Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 24

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

→

WP:WEIGHT and proposed changes to Reliability of Wikipedia

History2007 has proposed changes to Reliability of Wikipedia in an attempt to promote the improvement of Wikipedia articles. History2007 has, for example, proposed an expansion of the discussion of reliability tools in Reliability of Wikipedia. I have argued against this expansion, saying (1) these tools get little coverage in reliable sources, (2) WP:WEIGHT says that the coverage of tools in Reliability of Wikipedia should be limited to the coverage they receive in reliable sources and (3) WP:WEIGHT is part of NPOV, which is non negotiable. History2007 has given various reasons why s/he thinks that WP:WEIGHT should not apply here, such as these

Statements made about Wikipedia in WP:RS sources may have become outdated by the time they are published, given the dynamic nature of the online encyclopedia.

the fact that there are very few tools used to measure the reliability of Wikipedia gets little coverage because there are so few. So that issue is simple: there are very few tools (as I said below one just started a larger trial). So that glaring fact is not going to get coverage

The article needs more focus on what Wikpedia is doing about reliability, while mentioning historical items such Nature study as part of the past. So: more focus on what is being done about the future, less about the past.

Most of the discussion has taken place in Talk:Reliability of Wikipedia#Article takes at face value antiquated conception of reliability, but there's also some discussion in Talk:Reliability of Wikipedia#Article feedback tool and Talk:Wikipedia#Reliability).

I would appreciate any feedback from people on the noticeboard about this issue. Thanks. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually I do not have any immediate changes planned - I am beginning to explore and figure out the issues in the next month or two, as I said there. But I would like to see more coverage of what is being done today, rather than what Nature wrote years ago. The content of the article should be about the title, i.e. "reliability" not about the "history of reliability". I think the Article Feedback Tool, is at long last, a nice and necessary step by Wikipedia towards assessing reliability. I do not see why it should not be mentioned in the article. But it will take me a month or two to figure out how to present these items. I just started Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia reliability and would like to get that in better shape before chatting about it for ever. When the issues take shape there, I will propose specific changes to the article in question. And now let me plug that project and invite everyone here to join it and provide ideas there.

By the way, where and when did I say "I think WP:WEIGHT should not apply here"? I must have typed that one in invisible ink I guess.

Now that we are here: why is there an NPOV flag on that article already? What needs to happen to remove it? History2007 (talk) 08:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's stick to the subject of this section before discussing a different topic (the NPOV tag). Here is the answer to your question about where and when you said WP:WEIGHT shouldn't apply. These quotations come from Talk:Reliability of Wikipedia#Article takes at face value antiquated conception of reliability:

"Now how about planning a good sized section on what Wikipedia is doing to assess its own reliability? That is where the tools will come in. I must say that I was surprised when the DYK of Wiki-Watch received only 4,000 hits. I had expected it to be a lot more. So there is significant need for increasing awareness of reliability measures within Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 07:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)"

"... WP:WEIGHT determines what size the tools discussion can be in the article. Again, do tools really get enough coverage in reliable sources to justify a significant change in focus toward tools? -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)"

"No, I do not agree with your characterization of the situation. ... History2007 (talk) 06:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)"

Seems pretty clear to me, but in case it's not, let me ask you this.

Yes or no, do you think that the amount of coverage of reliability tools in the Reliability of Wikipedia article should be limited based on the amount of coverage in realible sources as WP:WEIGHT requires? -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, we do not seem to agree even on a framework for discussion, or your characterization of it. There is an article with an NPOV flag at the top, you want to ignore that and then talk about a talk page discussion? Go figure.... So when I have finished my homework on the topic, and start to edit the article I may spend time to discuss it - no point in spending time here on this. Until, then, keep cool and try to fix the NPOV flag problems first. History2007 (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you won't answer a simple yes or no question about a core Wikipedia policy. It sounds like you do not intend to follow WP:WEIGHT and the frameworks and characterizations will be your rationalization for doing so. If so, we might be back here on this noticeboard in a month or two. The rest of the discussion will have to wait.

Now that we've covered the first issue, I can talk about the NPOV flag. That's a separate issue. Per WP:DISPUTE and WP:CONSENSUS, please discuss that issue on the article's talk page before discussing on a noticeboard. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

By the way, regarding guesses about edits that I may "intend to do later", I think I should go and watch Minority Report (film) again - it is about foreknowledge provided by psychics about what people may do in the future. It would be fun to watch that after this. This is the last I will type on this. I happen to have foreknowledge of that one. History2007 (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Pro-life feminism

Could we get a few more eyes at an RfC at Talk:Pro-life feminism? Both sides have expressed NPOV concerns, so I figured this might be a good place to ask; the discussion's dormant at 3-2 with no previously uninvolved users commenting, so it'd be good to have some fresh eyes. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Due weight and numbers of sources

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closing this discussion, as the concerned editors are banned from commenting, and it wasn't going anywhere. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Just moved this over from WP:RSN, since I figured here was more appropriate. This is Gibraltar again, I'm afraid.

An editor is currently citing an argument made here (in a mediation case since closed), which judges the due weight of points to be made in an article based on the raw number of sources found in a search of Google Books. The methodology is to search for keywords in books that contain the word "Gibraltar" in the title.

I have three questions:

Is this a reliable means of judging the appropriate weight to be given to subjects in articles?
Would it be a reliable means of judging the appropriate weight to be given to subjects in articles, if it was confirmed that all of the sources actually mention the piece of history concerned?
If it was not done through Google Books, but rather through a count of sources containing the point collated by some other means, would this be a reliable means of judging appropriate weight?

Thanks, Pfainuk talk 18:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Preliminary comments and clarifications

Extended content

To add to the above, I was about to start a new thread. I am involved in the above discussion so will not comment but add further information.

It has transpired that two editors who have been arguing the edit they prefer is justified per WP:DUE and WP:V but they do not have access to any sources whatsoever. They are relying upon limited searches of google books, often from google snippets. Having no access to any sources I'm at a loss to see how that can make an argument based upon WP:DUE. 20:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The question of relying on Google hit counts was a side issue at RSN. It seems appropriate here because establishing relative WP:WEIGHT (or balance) is central to NPOV. And it is an intriguing idea. However, it has been discussed at RSN#Archive 54, where it rejected. Main problem is that Google hits are only on strings of words, and any inference beyond the numerical occurrence of a specific string of words is unsupported. Also, the domain referenced (nearly all the garbage on the WWW) has no particular authority.

The simple answer to the question posed is: No. The very idea that proper WP:WEIGHT can be determined by any simple numerical or (not so simple?) statistical measure (whether Google hits, or citation counts, or ??) is misleading. Such measures might show how notorious a subject is (i.e., how much it is being discussed), but how much weight any discussion or viewpoint or argument should be given depends in a large part on the quality of the argument, expertise and reliability of the proponents, etc. These have to be assessed by the editor, require some familiarity of the field, may even require expert knowledge on specific points, and in the end are subjective. It appears there is not, nor even could be, any "simple" arithmetical determination of due weight. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually the original question was whether it is reasonable to rely on Google snippets from reliable sources as evidence for the occurrence of a single phrase, and I gather that you might accept this. We are currently trying to follow a bibliometric approach to another vexed question and I take your point that bibliometry cannot be determinative. In fact we have been stuck on a fundamentally subjective issue for two years of argument, and I can't really see any way to solve it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

No Richard that wasn't the original question at all, due weight is argued on the basis of the number of google hits. And as we've seen it isn't a suitable argument at all. What we've now found is that those making this argument, don't have access to sources and the argument pursued for 2 years to the frustration of any attempt to improve the article is one that isn't sustained by policy. Please do not confuse the question and allow outside comment and don't deter it with walls of text as virtually every attempt to elicit outside opinion is. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

May I point out that this is the NPOV notice board? As to whether due weight can be determined by any "bibliometric" means, I have given you my opinion. Now you both are sliding back into the more general question of reliable source, which seems more appropriately discussed at WP:RSN. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Gibraltar#RfC: Due weight & NPOV in the History section I have started an RFC to gather outside opinion related to this issue. Those who have commented here may care to contribute an opinion. Thanks. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I finally found WP:Google searches and numbers (an essay proposed for policy), which states: "One of the biggest fallacies in determining notability of a subject is the results of a Google search...." Yes. Google can be a useful finding tool, and the results useful as a very rough measure of notoriety. But not as metric for purposes of WP:WEIGHT. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

As a side note, I completely agree with JJ. But nobody has used Google search. We have used Google books (not google search) search and then have checked the books one by one in order to see if they were specifically about the issue at hand (and each non-complying source was discarded). In my opinion, this process avoided many of the drawbacks signaled by WP:GNUM I also agree this is not a final criterium, but I would say it is a very strong evidence suggesting notabilityl.

Please, JJ and other outside editors, could you please give your opinion on this? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Hence the third question above. Whether the count of sources, where the weight given to each point in each source is not considered, is appropriate. JJ addressed this above:

The very idea that proper WP:WEIGHT can be determined by any simple numerical or (not so simple?) statistical measure (whether Google hits, or citation counts, or ??) is misleading.

It also is patently false for you to say that "each non-complying source was discarded". Your much-repeated thirty-seven hits on San Roque included primary sources, histories of San Roque and a biography of an Austrian general. Many of the books concerned are not available except though Snippet view, which we have already seen cannot be used as a reliable source. It included at least one source that didn't include the words "San Roque" at all. But even if they had been discarded, that is addressed by my second and third questions above. Pfainuk talk 07:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I have proposed (below) that all discussions on Gibraltar be continued on the talk page. However, it may be useful to try to resolve this discussion here, provided it stays on topic ("Due weight and numbers of sources") and does not slide into other aspects of reliable sources or such.

It seems to me you all have slightly different takes on what, precisely, the issue here is. Is it a fair statement, and generally agreeable, that the issue here involves a reliance by Imalbornoz (and one or more others?) upon Google or Google Books to either 1) determine the reliability (and therefore the weight given to) individual sources, or 2) determine the proper weight (balance) to be given a sub-topic as represented in the aggregated sources? (And please, no debate yet, just let me know if this is a fair understanding of the situation.) - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Point 2 is what is argued primarily by Imalbornoz and one other. The argument is used for two claims, one based on a Google Books search, the other based on a raw count of quotes provided by others without regard for context. Point 1 is only argued inasmuch as the sources counted for point 2 are not otherwise assessed for reliability (or indeed content). Pfainuk talk 18:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

To put this into perspective, Imalbornoz has adopted this technique for a reason. As we found out during the mediation case here he doesn't have access to sources Diff [1] Regarding Jackson and Hills, I wish I had access to the books. I think Ecemaml has one or both. I think I'll ask him.. Jackson and Hills are named as the primary sources of his edits - he relies on a 3rd party for quotes. Similarly he relies heavily on Google snippets. This is a very misleading way of editing, for example here [2] where even after I pointed out that Chapter III of Andrews p.54 is about the period after Utrecht he continued to claim it supported his edit, though it did give me the clue to find the snippet and technique he'd used. He searched in Google Books here for Shrimpton the Hapsburg Governor from 1705 to 1707, unfortunately Andrews introduced a discussion of the corruption of early Governors by referring to Shrimpton's dodgy deals earlier. (I recently found a copy and can confirm he is incorrect). Then there is this example [3], well I had a look at this list here. He also claims to have compiled a filtered search, in which he personally verified that each text was relevant. However, as Pfainuk notes it contains much irrelevant material, including the Austrian General or simpy San Roque. Sadly I don't think there is any substitute for actual research from reliable sources. At best what we see with these searches is simply the observation of Confirmation bias since the search terms predicate the outcome, and if the editor is looking for terms to support an edit, which is what we see here it is inevitably biased. We look to the sources to dictate the edit, we don't write the edit and then look for sources. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Whoa — a big wave of text just overwhelmed me! Look, I was seeking assent; a simple "yes" or "no" would be an adequate answer. Instead, we have argumentation with supporting points, and the chickens are loose again. You folks are just too ready to dance, but I really need smaller bites. I think you will make more progess if you go slower (por favor!), one small point at a time. (Think in terms of using low-gear, where using a higher gear will either loose traction (spin the wheels) or stall the engine.)

