect the Catholic Church's attempt to hide their misgivings... (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all but admitting you have a serious ax to grind. Believe it or not, but articles here are collaborative efforts. They are written mostly by non-Catholics. If you have issue with the article and your edits are being reverted, it is highly suggested that you discuss it on the talk page with other editors, come to a concensus, and THEN edit.Farsight001 (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Wording in lead of Blackwater Baghdad shootings

Hi everybody. There's a difference of opinion between myself and another editor over the wording in the first sentence of the Blackwater Baghdad shootings page. To give some quick background on the subject of the article, there are basically 2 sides (POVs) to the shooting incident, but it seems both agree that it started when a car approached the convoy and did not stop in spite of warnings resulting in the contractors firing upon the car. What happened after is what's unclear. The contractors' story is they were fired upon by insurgents and engaged in a shootout and a state department report corroborated that. Iraqi government and witnesses say that the contractors were not fired upon and the shootings were unprovoked. An FBI investigation couldn't match bullets to guns by Blackwater and found foreign cartridges not used by Blackwater or US, though shootings were common in the square so they could have been from another shooting. (talk page discussion on the topic)

Current lead sentence: "On September 16, 2007, Blackwater military contractors shot and killed 17 Iraqi civilians in Nisour Square, Baghdad."

It was originally proposed by another editor to be changed to: "On September 16, 2007, Blackwater military contractors were engaged in a shootout that resulted in the deaths of 17 Iraqi civilians in Nisour Square, Baghdad." An editor on the talk page did not agree with this because it is disputed that there was a shootout. So I proposed the following:

Proposal: "On September 16, 2007, seventeen Iraqi fatalities and twenty four injuries occurred in the Blackwater Baghdad shootings in Nisour Square, Baghdad."

I think the current lead gives the impression that they shot civilians purposefully and seems to already agree with the second POV I mentioned above. I feel that the proposal gives the same information as the current lead (and more), and it does so in more neutral wording. Can others weigh in on this to help us come to consensus? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