Let's try this again, and I'll simplify the question. Is it a fair statement (i.e., close enough) that the issue presented here regarding numbers of sources is about the use of Google (or Google Books) by Imalbornoz? (A yes or no is adequate, thank you.) - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes Wee Curry Monster talk 23:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes (the use of Google books as one argument -not the only one- of a set that also included qualitative arguments, please see here for example). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 07:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking good. Let's wait a tad longer before continuing, in case there are any dissents. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 02:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but it also applies to Imalbornoz's use of raw counts of sources that are gathered by means other than Google Books (but instead provided by an outside editor), that similarly do not take account of context or weight given to the points by the individual source. Pfainuk talk 17:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, the preliminary formulation of the issue, as far as it goes, seems generally acceptable. I am leery of Pfainuk's extension, but we will see where this goes. Before proceeding I want to establish certain caveats. First, this is not the reliable sources noticeboard; this is not the place to discuss the criteria or means of identifying reliable sources. We will be discussing that part of NPOV concerning the due WP:WEIGHT or balance to be given certain issues, and particularly a certain use of numbers of sources to determine that balance.

Second, Imalbornoz is not on trial here. He is the proponent of the usage under discussion (and I am curious, are there any others?), and I hope will be a worthy champion of that usage. But we presume he uses it in the belief it is satisfactory, and the discussion here is only on whether the usage is satisfactory.

Now I need some clarification: What is being weighed here? Is it the space or treatment accorded certain sub-topics? Or is it possibly something else, say the weight to be given various sources? Imalbornoz, perhaps you could provide a short explanation? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It is both the space and treatment of the certain sub-topics. Deph of coverage is excessive and the quantities of text dedicated to certain details are grossly out of proportion with coverage in sources. Related to this, is that sources are not used for the edits, rather Google Book searches used to justify a pre-determined edit; Google Book searches then become an example of Confirmation Bias. Another issue and I appreciate it you wish to cover one at a time, is that this is achieved at the expense of a) not covering signficant events as opposed to details and b) the range of relevant opinions in the literature. The latter can be dealt with later, I merely raise it to register there are multiple issues with proposed methods. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the number of sources was not an argument per se. The argument was a benchmark of events in the same section of the article. Quite a few of them are mentioned by fewer sources (some of them maybe only by a couple of sources) than the events that WCM and Pfainuk want to remove. So I thought that it was quite unconsistent to remove some facts cited by 37 sources and keep some events mentioned by fewer sources in the same topic area (Gibraltar). Counting the number of sources seemed to me a good objectivization of this inconsistency. Again, this was only one argument (call it circumstantial evidence) among other more qualitative arguments.

Regarding the text, the factuality of the events is not under dispute. It is the importance of the events for the History of Gibraltar and their due weight in the article that is under dispute. WCM and Pfainuk want to eliminate detail to a point that the events are not actually mentioned because they say they are not important to the topic (the history of Gibraltar in an overview article):

from

"there was widespread raping, almost all houses of the town were looted, all churches except one were desecrated and almost all the villagers left -the largest part to a nearby town called San Roque."

to

"they [the invaders] were frustrated when, after three days of violent disorder, almost the entire population of the town left citing their loyalty to Philip V, the Bourbon claimant.". -- Imalbornoz (talk) 09:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I won't comment in detail but no one is suppressing anything and I for one am tired of the constant accusations of suppressing material, see the footnotes for a start, in fact we're arguing for greater detail. The fact of the matter is, its this additional details to address a NPOV issue that is obstructed by the demand to mention a detailed list of crimes to the detriment of other significant events. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I've prepared a sandpit comparing the two proposed texts here for editors to judge for themselves. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow, another deluge of text!!! Okay, for you guys this is relatively short, but you really need to practice on shorter. One step at a time. WCM: your first sentence ("It is both...") would have been adequate, and even the second sentence was not out of line. And if you truly appreciate that I want to take one issue at a time, you would not introduce "another issue" (at least, not yet). Okay? Also, there is a rather serious matter raised by your statement that you are "tired of the constant accusations of suppressing material". I have looked closely at Imalbornoz' statement (and let's not raise up old issues not "in evidence" here), and the only basis I see for your statement would his statements "events that WCM and Pfainuk want to remove" and "WCM and Pfainuk want to eliminate detail...". These appear to me to be very plain, objective statements of fact; I do not see that these amount to any "accusations of suppressing material". Your complaint is a misrepresentation (perhaps only a misunderstanding?) of what Imalbornoz was saying; it is an invalid strawman argument. It is also some what inflammatory, which does nothing to help us. (I hope I will have these comments in place before anyone else comes back at you with a hot retort. Everyone cool it!) Also, and for everyone: supplying alternate texts is a good thing — on the article's talk page. On this noticeboard we should stay focused on the usage complained of.

Imalbornoz: a good start, even if over lengthy. Let me ponder on that for a bit. And everyone stay cool. A slow, considered step forward progresses much faster than rapid fire missteps that have to be retracted. Also, I added indentation above (pushing the boundary of talk page etiquette) to make matters clearer. To the same end, would anyone object to permitting me to freely indent, reduce, emphasize, or even hide your comments in this discussion? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Eliminate, remove, suppress are one and the same thing and it happens to be untrue. This is not a misunderstanding, nothing is eliminated or removed the content is still there - please take a look. My comments are not a misrepresentation in the slightest but the accusations of eliminating, removing or suppressing are. I have no problem with hiding comments if they're tangential - feel free. But WP:TPG would indicate you should note edit by indenting, reducing or emphasizing.

Anyway we're dancing around the issue of actual relevance, hit counts in google searches whther in google books or plain google are not a substitute for research of reliable sources but the argument presnted here is that it is. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

JJ, I won't object. Thank you for taking the time to mediate in the discussion. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course it would be improper to change any remarks to the point of misrepresenting them, and I hope to avoid that. But with you all's permission I may reduce or even hide extraneous comments, for the purpose of clarifying matters and seeking a resolution satisfactory to all concerned.

WCM: Quite a bit of the "dancing around" I see here (and on the talk page) seems to arise from your comments, which prompts other editors to respond, and around the houses you go. Keep in mind that not every comment you feel should be said is necessarily useful. I think we should have a side discussion about this. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

After considering the prior comments I have two questions. First: am I correct in understanding that the issue presented here is not the weight to be given to various sources themselves, but rather to the weight the sources (individually or in aggregate) provide regarding the inclusion (or not) of certain events?

Second: is it possible that issue here can be boiled down to selection of alternate texts, such as Imalbornoz quoted above? Not that the example above is the only alternative in dispute, but: is it a representative example of the core issue? (And "yes" and "no" are adequate responses.) - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

No. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 08:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I fully understand the questions. (Minor reformatting. -JJ)

On the first, I think the answer is yes and no. The weight given to each source is significant to the point in that Imalbornoz's argument weighs all sources equally, regardless of reliability and content. The weight the sources provide regarding inclusion is significant in that the question is as to whether certain points in the article are given more weight than is due to them based on sources, and whether this ought to be decided based on a raw count of sources or on the weight given to the point by individual sources.

On the second, the whole point is that we are trying to find an alternative text to that currently in the article. Now, the possibilities for a new text are obviously theoretically endless, but we must be sure that the new text does not give undue weight to any particular point - and particularly the arguments of one side or other in a modern dispute (bearing in mind that this is not an article on that dispute). Pfainuk talk 18:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

So we need some finer resolution. WCM, I want to hear more about your "no", but let's hold off on that until we can sort out Pfainuk's points.

Pfainuk, on your second point it seems to me that you have only stated generalities. Of course the possibilities are endless, and we must avoid undue weight. What I am asking is whether, out of those endless possibilities, two statements could be taken, representative of each point of view (perhaps the from/to versions quoted by Imalbornoz), and the issue here reduced to determining which is "best". Is that clearer?

Re your first point, I think you are saying that the weight of a source — essentially how much impact it has — may vary depending on reliability, etc. Which is correct. But the means and criteria of determining what the weight of a source should be is a matter for WP:reliable sources, and not appropriate here. I am hoping that is not part of the issue here, that you all have (at least potentially) some degree of consensus regarding the weight to be accorded the sources, and the issue here is the application of those weights to determine an adequately balanced point of view. Is that clearer? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

JJ the issue for discussion here is very clear, it is the claim that you can establish WP:DUE on the basis of hit counts whether it is in Google Books or simply Google. We seem to be diverging away from that considerably. Can we focus please. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Slow down, wait your turn! I am trying to keep a very tight focus, which right now is on Pfainuk's elaboration of certain points about this claim. I promise you we will get back to the other stuff, but if we try to discuss everything all at once we will choke. Let's take one bite at a time, chewing slowly. I am going to carefully consider the following remarks, and also what I might usefully say; this will take at least overnight. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorting out my points, therefore:

The weight of each individual source - how much impact each one has - is a part of the equation here because the methodology used to create these counts gives all sources equal weight. The reliability of the sources, along with the context (if any) that the point is mentioned in and the weight given to the point by the source are assumed to be either inherent in the search or to be irrelevant.

Such an assumption is necessarily a part of the argument being made. It is impossible to create the kind of purely quantitative measure that Imalbornoz is arguing is the sole possible means of establishing weight from sources without ignoring all qualitative factors - including reliability.

But this applies also applies in cases where the reliability of the sources is accepted by all parties. The argument in these cases still relies on a raw count of sources, with qualitative factors excluded. There are many ways in which an individual source can give more or less weight to a point, including the amount of detail given, the positioning, whether it is emphasised and whether it is highlighted as important by surrounding text. Imalbornoz's argument deems all of these factors to be irrelevant compared to the number of sources used, which is argued to override all other factors.

Is it an argument between two such texts? Not necessarily. It has been proposed that the points that are currently given undue weight as compared with reliable sources be given a more appropriate weight by putting them in references or by dramatically increasing the length of the paragraph to compensate. Problem is, Imalbornoz continues to argue that his counts of sources entirely override the weight actually given to the points by the sources. Pfainuk talk 21:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I think Pfainuk has not seen my previous (very brief) comments, so I will repeat one of them below:

"Yes ([the problem in discussion is about] the use of Google books as one argument -not the only one- of a set that also included qualitative arguments, please see here for example). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 07:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)"

I hope it is clear now. Thanks. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't actually see any qualitative arguments in that this is due weight from that link. There's a statement that it's due weight because you say it is, and a claim that other editors are editing in bad faith, but no actual qualitative argument. Certainly, there is nothing that would render any part of my comment above inaccurate. Pfainuk talk 17:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Pfainuk, thank you, that is a clear and well reasoned explanation. However, you are getting ahead of me — that was about the methodology, which I haven't gotten to yet. From your remarks it appears you are not taking issue with the degree of reliability of the sources (authors) themselves, but with how that and other factors are used to weigh or balance a point of view (regarding certain events); this is effectively affirmation of my first question.

As to my second question, well, I don't want to hear a rebuttal to an argument I have yet to hear, and I don't want hear objections of any kind. What I want to hear is this: given that the issue here comes down to an issue of some text (as most WP issues do) either including details of a certain event, or not including such details, is the issue here really about the use of certain means or criteria (e.g., the "methodology") of selecting between these alternatives? (NOTE: it could be about a lot of things. What I am trying to do is scrape off all the side issues that will only distract us.) - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I am taking issue with the reliability of some of the sources that are used to generate these numbers. In many cases I also dispute their relevance and/or the claim that they even verify the points concerned. This is, to some extent, beside the point, since even if I did accept all of that, I still wouldn't accept that it is appropriate to ignore the weight given to each point by the sources in favour of merely counting them.

Is it about text? Well, when it comes down to it, practically everything on Wikipedia is about text or images, and in that sense it is about text.

The text currently says:

“

On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. The terms of surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings. By 7 August, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and fled to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain.

”

It is argued (among other things that are less relevant to this discussion) that this gives undue weight to the specific acts of violence that took place and to one of many verifiable reasons why the townspeople left; it is also argued that it gives undue weight to San Roque. These arguments are made based on the weight given to these points by individual reliable sources, on the basis of factors similar to those I listed above. That the weight given to these points by the current text is very much greater than that given by individual reliable sources on the subject has never (to my memory) been disputed.

It is further argued that the points being given such undue weight are exactly the points that have been argued by Spain in support of her position in the modern dispute, and that for us to give undue weight to these points thus takes Spain's side in the dispute. For these reasons, texts have been proposed with the aim of reducing the weight given to these points.

In defence of the existing text, it is stated simply that these details "must be mentioned" or that they are "very notable and relevant", generally without further comment or argument. When pressed, those defending the existing text argue that due weight must be determined by a simple count of sources (through Google Books for San Roque; by other means for the details of the violence), and refuse to acknowledge or accept any other means by which sources can be used to determine appropriate weight (such as the weight given to points by individual sources). They also accuse editors who favour change of trying to hide facts that they are embarrassed about. Pfainuk talk 22:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Well stated, but you are broadening the discussion, which makes it too difficult to get a handle on it. I will address your points, but hopefully to lay them to rest, not to expand the discussion. (And my apologies for so much text.)

First: this is not the place for discussion of the reliability of sources. I am hoping that we can get this discussion focused on the methodology raised here, and not the particular inputs. Think of it like algebra, which studies the process of calculation, not whether specific inputs are "correct" or reliable measures of anything. Sure, the purpose of algebra is eventually to produce a result, whose validity (just like here) will depend on the actual inputs. But that is a different question! The question raised here is about the process (the methodology), and I think you will agree that if the process is invalid there simply is no reason to use it at all, irregardless of the inputs (sources). So let's back away from any questions of reliability or authority or such; those are for later, and likely elsewhere.

As to due or undue weight of specific text, yes, that is, at the highest level, the issue here. But we know that! You are again raising generalities. More particularly the issue here is how to determine proper weight, and specifically the validity or adequacy of a certain means that has been used for making that determination.

You also raise the issue that choice of text will favor or disfavor one side or another in a political dispute, and that we shouldn't favor Spain. Well, I don't know that we should favor Great Britain, either, or even the local residents. But considerations of who will be favored are an extremely poor way to resolve such a situation. Anticipations of who might eventually be favored should not color matters of fundamental importance, and even warrants drawing a "veil of ignorance" as to the ultimate beneficiaries to avoid such considerations. For any editor to consider "whether this helps my side or not" is inherently non-neutral, and not admissible here.

Finally, your statement that others "accuse" is in itself an accusation. As I told WCM above, in this discussion I see no accusations of "trying to hide the facts". I realize that you all may have past (or even current!) history in this regard, but please: get over it. You all may have traded a few verbal punches before, but ask yourself: did any of those do any good? And what good would they do now? I hope that instead of "getting even" we can focus on getting ahead. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

If all that is adequately resolved I would like to ask again: is the issue here really about the use of certain means or criteria (e.g., the "methodology") of selecting between alternative text? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

JJ I believe you have misunderstood Pfainuk's point. There are a range of opinions expressed in the literature but the article does not reflect these. Instead it promotes a single opinion that reflects a modern national narrative. That is the problem, it does not present a NPOV by failing to reflect the range of opinion in the literature.

Secondly, one of many issues is that this is justified on the basis of hit counts in Google Searches. The claim is currently that this is superior as the searches are "structured". He misses the point that the searches are structured to justify a point, thereby resulting in Confirmation Bias. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

My apologies if I have misunderstood anything (I hate that!), as distinct from ignoring what might not be relevant here. I would say that if there is a range of views on some aspect of the topic then the article should mention that. (Perhaps not going into detail on each view, but at least mentioning that a range of views exists, and perhaps pointing to any notable views.) And while that may be a valid issue in this article, should it be part of this discussion? I say no, that we should focus on the narrow bibliometry issue, in accord with the title of this section and the three questions Pfainuk originally posted.

In your second point you touch on this possible issue of balance as being "justified on the basis of hit counts", which is pretty much what I think this discussion should be about. Our determination of whether that the method used is valid (or not) will bear on this other issue, and is antecedent to it; therefore it should be resolved first. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it is high time that there is clear guidance as to whether this method is acceptable practise. If I may open by offering my own opinions as to why it is not. A) Bibliometry is not nor should it ever be an alternative to researching a topic from valid sources B) "Structured Searches" in Google Books are not a reliable way to establish WP:DUE as they are inherently unreliable due to Confirmation Bias. C) Finally, due to the very nature of Google Books, the full text is not available so it is impossible in most cases to establish context. At best Bibliometry may have a role in indicating occasions of WP:UNDUE but not should never be relied upon as the sole reason. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC) [Reduced by JJ.]

Thank you, WCM, but your comments are premature; we are not to that point yet. At this point I am trying to address Pfainuk's comments, and hoping that he is agreeable that the discussion here might be narrowly constrained to the use of this bibliometric method in determining the proper balance of alternative text.

Pfainuk, is this agreeable? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The question as a whole is as I described in the previous section. If you want to narrow this discussion down to the questions I asked at the beginning - that is, whether counting sources a given point while disregarding the weight given to that point by those sources (where the counts are generated either through Google Books or by some other means) is an appropriate means of establishing the weight to be given to that point - that's fine with me. Pfainuk talk 21:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes? I do want to narrow this discussion to the original questions, but I am concerned that we may have a subtle divergence of view; your statement just above is unclear. I think you are referring to a way the basic "methodology" (which is not yet in evidence) can be tweaked by factoring in another consideration ("the weight given to that point by those sources"); I would deem this within the purview of this discussion. Alternately, possibly you want to consider whether the results of this methodology are contradicted by other, independent considerations. I would say that any such contradiction should be evaluated, but only after we determine the validity of the methodology. Does that work for you? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm still not 100% on what you mean. Are you suggesting that we broaden the question to discuss the weight given to each point by sources? I don't have a problem with that. Obviously, you can't delve into the results until you've decided what weight to put on things.

But I am a bit concerned that it has been three weeks and we still seem to be discussing what the question is. Pfainuk talk 21:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it has been slow. And that is intentional. I initially reckoned about two months to sort this out, and half of that on determining the precise, narrow focus of the question. So by my reckoning we are not doing badly. As I have said before, there is more progress in one slow step forward then a bunch of fast steps that don't go anywhere and may even have to be revisited. Hang in there!

Your comment just above about whether this discussion should be "disregarding the weight given..." I think can be applied in two ways: either as a factor of how the subject methodology works, or as an alternate consideration, possibly in conflict with the results of the methodology. Either of these could be pertinent to this discussion, but not in the same manner, nor at the same point in the discussion. And either way I think it is too early to definitely include or exclude discussion of "disregarding the weight", so perhaps we could table that consideration for the moment? And if so, then would you agree that the question for consideration here is regarding the use of a certain methodology for determining the proper balance of POV in this particular matter (of San Roque)? That though there may be other issues in this matter, here we focus on the validity of methodology? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, I'd note that the verb "to table" has directly contradictory meanings, depending on whether you're writing in British or American English. I assume that you are using the AmE meaning (to leave aside for later discussion), as opposed to the BrE meaning (to bring forward for immediate discussion), since it seems to make more sense in context.

So, based on that, I agree that the question is regarding a certain methodology and we can start with the validity of this methodology - and then possibly move on to discussion of other methodologies afterward. But to my mind, it is actually the detail of the violence, not San Roque, that is the more important issue here. It is there that the more significant weight problem occurs. San Roque is also an issue, but not the more important one. Pfainuk talk 15:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do mean "leave aside for now" (American usage). Thanks for the clarification. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

(Collapsed in anticipation of a summarization. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC))

Possible summarization

Wee Curry Monster! Thank you for your patience, and now it's your turn. Way above I asked 1) whether the issue here is not the weight to be given to various sources themselves, but the weight they provide, and 2) if (for the purpose of considering the validity of the methodology) we can limit the discussion to use of this methodology in choosing between alternate texts; your answer was "no". Without getting too deeply into matters, could you explain your answer? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

WCM seems to be missing in action. In anticipation of his return (and satisfaction of his concerns) I would like to learn more details of this "methodology" that is the core of this discussion. Imalbornoz, would you be so kind as to describe this methodology and how you used it? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments originally here by WCM have been moved below. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the methodology:

What is its origin and what have I used it for? It has not been the base for an edit. I have used it as an argument inside a discussion (in December 2009!!) in order to establish an objective measure of relative notability of the exodus to San Roque. Pfainuk and WC Monster argued that the article was too long to include San Roque, so I argued that there were already many episodes in the section with less notability than San Roque. Therefore, I said, if they wanted to reduce the length of the article, they could start with less notable episodes.
My methodology in this comparison was:

Search in Gooblebooks for books which mentioned "San Roque" in the text AND have the word "Gibraltar" in the title (that way, I would be sure to not include books that mention the exodus but are not about Gibraltar).
Repeat that search looking at other keywords related with other events undisputably mentioned in the article: a group of Conversos that came from Cordoba in 1474 (keywords "Cordoba" and "1474"), the Battle of Trafalgar ("Trafalgar"), the German WWII plans to invade Gibraltar from Spanish territory ("Operation Felix"), the importance together with the Suez Canal for the British Empire ("Suez" and "British Empire"), the 1967 referendum ("1967" and "referendum"); I also included other episodes that were undisputed by WC Monster and Pfainuk at the time (although they are not mentioned in the current version) such as a Muslim occupier of Gibraltar ("Abd al-Mumin" or "Abd al-Mu'min"), several episodes in WWII and the Spanish Civil War ("HMS Arethusa", "HMS Hunter", "Deutschland", "Guernica", "Endymion", "Jose Luis Diez", "Sikorski"...
Look inside the books mentioning San Roque and discard those that don't mention it in the context of the exodus (for example, a hunting party to San Roque in a book about Gibraltar).
The final result was that:

I was able to find 37 books about Gibraltar mentioning the exodus to San Roque.[4]
I found fewer books mentioning the benchmark episodes:

Number of books with “Cordoba” (or “Cordova”) and 1474 in the text and “Gibraltar” in the title : 4 [5]
Number of books with “Trafalgar” and 1805 in the text and “Gibraltar” in the title: 33 [6]
Number of books with “Operation Felix” (or “Operación Felix”) in the text and “Gibraltar” in the title: 22 [7][8]
Number of books with “Suez” and “British Empire” in the text and “Gibraltar” in the title: 10 [9]
Number of books with “referendum” and “1967” in the text and “Gibraltar” in the title: 30 [10]
Abd al-Mumin or Abd al-Mu'min: 7 books[11]
Pedro de Herrera: 1 book[12]
HMS Arethusa: 1 book[13]
HMS Hunter: 1 book[14]
Deutschland: 13 books[15]
Guernica: 4 books [16]
Endymion: 6 books[17]
Jose Luis Diez: 6 books[18]
Sikorski: 6 books[19]

My conclusion: the exodus to San Roque was much more notable than other episodes undisputedly mentioned in the article (at least not disputed by WC Monster and Pfainuk). Therefore, it didn't seem consistent to say (like they did) that "San Roque" should be removed because "The problem with this article is that it is already too long by wikipedia standards" (Justin, 22:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)) while many other less notable issues were not even under discussion.

I hope the goal and the procedure of this methodology is now clear. Of course it was not the only argument for inclusion, but just one more argument inside a discussion. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Important notice for everyone: note that pending the result at WP:AE we are not discussing the San Roque incident, only a methodology that was applied to it. This is a very thin line, so everyone please be on your nicest, most civil behavior, lest we spark any fires that we can't put out. In the interest of preventing a critical mass I may (as discussed above) suppress any intemperate remarks, but you all need to practice restraint.

Thanks to Imalbornoz for a clear description of "the methodology" and its purpose. I want to think about this (restraint!) for a night or two before proceeding, but my tentative comments are as follows.

It was used in a specific context for a specific purpose.
It attempts to measure not notability per se, but the relative notability of several episodes.

Further comments after I have contemplated this in light of the anticipatory criticisms. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Worth reminding people that it is not just San Roque that this is applied to. As I noted before, the application of a very similar methodology to the detail of the violence is also at issue here. This is why I asked the questions I did, and in particular the third of my questions above. It would be very unhelpful for this to get sidetracked into a discussion of the San Roque methodology in isolation, ignoring the methodology used to justify the detail given to the violence, when the issues of weight surrounding the detail given to the violence is the more significant issue in this dispute. Pfainuk talk 21:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This is part of what I was trying to settle in our preliminary comments above: the focus of this discussion. Which may be settled for us if the pending arbitration enforcement request comes down prohibiting you guys from discussing San Roque at all. Rather than back and forth through all of that, I am going state (somewhat heavy-handedly, for sure, but this is my requirement, lest we get stuck in a hole) that the focus of this discussion is the validity of this particular methodology (which, incidentally, as been applied to the San Roque issue), not the determination of the San Roque issue itself. Or as you initially proposed: "Is this [the methodology] a reliable means of judging the appropriate weight to be given to subjects in articles?"

I remind all of you yet again that a good part of why you all haven't gotten anywhere on these multiple issues can be traced back to your collective tendency to run off like jack rabbits towards each and every possibly relevant issue. You all need to practice chewing on one mouthful at a time; not the entire banquet! - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Prior comments from Pfainuk. -JJ

You miss out the other part - your argument that the fact that you can cite multiple books that detail the violence in some form means that it has to go in, regardless of any other factors (such as the weight that each source gives to those details). I would note that you have not attempted any other evidence-based arguments that I am aware of: the other (so-called) arguments referred to are that these points are "very notable and relevant", simply a "requirement" - or simply that there is no consensus for change.

(For the record, my argument on the other points has always been that Imalbornoz is welcome to dispute the inclusion of other events, but that such argument should be based on the weight provided by reliable sources, and that I reject his contention that the above is evidence of this.) Pfainuk talk 16:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Everyone please pay careful attention; I want this to be a learning opportunity for you all.