That can only been seen in context and that is what i propose:
Proposal 2: On September 16, 2007, Blackwater military contractors shot and killed 17 Iraqi civilians in Nisour Square, Baghdad.[2] The resulting casualty number was the single highest involving American private security contractors during the Iraq war[3] The killings outraged Iraqis and strained relations between Iraq and Washington.[4]
The first paragraph should only mention facts that are undisputed.
Followed by the next paragraph that should give both version of the cause.
1) Blackwater claims they came under fire.
2) And that the FBI, Iraqi government, three Blackwater guards present at the scene, Iraqi witnesses and prosecutors on the other hand say that the killings were unprovoked and unjustified.
I also would recommencement to include the alternative name: also called Nisour Square massacre into the first sentence per MOS:LEADALT and references. Kai9045 (talk) 23:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC) Kai9045 (talk) 23:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
The topic I brought up is only regarding the wording in the first sentence. Nisour Square massacre should not be considered to include as the term is not used by enough reliable sources to warrant it. A Google news search only shows 2 articles where it was used. It is highly contentious and in no way neutral. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
That belongs together as it would be part of the first sentence so it needs to be discussed together. The link your provide to a google search is false and misleading.
Google shows 297.000 results for "Nisour square massace" in quotes. Kai9045 (talk) 00:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
This discussion was already started on the talk page and now it is being duplicated here unnecessarily. I used Google news because it shows reliable sources. Your search includes mostly blogs and sources not considered reliable. Why don't we wait for other editors to weigh in on the topic of the lead sentence and not clutter this thread with other issues for now. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Anyway i will post the sources for you, there are more than enough reliable secondary sources that have called it a massacre. As i said alternate names belong into the first sentence. Kai9045 (talk) 00:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Nisour Square Massacre:1) The Guardian, 2) The Washington Independent, 3) Iraqi people, 4) Asia Times, Pakistani newspaper, 5) NPR, 6) United Nation High Commissioner for Human Rights, 7) Huffington Post, 8)School of Sociology, Politics and International Studies - University of Bristol study, 9) The War Machine and Global Health: A Critical Medical.. Book 2007 10) Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army - Book 2011, 11) America's Failure in Iraq: Intervention to Withdrawal 1991-2010 - Book 2010, 12) Ameroca's New World Order: A Global Atlantis for the Age of Aquarius - Book 2011, 13) - States of Emergency Book 2010, 14) The War Machines: Young Men and... - Book 2011, 15) Jus in Bello: A Pamphlet on Government and War - Book 2008,
Just to name a few people and groups who have called it "Nisour Square Massacre". Kai9045 (talk) 02:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I just have to point out that no matter how many sources you find, they will always be bias. When you cite things like "Failure in Iraq", Huffington post, etc, that bias is obvious, yet you seem to deny it exists. I would also like to point out that you seem only interested in this article and this article alone. I have asked you to address this in the past yet you ignore it. Can you reveal your interest and reason for not posting in relation to any single other topic ? --RichardMills65 (talk) 02:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Though i have used Wikipedia extensively over the years, i do not have time to edit Wikipedia because of my job, family and other interests. I got interested in this particular article as it is/was biased, outdated and factual incorrect to a point that i could not simply let it stand. (My kids are already complaining i spent to much time at the computer.) I may get interested in editing more articles in the future but at the moment i want to concentrate to fix up this one article to a point it can call itself encyclopedic. A task that already takes up all the time that i can spare.
I think you misunderstand WP:NPOV and MOS:LEADALT. I am not arguing to rename the article to "Nisour Square Massacre". All i am saying is that "Nisour Square Massacre" is a valid alternate name per MOS:LEADALT and therefor should be included. This is common practice see for example Granai airstrike (sometimes called the Granai massacre) or Haditha killings (also called the Haditha massacre. Who are we to judge the people who call it "Nisour Square Massacre", it is there view and we have to include that. Look The Guardian verifies that it is the so-called "Nisour Square Massacre". Reliable sources have used the term to describe the incident. The United Nation High Commissioner for Human Rights uses the term as well as a list of notable Book authors. Alternate names are also an important navigational tool. Leaving out alternative names does not achieve NPOV it achieves the opposite and violates MOS:LEADALT. Kai9045 (talk) 03:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not a valid alternate name. The problem with most of these sources is that they already have concluded, as you have, that every shot fired was unprovoked and unjustified (making it a massacre) and they don’t take into account any other possible scenario or context, such as the car approaching the convoy that the guards could not have known was not a vehicle bomb or the possibility that the guards were fired upon. As far as the sources that are books, the use of the word massacre can only be attributed as the opinion of the author and so should not be used to justify the alternate name in the lead. To give a few more specific examples of why some of these sources are not useful for claiming it was a massacre:

3) This article has a quote from one Iraqi who calls it a massacre and you take his word to speak for the entire Iraqi people?
4) The newspapers in the middle east are heavily biased against the incident.
5 and 10) Scahill is likely the most biased person you could find on this topic.
7) The author of this article concludes it was a massacre without considering any other possibility. He states as if it is a fact that: contractors “went on an unprovoked shooting spree in a Baghdad square..” What about the car that kept driving toward the convoy despite several shouted warnings and warning shots? That couldn’t have provoked shooting?
8) This is a paper that a University professor wrote for a class. Not a reliable source.
9) The only mention of massacre is a reference to Scahill.
11) Interesting, this book also references Scahill for its information on the Blackwater shooting.