I asked Imalbornoz to describe his methodology, so we can all be "on the same page" in regard of what we are talking about. He did not (with the arguable exception of his conclusion) make any argument about the validity of this method. He states the conclusion he draws, but does not argue about its validity or implications. Nowhere does he argue what Pfainuk imputes to him, "that detail the violence in some form means that it has to go in, regardless of any other factors". I remind you all again that "other factors" are not being discussed here. It is possible that we might eventually compare the result of this factor against "other factors", but we are not there yet. At this point in the discussion we are looking at what the methodology is, and the issue at this point is whether Imalbornoz' description is complete and correct. Whether other points in the article have been disputed is not relevant here. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

In that case, no, it isn't complete. There are two closely related methodologies here. They can both be described together in general terms since they both boil down to counting sources (as in my original question). But they differ in detail, and the detail that Imalbornoz provides only applies to one of them. One uses Google Books, the other doesn't. One attempts to establish "relative notability", the other doesn't. You note that he doesn't argue the point I mentioned. This was the point I was making: what he has provided is not a complete description of his methodology. Pfainuk talk 21:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Anticipatory comments by WCM moved from above. -JJ

I'm back but only briefly.

1) The way I work is to read a range of sources, digest them, then compose an edit that tries to reflect the weight of opinion in the literature. The weight given to a topic thus reflects its coverage in the literature. Imalbornoz turns the process on its head, he starts with a pre-conceived notion, looks for sources to support it and then argues weight.

2) The methodology is to conduct what Imalbornoz terms a structured search. He searches in Google Books for a key word, then searches within those book hits for the phrase of interest. So he might search for Gibraltar, then search for San Roque. He might then take the first search and search for a second term, say WW2 and compare the two results. If there was more hits for the first search than the second, he argues the first is given more weight in the literature.

The problems:

a) Confirmation Bias. The searches are structured to provide a result, inevitably the results reflect the structure of the search.

b) Literature coverage. There are more books on the Great Siege and Capture for example, so hit counts don't reflect weight

c) False Positives. Eg the book on the Austrian General, brought up as he carried a medal of St Roche.

d) It is used as a substitute for research, so the search reflects the desired edit not the weight in the literature.

e) Google Snippets. Snippets are like looking through the source down a straw, you can't see the context and the results are misleading. Much of the hit counts reflect snippets which can't be used as a reliable source as there is no context. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Same comment as above: I asked Imalbornoz to describe his methodology. Your anticipatory criticisms are not about the completeness or correctness of this description, but jump ahead to question of its validity. Okay, I am going to assume that no one disputes this description of this methodology; this, or some variant or modification that we may agree on, adequately describes the methodology being discussed here.

Several comments on your criticisms. (You may want to consider and respond to each point individually, and as you have time.)

a) I do not see that "the searches are structured to provide a result" in your sense of confirming a particular position regarding San Roque. If you can show some kind of inherent bias in the search structure please do so. (See following.)

b) Literature coverage. You say there are "more" books. I think what would be relevant here is a list of books not included in the 37 found by Imalbornoz. If you can provide such a list, and we can agree that they have some relevance (even if we do not agree on their proper weight), then we would want to consider 1) why they were missed, and 2) if that lack biases the result.

c) False positives. Here again, please show instances of "false positives" which Imalbornoz did not exclude from the result.

d) Substitute for research. Here I am going to jump in and argue that you may not understand the purpose. It appears to me that this methodology is intended not as research, but as described: an objective method of relative notability. (And please, as I have noted above, we are not examining "other factors", but only this factor.)

e) Google snippets [misleading]. For sure, "snippets" (of anything), out of context, are not suitable as reliable sources. But please note the subtle distinction: these sources are not cited for what they said about San Roque, but whether they said anything at all (or not). Now it could be argued (and has been) that (e.g.) a principal, respected authority mentioning this might warrant more consideration than several minor and less reliable sources that don't (or vice versa), but lets' save that for discussion later on. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow exactly what you mean for all points.

a) The searches are structured, perhaps my comments have been misinterpreted, probably down to being poorly written as I did them in a rush as I had limited time. The results depend on the key words, pick different key words and you get different results. Hence, my comment about Confirmation Bias a different editor would have picked different keyboards and sub-consciously or consciously the results are skewed. This is one of the main reasons I do not consider Bibliometry of relevance.

b) Sure I can provide plenty. Ayala, Hills and Jackson turn up in Imalbornoz search but plenty of major works do not.

Extended content

Dodds, K (December 2004). "Solid as a Rock? Britain and Gibraltar". BBC History: pp 18-21.
Bradford, E.(1971), The history of a fortress, Gibraltar, Rupert Hart-Davis
Francis, AD. (1975), The First Peninsular War, 1702-1713
Garrat, G.T. Gibraltar and the Mediterranean, 1939
Spilsbury, John. A Journal of the Siege of Gibraltar, 1779-1783.
Sayer, F. (1862). The history of Gibraltar and of its political relation to events in Europe.
Ancell, S. (1784) A Circumstantial Journal of the long and tedious siege of Gibraltar.
Mann, JH. (1873) A History of Gibraltar and its sieges
Field, Dr HM (1890) Gibraltar
Martin, RM (1887) History of the British Possession in the Mediterranean
Drinkwater, Col (1824) A History of the Siege of Gibraltar 1779-1783
Acton, J. (2009) The Constitutional Foundations of Gibraltar; the EU and the Law, Triay & Triay, Gibraltar
James, T. (1771) A History of the Herculean Straits.

c) False positives. Bear in mind it has been verified that each of these 37 books specifically mention the exodus.

Extended content

'An introduction to the documents relating to the international status of Gibraltar, 1704-1934' (Wilbur Cortez Abbott) Mentions San Roque once on p.87 relevant to 1780.
'Das Leben und der Briefwechsel des Landgrafen Georg von Hessen-Darmstadt, des Eroberers und Vertheidigers von Gibraltar' (Heinrich Künzel) San Roque isn't mentioned.
'El estrecho de Gibraltar: su función en la geopolítica nacional' (José Diaz de Villegas y Bustamente) Doesn't mention San Roque.
'Espías en Gibraltar' (Enrique Arques) A book about spies in Gibraltar
'Gibraltar y su campo: una economía deprimida' (Juan Velarde Fuertes) A book about the economic impact of Gibraltar on the surrounding Campo de Gibraltar.
Gibraltar, identity and empire' (Charles Carrington) Briefly mentions British officers dining in San Roque.
'La Parroquia de Gibraltar en San Roque (documentos 1462-1853)' (Rafael Caldelas López) Is a book about the parish of San Roque
'La población de Gibraltar: sus orígenes, naturaleza y sentido' (Gumersindo Rico) See [20]
'Southern Spain: with Gibraltar, Ceuta & Tangier' (Litellus Russell Muirhead) A tourist guide book

d) I establish due weight with research, Imalbornoz claims this methodology does the same [21]. He may claim above that is not what its used for but that is what he has done.

e) Bear in mind that Imalbornoz has none of the 37 books, he establishes their relevance with Google Snippets. If he had the books we wouldn't be having this discussion would we?

Does that answer your question, I collapsed lists to keep the text compact. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's consider these points individually (bite size!), so we don't get so spread across the landscape. I will be stating what I think Imalbornoz was doing, and I hope he will correct me if necessary. But I would like you all to not be pinging on each other directly, okay? And I think we need to start with the last two points.

e/d: Google snippets ... as substitute for research?

WCM, you have made an issue before that Imalbornoz did not (in general?) read the books found. But it seems to me that you misunderstand the intended purpose. It appears to be not research per se, or a substitute, or as a source for any specific edit, but, as Imalbornoz said, an objective method of determining relative notability. As I said above (at "e"), these sources are not cited for what they said about San Roque (or the other incidents), but whether they said anything at all (or not). You say that you "establish due weight with research". Let's consider that for a moment. (Not so much for itself, but as a possible counter-example of what we are discussing.) In your determination of the due weight to be given some incident (relative to other incidents), how many books have you "researched"? And how did you select which ones to read? (Take however much time you need.) - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Wet blanket for reducing temperature.

I realise what he may have said here but may I point out that isn't how he used it. WP:AGF does not require I divorce myself from reality. May I enquire whether you checked the diff I provided earlier?

Quoting from above the purpose of these searches is "an objective measure of relative notability of the exodus to San Roque". Moreover, "37 books about Gibraltar mentioning the exodus to San Roque." If you check that list, a substantial portion do not. The list is in fact cited for an incident not for the general notability of San Roque.

It is also the case that Imalbornoz hasn't read the books found or that he uses as sources. The sole source of his edits are 3rd party quotes and google books. And please re-read the above, the search is to establish the notability of the Exodus to San Roque. He claims that he personally verified all 37 books. When you check the claim it comes up short.

I also happen to disagree that his method is objective. For example he claims only 5 hits for references to the Jewish population of 1474. A different search turns up 223 hits [22]. BTW I don't claim to have personally verified each and everyone but if you check the first page you'll find at least 10 all focused on this. Similarly different searches turns up 0 hits for the details of the events of 1704 [23] or even [24] (for info the latter uses precisely the same method described above and the details Imalbornoz claims are so notable). I guess you can get whatever result you want really, hence, my comment that Bibliometry is about as much use as Extispicy.

How many books have I researched? Well for Gibraltar I've used mainly Hills, Jackson, Andrews and Bradford, backed up by Francis for details of the First Peninsular War. I've read all 5 and made detailed notes from each. For most articles I've ever written I refer to multiple sources, cross-checking facts in each, usually at least 4-5 but on more esoteric topics sometimes 2-3. In addition, I've copies of all the books named above for example. I haven't read all of them but in certain cases used them to verify comments in the secondary sources.

How did I select them. Some I have read out of personal interest as history is a great passion of mine. I also went to the library and looked through the catalogue. When I find reference works of merit, I check their Bibliography and get further references that way. Andrews I happened to buy because I tracked down a cheap copy. In addition, my cousin is a second hand books dealer and I get all sorts of references from him. I read prolifically, one of the benefits of insomnia.

The important thing for me is to be able to see a topic in context and how it relates to surrounding events. If you are unable to do that, I fail to see how you can establish weight or NPOV. Does that address your question in sufficient detail. Does that answer your question? Wee Curry Monster talk 21:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Everyone back off. (Papa is feeling very cranky.) Look, you guys just keep banging off of each other, you always have to raise the ante, you keep dragging in more points and issues without fully addressing (let alone resolving) any of the current points. My patience is starting to wear thin, so we are going to take a temporary break. Do not forget that you all are subject to an arbitration enforcement, and pursuant to that I am hereby setting a temporary limitation of no comments whatsoever on this discussion. This is to give us all a respite, and for me consider how to best proceed. (One consideration is whether comments should be strictly limited in length.) If you absolutely have to say something send me a private e-mail. But keep in mind that around the third line I'm likely to hit the delete key. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Throwing wet blanket over explosion of text.

a) Bias in structure of searches: you usually want the "proof" of your thesis to be very robust. Therefore, if there is any bias, it has to be in reducing the number of books supporting the proposed thesis: I allowed a count of books supporting the benchmark episodes higher than the episode I proposed to mention. See below.

b) A few books supporting my thesis are not mentioned because of what I say in point a): I discarded all the books where I couldn't check any explicit mention of the exodus to San Roque. They may mention it, but a preview of the mention may not be available, so I discarded them. On the other hand, I didn't verify or filter out any of the books that came up in the Googlebooks search of the benchmark episodes.

Some conditions affect both the disputed and the benchmark episodes:

the sources may not even be in google books, like Dodd's article -which is not a book, but a BBC article
or simply no preview may be available at all so they don't come up in the search, like Ernie Bradford's "The history of a fortress, Gibraltar"
or they may not have the word "Gibraltar" in the title, like the book about the Jewish Diaspora in WC Monster's example above, or Francis' "The First Peninsular War, 1702-1713" (arguably, this is all right because those books do not guarantee notability regarding the History of Gibraltar; they talk about the Jewish Diaspora and the Peninsular Wars).

c) I don't remember every detail of the search, but I do remember I only listed the books with explicit mentions of the exodus (of course I may have committed some mistakes, which would only discredit me, not the methodology). Anyway, I think that WC Monster's review of the searches may be inaccurate when he says that he doesn't find any mention, or that the mention is not about the exodus (see inside the collapsible list):

Extended content

'Das Leben und der Briefwechsel des Landgrafen Georg von Hessen-Darmstadt, des Eroberers und Vertheidigers von Gibraltar' (Heinrich Künzel) "San Roque isn't mentioned" (WCM). "It is mentioned in p 415" (Imalbornoz)

"die kleine spanische Stadt San Roque wo sich die meisten spanischen wohner Gibraltars nach der Einnahme von 1704 niedergelassen"

"the small Spanish town of San Roque, where most Spanish residents settled after the capture of Gibraltar in 1704"

'El estrecho de Gibraltar: su función en la geopolítica nacional' (José Diaz de Villegas y Bustamente) "Doesn't mention San Roque" (WCM). "It mentions San Roque in 8 pages; e.g. 305" (Imalbornoz)

"Al arrebatársenos el Peñón, sus pobladores le abandonaron, fijando su residencia en San Roque. Desde entoces se conserva allí, con carácter provisional, el Pendón glorioso de la Muy Noble y Más Leal Ciudad de Gibraltar, (...)"

"When the Rock was taken away, its inhabitants abandoned it, taking up residence at San Roque. Since then, there remains, in a provisional basis, the Glorious Banner of the Most Noble and Most Loyal City of Gibraltar, (…)"

'Gibraltar' (Charles Carrington) "Briefly mentions British officers dining in San Roque" (WCM). "It also mentions the exodus to San Roque in page 6" (Imalbornoz).

"The bulk of the inhabitants settled at San Roque in the hills overlooking the Bay and there preserved the privileges and the tradition of Spanish Gibraltar."

'La población de Gibraltar: sus orígenes, naturaleza y sentido' (Gumersindo Rico) "See [25]" (WCM). "Indeed, if you look there, there are several references to the exodus to San Roque" (Imalbornoz).

'La Parroquia de Gibraltar en San Roque (documentos 1462-1853)' (Rafael Caldelas López) "Is a book about the parish of San Roque" (WCM) "It is a book about the parish of Gibraltar in San Roque, and talks -among other things- about the transition of the 'spiritual' government (sic) of Gibraltar to San Roque" (Imalbornoz).

'An introduction to the documents relating to the international status of Gibraltar, 1704-1934' (Wilbur Cortez Abbott) "Mentions San Roque once on p.87 relevant to 1780" (WCM). "I think there were other mentions, but I don't seem to find them now" (Imalbornoz)

There are other non-history books about Gibraltar that mention the episode. I would think this only adds to the notability of the exodus to San Roque:

'Espías en Gibraltar' (Enrique Arques) A book about spies in Gibraltar

'Gibraltar y su campo: una economía deprimida' (Juan Velarde Fuertes) A book about the economic impact of Gibraltar on the surrounding Campo de Gibraltar.

'Southern Spain: with Gibraltar, Ceuta & Tangier' (Litellus Russell Muirhead) "A tourist guide book" (WCM)... "mentioning the San Roque episode in the part about Gibraltar" (Imalbornoz).

d) and e) JJ is right to say that I only wanted to make a count of sources, and check whether the episode was mentioned in them. Therefore, I only needed the context to establish that, not the exact position of the source about the episode.

f) (If I may). In my opinion, this "bibliometric" methodology is only useful in cases where the keyword is a given name (for a place, a person, a ship...) because in those cases there is a univocal relation between the episode and the keyword (i.e. you can be sure that the description will always include the keyword the same way). In cases where it is just a narrative description ("churches were desecrated", "women were raped", "homes were looted"...) this is more difficult to apply, because there are way too many ways to mention the episode (e.g. to describe the violence after the capture of Gibraltar, different sources use at least the following words: desecration/profanation/defilement/sacking/destruction, rape/outrage/abuse/mistreatment, looting/sacking/plundering...)

Thanks. I hope it's clearer now. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 08:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm collapsing my comment, waiting for JJ but there is a response below. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Extended content

No the "methodology" has no credit at all.

A) you have your search that only turns up 5 hits, a different search 223 hits. You can clearly have whatever results you desire.

B) "this "bibliometric" methodology is only useful in cases", ie when it doesn't give the results you want you ignore it. Either it is a consistent metric or it isn't, you can't choose to present results that contradict your claim.

C) And I went through your search in detail see User:Wee Curry Monster/sandpit, if there are any discrepancies between what you did and what I did, then that also further demonstrates that Google Snippets is inherently unreliable.

D) False positives for example [26] is clearly a false positive. There are others. Every time I examine your claims about sources I find disrepancies. See below:

Extended content

'Das Leben und der Briefwechsel des Landgrafen Georg von Hessen-Darmstadt, des Eroberers und Vertheidigers von Gibraltar' (Heinrich Künzel) "San Roque isn't mentioned" (WCM). "It is mentioned in p 415" (Imalbornoz)

"die kleine spanische Stadt San Roque wo sich die meisten spanischen wohner Gibraltars nach der Einnahme von 1704 niedergelassen"

"the small Spanish town of San Roque, where most Spanish residents settled after the capture of Gibraltar in 1704"

[27] Once on P.347 (a false positive) and the text you claim doesn't appear to exist [28]

'El estrecho de Gibraltar: su función en la geopolítica nacional' (José Diaz de Villegas y Bustamente) "Doesn't mention San Roque" (WCM). "It mentions San Roque in 8 pages; e.g. 305" (Imalbornoz)

[29] Nothing of relevance to the Exodus as you claim.

"Al arrebatársenos el Peñón, sus pobladores le abandonaron, fijando su residencia en San Roque. Desde entoces se conserva allí, con carácter provisional, el Pendón glorioso de la Muy Noble y Más Leal Ciudad de Gibraltar, (...)"

"When the Rock was taken away, its inhabitants abandoned it, taking up residence at San Roque. Since then, there remains, in a provisional basis, the Glorious Banner of the Most Noble and Most Loyal City of Gibraltar, (…)"

[30] And again when I look I don't find what you claim.

'Gibraltar' (Charles Carrington) "Briefly mentions British officers dining in San Roque" (WCM). "It also mentions the exodus to San Roque in page 6" (Imalbornoz).

"The bulk of the inhabitants settled at San Roque in the hills overlooking the Bay and there preserved the privileges and the tradition of Spanish Gibraltar."

[31] Again nothing relevant to the exodus. Despite trying various different searches [32],[33],[34]

'La población de Gibraltar: sus orígenes, naturaleza y sentido' (Gumersindo Rico) "See [35]" (WCM). "Indeed, if you look there, there are several references to the exodus to San Roque" (Imalbornoz).

[36] Actually no there does not appear to be any mentions of the exodus.

'La Parroquia de Gibraltar en San Roque (documentos 1462-1853)' (Rafael Caldelas López) "Is a book about the parish of San Roque" (WCM) "It is a book about the parish of Gibraltar in San Roque, and talks -among other things- about the transition of the 'spiritual' government (sic) of Gibraltar to San Roque" (Imalbornoz).

[37] Not the exodus as claimed.

'An introduction to the documents relating to the international status of Gibraltar, 1704-1934' (Wilbur Cortez Abbott) "Mentions San Roque once on p.87 relevant to 1780" (WCM). "I think there were other mentions, but I don't seem to find them now" (Imalbornoz)

[38] No it doesn't, when you examine the claims they come up short.

Taking another tack

A little longer break than I had planned, but, frankly, I am a little frustrated (and needed the break). I entered this discussion to see if certain changes in behavior (how you all interact) might lead to resolution of the issue. What frustrates me is the difficulty of getting that antecedent change in behavior. (Esp. WCM.) Such glacial progress might be okay if we had "world enough, and time", but I do have other work, and limited time. And my reserve of patience is getting low. If we are to continue (and I am thinking of just closing this discussion), I think some restrictions are necessary. I propose the following:

Do not respond to each other. That just fans the fires. Don't do it.
Respond only when queried, either where "network control" (or moderator, that would be me; I'm following how certain radio networks operate) queries you directly, or queries everyone.
Observe strict limit on length of responses/comments, either a default of 80 words, or as specified. "Strict", because I also propose to enforce this by deletion of responses in violation.
Respond strictly to query, unless invited otherwise. Don't jump off elsewhere.

Everyone okay with this? Just for practice, let's limit response to 20 words. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I have lost confidence in your objectivity. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes. Please do not lose your patience, we need as much external opinion as possible (20 words up to here ;-)). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 10:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

WCM probably has in mind a comment I made privately that Imalbornoz "may be on to something", however imperfectly. This really has no bearing on the proposed restrictions; I take it to apply to the whole discussion.

Pfainuk, how are you with these proposed restrictions? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

No WCM took offence at being singled out in your comment above to be truthful. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

This is the WP:NPOVN, its supposed to be for gaining external opinion on NPOV matters and that is all.

Indeed, this noticeboard is intended for the asking of questions. But as you illustrate below (and I will comment on later), you are not asking a question. You are advocating a position on which you are already fixed. The question in this section has been trying to formulate the conditions in which we might productively address the questions originally raised by Pfainuk. At this point I think this is futile. See below. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite prepared to listen if you're saying that I'm wrong and will listen to your explanation as to why. But you have done none of that, instead you focus on asserting that I have a closed mind. Please do not deter outside comment or other opinions, which is what you're now doing. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

You have shown in your own words that your mind is already decided. As to deterring you from further comment on this topic: that is the ban from Arbitration. This discussion was exempted at my specific request; I now terminate the exemption, and continued comments are in violation. I hope you will heed that, but suit yourself. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I am quite prepared to listen to a logical argument and change my opinion if I'm persuaded of its merit. However, I have seen none and continuing to assert my mind is closed is hardly persuasive. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Simple matter, simple question

How about a straight answer to a straight question, ie can Bibliometry establish due weight and notability objectively?

collapse my personal opinion, give me yours

The essay WP:Google searches and numbers suggests not One of the biggest fallacies in determining notability of a subject is the results of a Google search using the title or keywords of an article or subject, essentially known as a "Google test." Instead of a Google search, can structured searches in Google Books establish due weight and notability? Could this be the basis of an objective means of establishing notability?

In my personal opinion, Bibliometry cannot form the basis of establishing WP:DUE, for the simple reason it is fundamentally vulnerable to Confirmation Bias. In an example above, an editor attempts to measure the weight sources attach to a group of Jewish settlers from Cordoba moving to Gibraltar in 1474 (keywords "Cordoba" and "1474"). This produces 1 hits [39]. My search (Keywords Jews, Gibraltar, 1474) produces 211 hits [40]. On this basis I reject bibliometry as I see it as fundamentally flawed it can be manipulated either consciously or sub-consciously to produce any desired result.

Another editor has suggested I'm simply criticising the method and not discussing how the flaws/imperfections might be fixed. I counter that it is so fundamentally flawed there is no fix. So the focused question I would like community input on:

Is Bibliometry an acceptable means of establishing WP:DUE in an objective fashion?

Wee Curry Monster talk 11:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Would "yes" be a satisfactorily simple answer? How about we go with that?

This is the same question you raised below below, and as I said there: every time I have tried to get you to focus on a single question that might be simple enough for a simple answer you revert to a mode of complaining that other questions are being ignored. In other words, you want a "simple" answer for a broad issue, with far-reaching consequences ("we can just forget about" NPOV and various fundamental policies). Sorry, but for all the ground you want to cover there are no simple answers. Though it would be simple enough if you would "simply" accept "yes".

There is another issue here, where you are ostensibly asking a question (inviting opinions?), but in fact you have already settled on a position: "In my personal opinion, Bibliometry cannot form the basis of establishing WP:DUE, ...." Your "question" is only so in form; it appears you are really wrangling for a negative answer. Your repeated attempts to raise this issue (of "Bibliometry", but at the bottom how it affects the issue of San Roque) is tiresome, even tendentious. If you truly want a simple answer, take "yes" (because that has the fewest onerous consequences), and be done. Otherwise: sorry, there is no simple answer for the broad, and loaded, question that you ask. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It is a simple matter. I suggest Bibliometry has no role to play in establishing WP:DUE, as you can achieve any result you like.

Example above 1 hit vs 211 hit, simply by varying the search terms. Please stop raising irrelevant matters that I never actually raised. If I'm wrong, address my comment and show me where I'm wrong.

For the record my actual complaint:

a) Imalbornoz asserts here that he uses this as a guide to notability not as an argument for notability. This is untrue. He uses this to argue WP:DUE (evidence diff [41]), or to assert other editors are giving undue weight to less relevant material (evidence diff [42]). It is used to close down discussion not to facilitate it. Its use is destructive and disruptive. I point this out, you don't wish to discuss it.

b) When Bibliometry supports the argument, it is the best thing since sliced bread. When it contradicts it, its ignored. This is whether it is exactly the same method Imalbornoz uses or an alternative. Again this is not a point considered worthy of discussion.