Nisour Square massacre is already used as a redirect to this page, so if anyone types it into the search bar they will be redirected to the article that has the neutral and accurate title of Blackwater Baghdad shootings. Adding Nisour Square massacre into the lead sentence is not NPOV. It leads readers to believe what some of these sources do, that it was completely unprovoked murder. While there are plenty of people who believe that, there are also plenty who believe that they were provoked and justified in shooting (at least initially) to defend the State Department workers they were protecting, and that they were fired upon in response. We need to present both sides neutrally and let the reader come to their own conclusion after reading the article. Calling it a "massacre" in the first sentence does not do that. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Is the The United Nation High Commissioner for Human Rights biased and the other sources you do not mention (including The Guardian) are they biased? Even they would be, it does not matter for the following reasons.
It is a frequent misunderstanding of the NPOV policy, that articles must not contain any form of bias. The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias. That you find Scahill and others biased is not a violation of WP:NPOV.
The Oxford dictionary definition of a massacre: an indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of many people The intention (something that is still disputed) does not matter for the definition of a massacre. 17 Iraqi civilians were slaughter including women and a 9 year old boy and intention doesn't matter. Once again i am not arguing to rename the article although it seems to fit the definition of a massacre. All i am saying is that we have to include the alternate name "Nisour Square Massacre" per WP:V and MOS:LEADALT. You say: "We need to present both sides neutrally" Cutting out that people have called it a massacre does not do that. Your suggestion to cut out one side is editorial bias and violates WP:NPOV MOS:LEADALT and WP:V. Kai9045 (talk) 23:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Use of the word "overwhelmingly"

On Health Services Union expenses scandal, we have a dispute about how to describe a particular vote. The sources says, "The Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) has voted overwhelmingly to suspend the beleaguered Health Services Union (HSU) from its ranks" and later, "Today, delegates voted 1797 to 103 in favour of the suspension." The question is, can our article say that the vote was "overwhelming" in Wikipedia's voice? See this diff, wherein Youreallycan removes the word "overwhelmingly" that Skyring had included. As far as I can see, we have three options: include "overwhelmingly" as in Skyring's version, remove it as in Youreallycan's version, or somehow put the whole thing into a quote, attributed to ABC News (there's no author listed on the source). Personally, I favor Youreallycan's version, and had reverted to it myself, but I seek the opinion of uninvolved editors. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Health Services Union expenses affair. Bus stop (talk) 23:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
1797 to 103 is an overwhelming majority. It's not POV to describe it that way. Just the truth. Equazcion (talk) 23:20, 28 Jun 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Determining the validity of an adjective is always subjective. Determining one in a situation where, for example, we do not know which of numerous voting systems was used, nor the efficacy of those systems, is tantamount to original research. Bin the adjective and let the reader make of the figures whatever it is that they choose. We do not exist to guide a reader in one direction or another, but we are supposed to present neutrally and in an encyclopedic manner. The adjective is redundant unless quoted, and the quotation would be selective. It serves no purpose here. - Sitush (talk)
(edit conflict) We're not here to lifelessly list facts either though. Good writing is also... good, for an encyclopedia even. Part of brilliant prose is adding adjectives where they seem appropriate. For anyone who knew that the vote tally was as unbalanced as 1797 to 103, to merely say one side won without making the obvious characterization that this was a landslide (no matter what the voting system was...) would be a gross omission and doesn't represent the story accurately. Equazcion (talk) 23:29, 28 Jun 2012 (UTC)
I like good prose, although I am not particularly good at generating the stuff. I do not see that it is necessary to ram something down the reader's throat. If you want commentary then go read the editorials/leaders/comment sections of the cited sources. - Sitush (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Existing discussion on this point here. --Pete (talk) 23:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Adjectives should be sourced - it is not up to Wikipedia editors to assert adjectives. Collect (talk) 23:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Really? This seems like common sense. It's hardly a POV issue to describe that as overwhelming and the assertion that every adjective should be sourced would make it ridiculous and impossible to create decent articles or frankly anything in Wikipedia without making articles completely from quotes. 1+1=2 is not original research from the description of the WP:OR and i don't see how this is anything different. There's no issue of POV, WEASEL, SYNTHESIS or indeed Original Research.