You say I raise multiple issues, that may have something to do with the fact that there is so many things wrong with it. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, here is a simple answer for your simple question: Yes. Next matter is different question/discussion; please leave the section header in place. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Closed

Having given this a good try, but seeing no end to it, I am declaring this discussion closed. The "Gibraltar" editors involved here are reminded they are subject to an arbitration enforcement, for which an exception was obtained for this discussion; any further comments here would be in violation. Note also that "bibliometry", as used here, concerns San Roque, and is therefore under the ban. Thank you for your patience in coming this far; perhaps we can go further at some future date. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

No this has nothing to do with San Roque (not an issue I ever raised here), if you no longer wish to discuss I would ask you not to deter others. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not asking you to desist, I am reminding you that Arbitration has subjected you to a ban. Though I would suggest that you heed that. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Outside opinion on the issue of Bibliometry in establishing WP:DUE would be very welcome indeed. (Again this is the issue, not San Roque nor Gibraltar nor the 2nd gunman on the grassy knoll - for which I have the alibi of not being born at the time). Wee Curry Monster talk 23:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

WCM, please do not remove or collapse the "Closed" section header. This is not an "argument among involved parties", it is my withdrawal of the exemption by which you (and the other Gibraltar editors) were permitted this discussion under the sanctions imposed by WP:AE.

I remind you that I am the "outside opinion" that you got, which apparently you have not found welcome. If anyone else wishes to discuss this with you I suggest you start a new discussion. This one needs to be put out of its misery. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I declined to continue to participate in the process you imposed, which was not about outside opinion at all but was instead on focusing on "editor behaviour" and had dissolved into you accusing me of having a closed mind. Instead of addressing the argument you focused on the editor.

The request for outside opinion concerns the issue of Bibliometry in establishing WP:DUE objectively, nothing else and you have no right to close this thread or declare it closed. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe a check with google search terms and a look at the results to check they are relevant is a reasonable way of determining a base weight and is in line with guidelines. The actual numbers should not determine the proportion of text for each though. Also there may be factors like one author writes a large number of books or there are people with a case to grind involved, but a clear showing cannot just be dismissed as irrelevant. If there is a dispute between views with a reasonable weight then they should both be noted with appropriate attributions. If there are works saying why one or the other is wrong then they can be included too also with appropriate attributions. Dmcq (talk) 18:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

WCM: you were banned here by AE "from starting or participating in any discussion concerning any events ... otherwise related to, Gibraltar, broadly construed." (Full text at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar#Administrator Log.)

At my request you were permitted an exemption for the discussion here. This was subject to "such limitations as necessary to ensure the smooth progress" (section #5). My experience here is that limitations are need to keep the discussion from flying off in all directions. You rejected the proposed limitations, therefore I have withdrawn my supervision, and your participation here is no longer exempted from the ban. If you have any questions or complaints please take them up with WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is Bibliometry an acceptable means of assessing Due Weight and Notability?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Collapsed as possible violation of arbitration enforcement

Can Bibliometry establish due weight and notability objectively? The essay WP:Google searches and numbers suggests not One of the biggest fallacies in determining notability of a subject is the results of a Google search using the title or keywords of an article or subject, essentially known as a "Google test." Instead of a Google search, can structured searches in Google Books establish due weight and notability? Could this be the basis of an objective means of establishing notability?

In my personal opinion, Bibliometry cannot form the basis of establishing WP:DUE, for the simple reason it is fundamentally vulnerable to Confirmation Bias. In an example above, an editor attempts to measure the weight sources attach to a group of Jewish settlers from Cordoba moving to Gibraltar in 1474 (keywords "Cordoba" and "1474"). This produces 1 hits [43]. My search (Keywords Jews, Gibraltar, 1474) produces 211 hits [44]. On this basis I reject bibliometry as I see it as fundamentall flawed it can be manipulated either consciously or sub-consciously to produce any desired result.

Another editor has suggested I'm simply criticising the method and not discussing how the flaws/imperfections might be fixed. So the focused question I would like community input on:

Is Bibliometry an acceptable means of establishing WP:DUE in an objective fashion? Wee Curry Monster talk 23:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster apparently has forgotten that he is subject to an arbitration enforcement, and is thereby "banned from starting or participating in any discussion concerning any events, occurrences, or incidents that occurred between 1600 AD and 1900 AD, if such event, occurrence, or incident took place in, or is otherwise related to, Gibraltar, broadly construed." This section here is an outgrowth of a discussion above (#Due weight and numbers of sources, which was exempted from the ban, under limitations) regarding certain aspects of the Gibraltar issue. Initiation of this section is part of pattern by WCM to raise the issue repeatedly. My recommendation is that this fresh outbreak be closed, and the editor advised to participate in the existing discussion, or avoid the topic entirely. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

A) If I've inadvertently breached this restriction that was unintentional, for which I apologise and I'll withdraw it.

B) There is no pattern of raising the issue repeatedly, again we see you blaiming an editor, whilst at the same time claiming to be neutral and objective. This is why I have no confidence in the process going anywhere. Which brings me onto my next point.

C) The thread above seems to be dissolving into group therapy and going precisely nowhere. It was started to ask a pretty basic question, either Bibliometry is an acceptable way of establishing due weight, in which case we can just forget about WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:CON, or it doesn't and it can be eliminated from discussions for the disruptive way it is being used. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

a) If the comments above (collapsed) re Gibraltar are not pursued I think they should be deemed as an unintentional, for which no consequences should ensue.

b) There is a pattern of raising the issue repeatedly. I am not inclined to dig out a whole list, but this discussion springs from #Due weight and numbers of sources above, with the same issue being raised here and here (lenghty) and here.

c) Wee Curry Monster has repeatedly demanded a "simple answer" (and currently at #Simple matter, simple question, above), but every time I have tried to get him to focus on a single question that might be simple enough for a simple answer he reverts to a mode of complaining that other questions are being ignored. In other words, he wants a "simple" answer for a broad issue, with far-reaching consequences ("we can just forget about" various fundamental policies). And as he is already decided on an answer ("In my personal opinion, Bibliometry cannot form the basis of establishing WP:DUE...."), he is not raising a question for discussion, but advocating a position which prior history shows little chance of resolution. As the issue raised here is repetitive, stuck, and unlikely to make any progress in the current circumstances, I am going to be bold and close it. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I really don't see how blaming an editor for trying to get focused outside opinion to resolve a dispute is helpful and it seems clear that you are no longer approaching this in an objective manner.

No there isn't a pattern of raising the issue repeatedly, show me on any of those threads where the question is addressed and not derailed by red herrings and multiple irrelevant issues to swamp the discussion.

Are you saying that I'm wrong? Do you really advocate establishing weight on the basis of Google searches? Wee Curry Monster talk 21:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

WCM: 1) You are misrepresenting both what I said and the methodology in issue; these are violations of the WP:Talk page guidelines. This is part of why it has been so difficult discuss this issue.

2) The "red herrings and multiple irrelevant issues to swamp the discussion" is exactly what you trying to do here. This section itself is part of the pattern.

3) The issue you raise here ("bibliometry") is in the context of Gibraltar; I remind you once again of User_talk:Wee Curry Monster#Notice of sanctions related to Gibraltar. Your initiation and continuation of this discussion is a likely violation of those sanctions. Don't complain that I didn't warn you. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

(Alternately, see text of sanctions at permalink, WCM having blanked his page. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC) )

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:Due weight and Feminism

Does WP:due weight mean that there should be more coverage on Wikipedia of American feminism than feminism in other countries, because American feminism is written about more often in English sources? Should American feminism be given more prominence and space in English articles about worldwide feminism because of this? (For example, History of feminism) --Aronoel (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll see your due weight and raise you WP:CSB :-)

Feminism is important in all parts of the world. If there are sources discussing other aspects of feminism in French or Arabic or Xhosa, feel free to use those sources too; there may be practical difficulties in doing so, but much of this encyclopædia has an (entirely understandable) bias towards whatever is written in English, online sources simply because they're the lowest-hanging fruit. An encyclopædia should strive to cover all fields of knowledge, not just the stuff that's easily googled by an anglophone. So, maybe it's inevitable that we have more text about american feminism right now, but that isn't necessarily how things should be... no?

As an aside, it's important to distinguish between America and the English language. There are several other parts of the world where feminism might be written about in English; obviously in other anglophone countries, but English may even be used, academically, in non-anglophone countries, and scholars don't always confine themselves to writing about what has happened in their own country. bobrayner (talk) 10:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Non English sources are okay on Wikipedia and you should probably look at them too if there is a problem about weight this way which makes life a little difficult. I am surprised if the sources talk about 'American feminism' rather than just feminism but if there is a preponderance that talk about that then yes that should get the greatest weight if you know of no good reason otherwise (though not in proportion to the actual numbers). As to how important something is in a particular country compared to another I would also consider the relative populations but I guess that's not what being asked here. Dmcq (talk) 10:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for answering my question. There are a lot of sources, even in English, that cover feminism in other countries, so that wasn't really the problem. The problem was that I believe that different countries should be covered in equal proportions in articles like History of feminism, while another editor was saying that this violated WP:Due weight because the history of feminism in the US and UK is covered more often in English sources. (The discussion, which was already resolved, is at Talk:Feminism.) I didn't think this was a situation in which WP:Due weight made much sense, so I wanted to make sure I understood this policy. Thanks --Aronoel (talk) 14:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I can see how the history of feminism would rightly have an English-speaking emphasis, or at least a Western emphasis, but not all of history and not the subject in general which is dear to the hearts of people the world over. Binksternet (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Anti Chinese christians and anti Chinese government POV issues at Boxer Rebellion

already a massive thread at WP:ANI#Dungane and Arilang1234 see admin note below

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I like to bring admins attention towards user ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ various POV pushing behavior on China related articles, especially on talk page of Boxer Rebellion. ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ had been openly displaying anti Chinese christians and anti Chinese government political stance, and he is openly using Wikipedia as his personal political platform, and he chose to ignore WP:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight.

(1)
Statement made by ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ on the start of ANI discussion:Comment by ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ on 21:52, 13 October 2010- "do not use Chinese government communist websites as sources. They deliberately malign Cixi and Qing as corrupt, to further their communist ideology by making it look good"ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 03:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

On this statement, ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ is telling us that "do not use Chinese government communist websites as sources", as if all Chinese government websites are Unreliable Sources, not to be trusted by Wikipedia. This statement of ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ is yet another solid proof of his biased and non-neutral personal agenda on Wikipedia, he is here openly defying and rejecting WP rules, especially WP:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight, thus he should be barred from editing, to stop him from poisoning this encyclopedic building project. Arilang ^talk 05:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

(2)
Comment made by ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ on Boxer Rebellion talkpage on 19 May 2011: is the fact that the crimes of Chinese christians and foreigners, per the sources, aren't explained in even more detail, with every aspect of how they robbed chinese peasants of their land and how chinese "christians" were actually bandits who converted to avoid prosecution.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 06:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
It is clear that here: ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ is claiming that "chinese christians were actually bandits", and ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ is into adding more detailed and every aspect of "chinese christians robbing peasants" into Wikipedia article, in blatant violation of WP:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight. At the same time, it looks like ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ is using Wikipedia as a political platform to advocate his anti-Christian agenda, thus he should be given a indefinite ban. Arilang ^talk 05:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

(3)When faced with user John Smith's remark:"There's one line on this and then the rest is devoted to the conduct of Alliance troops. This is not neutral." see here, ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ went on to make a casual and sarcastic remark:"Real Life isn't neutral" see here, instead of discussing with John Smith's on how to improve the neutrality of the article, ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ completely disregarded WP rules. Arilang ^talk 05:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Arilang1234 again has engaged in cherry picking edits (and is therefore lying in his claim that I ignored John Smith's complaint about neutrality, by not showing my actual response to John smith- I addressed his assertion that the article was not neutral, by pointing out there was already a section in existence about chinese atrocities and that I contributed to that section. If you go look at the talk page now, at Talk:Boxer_Rebellion#Atrocities_section, you can see I clearly responded to User:John Smith's about the article being "not neutral". John Smith's then did not raise any more question regarding neutrality, he then said that it was the organzation of the article that was poor. per WP:DUCK, since my response to John smith's was in plain english and clearly visible in the same section, I will assert that Arilang1234 is a liar, since he claimed I did not discuss improving the neutrality of the article when I didΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 05:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Arilang1234's lie is completely in bad faith, anyone who takes a look at the section sees that I did respond to John Smith's concern about neutrality by noting the existence of a section on chinese atrocities ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 05:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

And it is definetly a lie now, since this is the second time he did it, since I have alerted him it the falsehood of his accusation.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 05:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

(4)ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ made statements like "the foreigners were paranoid", "they shot at all chinese that passed by the legations, which led to them being blockaded.", "trigger happy marines", see here, these statements are 19 century old style anti-foreigners rhetoric, is biased and non-neutral, do not belong on wiki talkpage. These kind of statements only serve to create more non-neutrality. Arilang ^talk 00:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

This is WP:FORUMSHOPPING, see WP:ANI#Dungane and Arilang1234 where it has been necessary to collapse a chaotic thread - uninvolved editors are welcome to comment there, but this thread is closed - Arilang, ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ, please take heed - trying to use other venues while there is a discussion at ANI is a bad idea. Dougweller (talk) 06:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Huey P. Newton

Should the section regarding a prostitute who was shot to death be entitled "Murder of Kathleen Smith" or "Death of Kathleen Smith"? Thanks! Location (talk) 04:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

According to that article, even Newton admitted that it was "my first non-political murder" so I'm unsure why naming the section using that term would be contentious. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Poultry farming

I know nothing about this subject, so I posted here to see if it can get some attention, because this article has obviously been taken over by the free-range people.

More than half the article is the section "issues with poultry farming." Even the "techniques" section has hardly anything to do with actual techniques. I cannot, for example, find out how eggs are incubated in commercial farms from this article. Instead there's a long discussion of the various ailments that non-free-range chickens suffer.

The related article Poultry farming in the United States actually has a bit of good info, but a lot of quality issues. I don't know enough to know whether that one should be merged into the main one or not. LRT24 (talk) 03:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

People's Pledge

I have opened an RfC on the question of whether the campaign can be described as "Eurosceptic". It was raised here in April (Archive 21). Itsmejudith (talk) 11:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Would be good to have some more uninvolved comments. Only a few of us are currently involved in the discussion. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I responded on the article talk page.[45] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case

Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case (not the bio article) NPOV issues:

Is the inclusion of the possible maximum sentence if Strauss-Kahn is convicted a NPOV vio?

No. because Wikipedia articles as well as news accounts include this as a routine matter because it varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. patsw (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Is the inclusion of details of the indictment (i.e. the counts and the class of felony or misdemeanor) a NPOV vio?

No. (again) because Wikipedia articles as well as news accounts include this as a routine matter. The indictment is an accusation, not a finding of fact, the result of a legal process backed up by sworn testimony before a grand jury. It is a public document. patsw (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Should content be deleted so that the amount of content implicating Strauss-Kahn be equalized to the amount of content exonerating him?

No. Relevant content appears in reliable sources as events unfold. There is no requirement (nor is it desirable) to balance the content implicating Strauss-Kahn with the content exonerating him. patsw (talk) 20:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

No, none of that inclusion is an NPOV vio. Do bear in mind that we need to avoid systematic bias that might arise from considering only the English-language media. I was just looking at the French newspaper Liberation [46] and they are distinctly favourable to DSK. They have a story saying that Vladimir Putin believes it could be a conspiracy. All this is RS for the article, even if it looks like blather to an English-speaking reader. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment. Another aspect of this is being discussed on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#Leaks patsw (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

"Context" and other issues

After a lengthy RFC, some additions were made at Political activities of the Koch family, specifically this (the bottom part of the diff, about the Roosevelt quote and BEST study). After an exhausting and ridiculous thread on the talk page (Talk:Political_activities_of_the_Koch_family#Roosevelt_redux), some editors still insist on a formulation that links the quote the RFC was about with the "context" of the article. That sounds fine, but what's being edit warred over is this, which is simply ludicrous, and requires the talkpage thread to make any sense of at all. Please, for the love of God, let's have some third parties come in and sort this out. Rd232 ^talk 23:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The above is emblematic of the POV problems - Roosevelt wrote an article referring to a specific study, and some asseet they "know" she was referring to something other than what is clearly in the article. Problems stated here should be done in an extraordinarily neutral manner not reminiscent of CANVASS. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

These boards are utterly pointless if the only people to comment are those already involved. And the diff speaks for itself, replacing relevant context (year of statement) with irrelevant context (subject of article the statement was in, which has no relevance for interpreting the statement, so including it violates the "Chekhov's gun" rule of not including irrelevant facts, because people will try to read relevance into them). Rd232 ^talk 20:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Propaganda categories

Not Without My Daughter is a mainstream American film from 1991 that is widely viewed by Iranians as portraying their country in a very negative light. The film is included in two categories Category:Anti-Iranian sentiments and Category:American propaganda films that I find somewhat problematic. The only other films in the American propaganda films category seem to be war propaganda and non-fiction films that make an explicit point about morality. Clearly "propaganda films" and "Anti-Iranian sentiments" have a negative connotation and calling Not Without My Daughter (or the film 300 which is listed in Category:Anti-Iranian sentiments) "propaganda" or "anti-Iranian" is an opinion, perhaps even a widely-held one, rather than fact. Is it appropriate to categorize films like this? I remember that there was a very long debate over Category:Antisemitism which concluded with the decision to exclude "articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly antisemitic" from the category. Is a similar policy applicable for the propaganda films and anti-Iranian sentiments (and other, similar) categories? GabrielF (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Not a propaganda film. Like Borat is loathed in Kazakhstan. I doubt if Zulus adore the film Zulu. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

propaganda implies intent, which is ridiculous for a mainstream Hollywood movie. It's a film of an autobiographical book. "anti-Iranian sentiment" categorisation is harder to evaluate, not least because the concept is rather vague. Rd232 ^talk 20:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I've removed Category:American propaganda films from the article. I also removed a propaganda films category from Red Terror on the Amber Coast because the article doesn't really say anything about it being a "propaganda" film, as opposed to a political documentary.

I've spent a little time reviewing Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 9#Bias_categories. It looks like there's a very explicit consensus that categories of some kind of bias should not include individuals, organizations and media accused of that bias. It seems like this standard should also hold for the subcategories of Category:Anti-national sentiment. Is there any reason not to explicitly apply this consensus to these categories (by posting a note such as the one that exists at Category:Antisemitism) and then purging these categories accordingly? GabrielF (talk) 01:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Prescott Bush

Prescott Bush was stable for a very long time.

Recently the claim the Bush was a Nazi agent through the Union Banking Corporation conspo\iracy theory has been "un-NPOVed" substantially - removing an RS document belying the claims (one editor now asserts it may be "fake" even though the link was from hnn.com, and furnished by the accuser!). (There was prior lengthy discussion on the talk page).

I would like fresh eyes to look at the conspiracy theory being promoted there. I would note that the "conspiracy theorists" involved are generally considered to be such - including "9/11 truthers" and the like. [47], [48], and so on.

At this point, the theory sppears to be given vastly undue weight, while the theory was fairly mentioned prior to the current instability (although IPs occasionally sought to remove the ADL's denunciation of it), and Wikipedia does not theoretically promote pushing such theories as fact. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Femininity and promoting androgyny

2-person dispute at Talk:feminism and more opinions are needed. Does adding a picture of a female shaman and info on effeminophobia promote androgyny on the page Femininity? Thanks --Aronoel (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for NPOV review

Recently an editor has raised concerns regarding NPOV with some articles I had worked on prior to an extended wikibreak.
I have committed to no longer edit or watch these pages.
However, I would appreciate it if others could look them over with NPOV in mind, and discuss on their talk pages and make appropriate changes if need be.

Here are the articles:

I will not object to any changes proposed, discussed, or implemented.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 18:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

This "request" is way too much work. Please choose something specific if you have a genuine question, and ask that.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

My quickie look-over of one article suggests the Joel Anderson article about a California state-senator is way too long for its importance -- that is, my guess is that a state senator should merit perhaps a few paragraphs at most, not a novel. My sense is the article is essentially an advertisement for a candidate running for office. The pictures of the candidate with his family -- essentially political WP:SPAM.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It's weird that you would put so much work into these articles to not participate in discussion on whatever improvement may be sought (I have merely looked over the articles by now). And not objecting to any changes is weird, especially since changes are not improvements by default. Where there any edit-wars going on or what else happened? It's a little puzzling. Hekerui (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Hekerui.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I imagine it has something to do with this comment and resulting discussion on Cirt's talk page (User talk:Cirt#Advocacy concerns), and the subsequent ANI discussion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't scrolled up far enough on Cirt's talk page to see that big discussion. As for the notice given, it doesn't seem like a specific task for this board, but something for people interested in checking out the specific articles in detail. Hekerui (talk) 23:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

"Controversial" in first sentence of lede

A number of editors have been insisting that the first sentence in the lede of an article describe an individual as a "controversial" religious leader, because one source says he described himself that way. They argue that, despite WP:LABEL specifically stating one should not use the bare word "controversial", he did a lot of controversial things, and we do have one source in which he describes himself that way, so it must go in the first sentence (or at least the lede). A larger number of more experienced editors disagree, and have further argued that the insertion is WP:UNDUE, but so far have made no headway. If possible, it would be very helpful if members of this board could express their views here and at Talk:Elazar Shach#Shach - "controversial and divisive"?. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Stephen C. Meyer

There's a discussion on WP:RSN that also concerns issues related to WP:NPOV. Editors from this board are invited to join the discussion here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Woods Coffee NPOV

There is a reversion spat about this page. Anonymous user from several IP addresses (most notably 140.160.###.### at Western Washington University in Bellingham) persists in having the most prominent information on this page be about the criminal background of one of the owners. That information is not relevant to the day-to-day functioning of the 10 or so Woods Coffee shops. I have visited Woods Coffee many times in many of their locations and have never encountered the person in question. By featuring that information first and not mentioning any of the positive achievements of the same person, the page does not have a neutral point of view.

I have made a number of comments on Talk:Woods_Coffee suggesting adding information or moving to a Biography of a Living Person. The only response is for the other editor(s) to revert and badmouth me.

As can be seen in the Revision as of 22:59, 5 May 2011 by 140.160.168.111 and more current reversions, IP 140.160.###.### adds nothing to the discussion beyond reverting and commenting on this talk page and on my user talk page User talk:Dubyus.

It can be seen from Revision as of 20:12, 25 April 2011 by 140.160.117.250 what the underlying issue might be. In an entry later reverted by another user for lack of references, anonymous user at 140.160.117.250 made the following edit...

"Boycott

"A Bellingham coalition consisting of gay-rights advocates, fair-trade, anti-censorship, pro-choice and peace groups started a boycott of Woods Coffee in mid-April, 2011. The boycott organizers cite several concerns with Woods Coffee, including their banning of a gay-rights bulletin, The Betty Pages, and the Cascadia Weekly from their locations for ideological reasons. According to the chair of the Whatcom Human Rights Task Force and the former director of the Whatcom Peace & Justice Center, Woods Coffee refused to participate in both the Bellingham Fair-Trade campaign and the UN's International Day of Peace. More allegations concerning political contributions by the Herman family to conservative slush funds and campaigns have surfaced since the beginning of the boycott. ^[1]

"This comes partially as an extension of the Bellingham-based campaign against The Woods Coffee's corporate art public scandal, involving a sculpture commissioned by the Herman family of a giant Woods Coffee cup dumping plastic coffee on the public sidewalk, which was eventually scrapped^[2]." (Incidentally, Woods Coffee voluntarily changed their sculpture plan, which was the result of a public contest.)

The essence of the conflict is that anonymous user at 140.160.###.### wants to have a say in how Woods Coffee is operated--what newspapers they carry, where the owners donate money, and is trading in rumors to bring pressure. The efforts of anonymous user at 140.160.###.### includes vandalizing the Woods Coffee wikipedia page and not engaging in reasoned discussion about what should appear.

I request that the Woods Coffee wikipedia page be stabilized with NPOV information that reflects Woods Coffee, and that a separate page be created if necessary according to the guidelines at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Dubyus (talk) 01:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Additional conflicts with WP:NPOV and WP:BLP guidelines from anonymous user @ 140.160.11.220:

"You are the only one playing games here. Wes Herman is a convicted felon, and as such, is not allowed to vote or own a gun. He also does not pay his taxes. He engages in censorship. He makes his employees conform to his ridiculous interpretation of Christianity. The man is a con. But that is not what the website says. You have a personal problem here. Stop your disruptive editing and move on with your life. 140.160.11.220 (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)" Removed from Talk:Woods Coffee. I am not affiliated in any way with Woods Coffee except as a customer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubyus (talk • contribs)

Pages on Law firms

I have been in the processes of removing, what I think are promotional sections from a number of Law firm articles, some of (but not all) have been edited by members of the firm.

The sections in particular are :

Lists of offices, with colourful flags, that mimic sections of a corporate brochure and in my eyes do not have a place in an encyclopaedia
Lists of non-notable "awards" that the firm has "won", again which do not have a place in an encyclopaedia.