Thanks Jenova20 23:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
This is an appropriate usage of the word that does not connote anything beyond that what is contained in the source. Could objectors clarify under which circumstances they would condone the use of this adjective, as an inexorable proscription of certain terms is patently unconscionable. Ankh.Morpork 00:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Just added two reliable sources for them in the Talk page for that article. Should be no problem to add "overwhelmingly" now. @Jenova, the problem with words like "overwhelming" is the lack of specificity. One man's overwhelming is another man's plain old whelming. :) For example, is 60% overwhelming? or 70% or 80%? 94% is pretty darn good, but you could easy say "Voted 17 to 1 in favor" and it is completely factual, rather than the inspecific "overwhelming". -- Avanu (talk) 00:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Avanu encapsulates my point very well. - Sitush (talk) 00:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Your argument, by extension, appears to preclude the usage of all descriptive adjectives throughout Wikipedia because of their 'inspecific' nature. In fact, it has been said that if language in general has a defining quality, it's that it has no defining qualities... Words have an accepted meaning and in this instance, the sizable majority justifies "overwhelmingly"; do any editors actually contend that this is "plain old whelming"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnkhMorpork (talkcontribs) 00:29, 29 June 2012‎
I wouldn't argue that we *never* use adjectives, and in fact if we can write something with clarity and specificity, it is likely to be a better and more accurate *encyclopedic* rendering of the information. However, if an adjective seems to fit, and no one complains... then it should stand. In normal speech we use inspecific language 'all the time' (<--see) and it is fine, but there's 'nothing wrong with' (<---again see) trying to improve. -- Avanu (talk) 02:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I actually do object to the use of all such descriptive adjectives that attempt to take a numerical result and transform it into some sort of value judgment. And I object to this specific analysis: we can't know if this is "overwhelming" without knowing 1) the voting system, and 2) the history of the body (what if the body almost always passes everything unanimously? I know that some deliberative bodies can do that--have it not pass unanimously, then have a second vote to declare the previous one unanimous, even though it wasn't). While I don't like the idea of using a quotation, I ask the use of one if people really feel like the adjective is so important that it needs to be included. However, if there is a consensus to use the adjective, I shall not edit war to keep it out, even though to me, WP:NPOV seems to clearly preclude such wording; that is, I accept that my interpretation of NPOV may not be the same as the general community's in this case. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I was referring to just this instance and not all. They should be on a case by case basis. nearly 18-1 is an overwhelming ratio and a dictionary definition would easily support 18-1 as superior and overwhelming - like here [22]. That's factually correct in this instance but if it was 10-9 i would not be arguing in this instance.
Thanks Jenova20 12:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "Overwhelmingly" is subjective. I don't doubt it will appear in some newspaper coverage, but perhaps "1797 to 103" would be more specific and get the message across without needing to resort to controversial adjectives? I think that would be more encyclopædic. bobrayner (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
While I wouldn't exclude "overwhelmingly" it's less informative and more POV-sounding than the alternative of putting in the numbers. North8000 (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm arguing for both when appropriate and not one or the other, but on a case by case basis for the record. I don't want to read articles about how someone won an election with "a landslide" victory, but i would like to read they won "with a landslide victory of 90% of the votes". Thanks Jenova20 15:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree with this. Specifying the details is more informative where appropriate and consequently a better edit. In situations where brevity is preferred, e.g. the lead, using such an adjective does not infringe NPOV especially in this specific case where it is sourced and nobody has contested its factual accuracy. Ankh.Morpork 16:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


New editor making some major and I think pov changes to Halal, see [23]. Sourcing a statement it's humane to a Halal organisation, changing " Both the Muslim and Jewish communities were frustrated with the process of dialogue because of the scientific community's views on animal slaughter." to "Certain Muslim and Jewish communities expressed frustration with the process of dialogue skewed for non-religious audiences." - some of the changes may be ok but as there seems to be few editors watching this and this is a new editor I'd appreciate other eyes before I edit the article. Thanks.Dougweller (talk) 06:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

There may be some improvements in the large number of changes made in that edit. But it introduces some obviously unreliable sources. The editor needs to be brought to the talk page. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Need help sorting through this.

There was a request for unblock on the UTRS program claiming that they were blocked for trying to fight POV pushing on International School of Gemology. I've had a look myself and the claim appears to be true. The article on 18 May 2012 is substantially different from today's version. Today's version gives incredible WP:UNDUE weight toward supposed controversy. However, the controversy is almost entirely linked to forums, blogs, or primary sources. I need help sorting the sources and balancing this article.--v/r - TP 14:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


A WP:SPA at this article is editing against talk page consensus to have Wikipedia state in its own voice that Ahmadiyya is "a Heterodox Islamic reformist movement". There is of course no problem in making it clear that as one of his sources[24] states they are seen as heterodox by many Muslims, but he is not listening to other edtiors but insisting on reinserting his version, with his latest edit summary saying "WP:VAN, WP:NPOV Doug Weller has potentially engaged in WP:EW against the administrators guideline. See talk page for exemption". (He's been warned for edit warring by 2 editors including me, so it's ironic he's at 3RR now). It is of course possible that I've misinterpreted NPOV and that we can call some religions Heterodox (ie all non-Eastern Orthodox Christian groups heterodox), but it is my opinion that this is not Wikipedia's role, and that all we can do is make it clear that, as I've said, many people view it ias heterodox. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to add, although it is not relevant to the NPOV issue, none of his sources assert that this religion is heterodox, although his first source mentions its founders "heterodox message". Dougweller (talk) 10:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I have to think such terms violate NPOV because they fairly clearly assert that one or more group's views of a matter are inherently "orthodox". That being the case, I have to believe that even making that assumption that one or more groups is "orthodox" is itself a violation of NPOV, and that going further to call the groups they describe as "heterodox" is in a sense NPOV piled on NPOV. This is not to say that adding material in the article, or even in the lead, saying more directly that other Muslim groups consider the Ahmadiyya to be heretical or heterodox would not be permitted, because I think in this case its rejection by other Muslims is very significant, simply saying that we should not use the inherently judgmental and perjorative term "heterodox" or any related terms. John Carter (talk) 19:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with this. I have also looked at the book by Valentine, and find it to be reliable sociology. The author is very clear about his own (Christian) views and how far they have and haven't influenced his work Itsmejudith (talk) 19:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Another editor has joined in at the article talk page and agrees. Steeringly who has been editwarring has been blocked for 48 hours. Hopefully this is settled. Dougweller (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Make that two new editors on the talk page now. Dougweller (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Biblical versus Fictional

(opening can of worms)...

Several editors seem to be wanting to rewrite articles where information appears that mentions Noah's Ark. The article on Noah's Ark, Mountain, Book of Genesis, Deity, etc are being modified to seem to push the idea that they are mythological or fictional rather than biblical.

I've tried to explain that in the context of these articles, the term 'biblical' is more than sufficient, but it seems that there is a personal POV that these editors are intent on pushing and they prefer to downplay any claim of verisimilitude whatsoever.

To me, the term 'biblical' is more supported by sources and more neutral than 'fictional'or 'mythological', as in "Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח‎; Classical Hebrew: Teyvat Noaḥ) is a mythological vessel appearing in the Book of Genesis (chapters 6–9) and the Quran (surahs Hud and Al-Mu’minoon)."

These editors are saying that it is a FACT that these things are mythological or fictional. My reply is that in the context of the stories themselves the objects are not 'mythological', so the term biblical is all around more accurate. Thanks for your input on this. -- Avanu (talk) 09:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Mythological does not imply fictional. Myths, in general, can be true. Your edit here, on the other hand, makes a statement of fact (that is, nowadays, nearly universally regarded as false in the literal sense among nearly all educated people) that an ark did come to rest on the Arrarat. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x2 :We represent the preponderance of suitable opinion. In the case of biblical texts, this means that we ought to represent the variety of theological and literary critical views of the texts. In all cases we should be using the highest quality sources available, the work of theologians, religious studies academics, and literary critics specializing in religious texts. Broadly, we should weight the results of all accepted scholarly traditions based on their presence in the literatures. Such a weighting would be neutral. Mountain has very little biblical context, deity has contexts lying well outside of the literatures specifically grounded only in the bible, Noah's Ark ought to see a preponderance of theological texts with a strong showing from religious studies or literary critical accounts, Book of Genesis again should see such, but as an "entire text" there are likely to be more literary critical studies of the entire Book of Genesis than of Noah's story in particular. "Pop" atheists without a grounding in theology, religious studies, or philosophy of religion really need not apply. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec also) Is saying 'biblical' sufficient though? I would think most people would be able to infer from that whatever they like, instead of the word 'mythological', which could easily be misinterpreted or properly interpreted as only a story a.k.a. 'fictional'. -- Avanu (talk) 10:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
And that edit you reference does not make a statement of fact. It says "Mount Ararat, where the biblical Noah's ark came to rest", and it has since been reworded to state that the ship was from a story in the bible. To me, saying 'biblical' is like saying, if you believe it, it is your worldview, if you don't believe it, that is your worldview. But removing the mention of Noah's Ark entirely, as was done in the edit prior to mine doesn't seem like an improvement. People find that to be interesting, true or not. -- Avanu (talk) 10:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
One of the problems with claiming that a mountain is the biblical Mountain of Ararat is the diversity of opinions on which mountains the story developers, redactors and copyists meant. (Obviously people who believe the Bible is solely a literal and revealed text will have the problem in interpreting the text in terms of their god's meaning). As such we have to rely upon theological scholars and other expert modern interpreters as to which (if any) physical objects may have been the mountain described in the text. It isn't a matter of "the readers' worldview" but a matter of what scholars on average (for the "voice" of wikipedia) and in the scholarly minorities (for "other scholars...") find. We don't soften our articles for our readers, we present them with a generalisation of the best accepted expert approaches to knowledge and let them make up their own minds. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
"Fictional" is never going to be an appropriate epithet for religious beliefs. "Mythical" or "mythological" might be, if that is the most frequent description in our sources. "Mythical" is not a synonym for "false". Itsmejudith (talk) 14:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
It does indeed mean false. Or more specifically , it says that any statement that such actually occurred is false or baseless. We should avoid such POV terms. North8000 (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
See Myth. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

When professional writers reports use government documents...

Another contributor placed four tags on an article recently, including {{POV}}. Well, when instantiated, {{POV}} calls for the tag placer to initiate a discussion on the talk page, explaining why they placed the tag.

I noted, on the talk page, that the tag placer didn't leave an explanation.

They returned and wrote:

POV because the article is entirely from the US government Point of view and the information it released about the prisoners to news media.”

I put the second part of their passage in bold because I am concerned that it suggests a misunderstanding of WP:NPOV.

On that talk page I suggested that when an WP:RS publishes an article, that relies wholly or in part on official documents, the POV in the document is that of the columnist, or the publication -- not of the government organ that published the documents they used while writing their article.

I suggested that WP:RS have editorial policies and professional editors. I suggested we trust WP:RS because their editorial policies require them to do some fact-checking. I suggested their editorial policies require them to employ writers who bring a competent understanding of the topic they cover to their writing. I suggested articles published in WP:RS have their own reliability, and a separate and distinct point of view from whatever sources the article is reporting on.

We may think we are smarter than the writers and editors at WP:RS. We may think they have been duped by the government sources they relied upon, where-as we are too sagacious to be fished in, and that we recognize what the professionals did not. There is nothing wrong with any of us PRIVATELY thinking writers at an WP:RS have been tricked into parroting the official line. But, in my opinion, trying to tilt our coverage, based on our PERSONAL doubts about professional writers' judgment, is a serious lapse from WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:VER. Our personal opinions shouldn't count.

I'd welcome input on whether wikipedia contributors suspicions about journalist's judgment should justify a {{POV}} tag. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Which article is this about? Having trawled through your contribs, I guess it's Abdul Ghappar Abdul Rahman? bobrayner (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
A former Guantanamo prisoner. The US government position is a notable one and is bound to make its way into the serious media. The solution is to balance it, and Amnesty International would be a good starting point. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ Ian, Thomsen (28 October 1995). "Australia Faces England at Wembley : A Final of Rugby Favorites". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2011-02-06. Retrieved 2009-11-05.
  2. ^ Johnston, David (2007-11-14). "F.B.I. Says Guards Killed 14 Iraqis Without Cause". The New York Times. Retrieved 2007-11-30. Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  3. ^
  4. ^