However someone (User:Rangoon11) disagrees with me on the following :

Linklaters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
DLA Piper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Norton Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Clyde & Co (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Clifford Chance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Berwin Leighton Paisner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Allen & Overy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Regarding the office lists User:Rangoon11, claims (on his talk page) that the lists are "encyclopedic and appropriate" and "The locations of the offices help the reader to understand the subject better" he goes on to say that "removing this content would be pure censorship". I contend that they are not encyclopedic, it may be appropriate if in was conveyed in prose eg :" Company A, has its head office in B with another x offices in country C. It also has offices in y other countries covering z continents." providing that can be sourced to a reliable source.

Regarding the lists of non-notable "awards" since this is an sector that hands out awards like confetti so in the end everyone has them and most of them are meaningless I think that unless a third party is writing about the awards (in which case they pass WP:GNG and an article can be written about them) then they should not be listed.

Can I have other editors views on this please.

Mtking (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

N.B. The offices issue is primarily being discussed here: Talk:Linklaters#Offices_Section. Rangoon11 (talk) 11:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

There is also some discussion between myself and Mtking here: User talk:Rangoon11#List of Offices and Award Cruft. Rangoon11 (talk) 11:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

RFC notice

There is an ongoing RFC at Talk:Santorum (neologism)#Proposal to rename.2C redirect.2C and merge content that may be of interest to editors here. Dreadstar ☥ 18:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Office of Public Diplomacy

Office of Public Diplomacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Moved here from talk. Johnuniq (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The page "Office of Public Diplomacy" relies upon a single source and makes statements without citing its sources. For instance, it claims that stories about the Sandinista government receiving Soviet MiGs turned out to be a hoax, without citing its sources that it was a hoax. In the case of the Soviet MiGs, several sources have confirmed Soviet intentions to bring MiGs to Nicaragua's air force, such as Christopher Andrew in The World Was Going Our Way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.58.204 (talk) 17:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Article on 2011 Energy Crisis

The article on 2011 energy crisis here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_energy_crisis

Claims that capitalism as we know it will soon end, and that most jobs in the financial sector will vanish. The only source cited on this is an opinion piece here: http://www.fcnp.com/commentary/national/8133-the-peak-oil-crisis-2011--a-pivotal-year.html

The article states no alternative to this prophesy.

I think an editor might want to have a look at this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.23.4 (talk) 16:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

This article is in really bad shape. In light of its many problems - POV, SYNTH, very poor sourcing, etc. - I've proposed it be deleted. Additional opinions are welcome. ElKevbo (talk) 04:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be deleted too, but not via PROD because I don't think it's an uncontroversial deletion. -Atmoz (talk) 21:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Forged picture

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Discussion now moot. The picture file has been replaced.

The article Comparison of Nazsm and Stalinism is illustrated by a forged picture showing Hitler and Stalin together. Does it detract from neutrality to use the picture without discussing its origins or does that promote the view that Nazism and Stalinism are comparable? The picture was created by Adolph Hitler's personal photographer, Heinrich Hoffman. TFD (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The montage was not created by this photographer, only Hitler's photo have been made by him. However, I agree that the image should not be used, because it is an allusion to the well known Communist propaganda image of Marx-Engels-Lenin (which has been inspired by the image of five Decembrists, executed by Tzar Nicolas I). In both cases the image imply closeness between the persons they depict. By contrast, the article, is supposed to discuss both similarities between these regimes and dramatic difference between them. In addition, the fact that these regimes were the ideological enemies should also be discussed there. In connection to that, the image created a highly one-sided impression that these regimes were the twins and the allies, which is not mainstream. In other word, usage of this image in this article is a serious violation of our neutrality policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Paul Siebert, there's no benefit to using this and great potential for misunderstanding. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

What a POV introduction. "Forged?" The composite is based on a similar book cover and is clearly a composite. There's no "forgery" or attempt at deception. The juxtaposition is totally appropriate to a review of scholarly investigation comparing of Nazism and Stalinism. "Ideological enemies" is irrelevant and completely (!!!!) ignores the Hitler-Stalin cozy period of mutual invasion, occupation, and division of Eastern Europe between the two powers. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I recommend you to be careful with your edit summaries. What is "lopsided" in my presentation? That there are both similarities and differences in these two regimes? In addition, I also agree that the image was not "forged", however, that has no relation to the neutrality issues.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

"Lopsided" would refer to

"the image created a highly one-sided impression that these regimes were the twins and the allies, which is not mainstream. In other word, usage of this image in this article is a serious violation of our neutrality policy" — the regimes were certainly allied for a period, which you patently ignore
"both similarities between these regimes and dramatic difference" — juxtaposition is essential to subsequent comparison, whatever it brings; the composite illustrates that; there is no implicit equating in creating a composite; similarities and differences also must be measured by effect and commonality of victims; clearly, as the article stub indicates, both Hitler and Stalin were inimical to Eastern Europe and comparison of the regimes is therefore not only inevitable but essential (and perhaps not as "dramatically different" in their effect as you suggest)
lastly, juxtaposition of images is nothing new for stimulation of critical thought (and one cannot pass mention that Stalin, for one, added and subtracted individuals at will in "historical" images); the Marx-Engels-Lenin montage (sample) you mention is no different in stimulating critical discourse on who begat what philosophies and actions; and they certainly were not triplets (per extension of your logic)

I hope this answers your question on "lopsided." On the other, I don't take well to implied threats (I should "watch" my edit summaries). Please don't do that again. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Re 1. No. The fact of an alliance has no relation to the similarity issue: for instance, the USSR, the USA and the UK were both military and political allies during 1941-45, however, that adds no arguments in favour of a "theory" of similarity between Western democracy and Stalinism. In addition the ides that Hitler and Stalin were allies is not supported by many mainstream historians.

Re 2. Whereas juxtaposition is essential to subsequent comparison, I do not see why the image that emphasised the former and totally ignores the latter is consistent with neutrality policy.

Re 3. No. The infobox image is supposed to summarise the article, and this image is totally misleading in that sense. There is no analogy between this montage and the Marx-Engels-Lenin: whereas Leninism was seen as a logical development of the Marx-Engels' doctrine, there were no such connection between Hitlerism and Stalinism.

In summary, you failed to justify the correctness of the usage of the term "lopsided". I would say the opposite, your attempts to overemphasize the similarity between these two regimes, and to ignore the differences is similar to the ideas expressed by some western writers (Courtois et al), which have been extensively criticised as one-sided. In other words, this term is more applicable to your viewpoint than to mine.

Re my alleged "threats", as I already informed you, I have no desire to take any actions against you in any event, so I simply do not understand what threats are you talking about. However, I have to inform you that your edit summaries are sometimes rather rude and uncivil, so, as an editor who is under formal notice per WP:DIGWUREN you may be sanctioned for that. Take it as an advice, not as a threat.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Apparently the montage was created by a Wikipedia editor. There is a new version that adds Barack Obama.[49] Faking pictures that present a POV is unencyclopedic, please see WP:Files for deletion/2011 June 12. TFD (talk) 02:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Bringing up someone adding Obama is a red herring. There is serious comparative scholarship on Hitler vs. Stalin and Nazism vs. Stalinism, therefore the illustration is not POV. There is no serious comparative scholarship on Obama as compared to Hitler or Stalin or the platform of the U.S. Democratic Party versus Nazism or Stalinism. Please try to come up with examples which apply. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert, straying from the picture for the moment:

Of course the fact of an alliance has complete bearing on the similarity issue particularly given the division of Eastern Europe and the universal oppression of its citizenry under totalitarian (both) regimes by their prior agreement; bringing up that the US and UK were subsequently allied with a totalitarian power has, to my knowledge, produced no serious scholarship on similarities of totalitarian or other aspects of the US, UK, and USSR in the mid-20th century; your simile is pointless.
Scholars who have written on the topic have certainly juxtaposed Hitler and Stalin; your definition of "neutrality" appears to emphasize their rhetoric of enmity against each other while I would advocate that "neutrality" requires an objective and dispassionate examination of the actions of the regimes both against their own citizens and the citizens of other nations; it is your approach which is less than neutral, not mine.
So far all we have is a stub and a lead. As far as I can determine, especially given that objective scholarship includes a strong focus on the actions of the two regimes during WWII in Eastern Europe, there is no "misleading." Feel free to expand the article with reputable scholarship which highlights the "dramatic differences" you allude to; I should mention that Hitler and Stalin winding up enemies neither adds nor detracts from those differences or similarities. If "mainstream" scholarship conclusively demonstrates that differences truly far outweigh similarities to the degree you imply, I'll be the first to advocate that the image should go. Until then it is a useful tool to illustrate a mainstream scholarly concept.

Lastly, if you have issues regarding my conduct, please follow standard procedure, that is: (a) feel free to contact me at my talk page to discuss; and failing to reach a satisfactory resolution, (b) file an enforcement request. Do not wave DIGWUREN sanctions in my face as if you are the WP:POLICE. That is not advice. Moreover, my labeling your view of history as you have expressed here "lopsided" is not offensive in any manner whatsoever; "lopsided" is merely another word for "POV." You have yours, I have mine. That you yourself ascribe yours as pro-Soviet by necessity to counter other editors' bias (I'm assuming that would include myself at this moment) is what constitutes poor behavior, as I consider that a personal attack against any editor you consider a carrier of (alleged) historical myopia which prevents them from seeing the Soviet legacy in a more positive light—whom you have taken as your personal editorial mission to "balance" to ostensibly protect WP from their bias.

P.S. A picture is not an "infobox." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 05:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

TFD's claim that this "forged" picture was created by Adolph Hitler's personal photographer, Heinrich Hoffman is hilariously funny. Is TFD seriously claiming the person who uploaded the image AniRaptor2001 (talk · contribs) is Hoffman? A similar image was nominated for deletion Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_January_20#Stalin_Hitler_photomontage.png and the result was keep. As one of the editors said in that case: "No valid reasons for deletion. Nomination is the case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The image is encyclopedic, because it illustrates a concept already present in reliable sources (see [50], for example)". The same applies to this image. --Martin (talk) 05:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

@PЄTЄRS J V.

Your argument is quite illogical: division of Eastern Europe as a result of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is per se not more an indication of similarity between these regimes then the division of Europe as whole between the USSR and the USA/UK as a result of Yalta agreement.
This is your standard mistake: when you see that some scholars do some claim, you believe you may ignore the opposite claims. In actuality, the scholars both juxtaposed and contraposed these two regimes, and the image totally ignores the latter fact. Therefore, it is not neutral and should not be in the article.
The stub is misleading per se. Taking into account that it was me who proposed to discuss Stalinism and Nazism comparatively (although I suggested to do that as a section of the CCAH article), you are perfectly aware of my vision of this article: both similarities and differences should be discussed there. However, I see a strong tendency to make a stress on similarities, and on the Eastern Europe, which is a double bias.

Re my advice, you are free to reject it. I have no desire to file anything against you, however, I am not going to give you any advises in future. --Paul Siebert (talk) 12:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

@Paul, I admire your capacity to bring up examples and construct implications which don't apply regarding political systems and regimes; allow me to restate in plain words my perception of your position stated here and you can tell me where I am misrepresenting it ("I" refers to yourself):

The US, UK, and USSR were allies, I don't see any comparative studies on them; similarly, comparative studies of the USSR and Nazi Germany are equally non-sensical and non-mainstream, besides Nazi Germany and the USSR were sworn ideological enemies, not allies
The US, UK, and USSR divided up Europe at Yalta the same way the USSR and Nazi Germany divided up Eastern Europe according to Molotov-Ribbentrop; neither "division" implies any similarities between the regimes involved
Studying the impact of the Nazi Germany and Soviet political regimes on those who were victims of both (i.e., Eastern Europe) as a means of comparative analysis is biased by definition, as opposed to fundamental information essential to any comparison of the two.

These positions are all syllogisms or attempts to suppress (my perception) content which deals with the effect of the Nazi and Soviet regimes on Eastern Europe. Had Hitler and Stalin both mutually occupied Ireland, that would be another area for comparison, however, they did not. Your portraying discussion of Soviet aggression against Eastern Europe as being fundamentally and unfairly biased against the Soviet Union is the true bias here. Since we are no longer discussing the illustration—which applies until you can show mainstream scholarship which demonstrates that juxtaposition of the two is (a) a syllogism or (b) examination of said juxtapositioning is not a topic of serious scholarship (unlikely, we know such scholarship has accelerated since the fall of the USSR with the availability of new archival materials)—we should continue this at article talk so as to not further enervate the audience here. You've stated some of your vision here; I've stated my vision there—a vision which is in no way slanted toward merely examining mutual aggression against Eastern Europe and debating which was the more brutal. Perhaps you would see fit to respond there. On the other, our not offering each other advice in the future will promote our sticking to the topic at hand. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The image is fine, there is nothing wrong with such an image being used in the article. The Last Angry Man (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Images should be used to illustrate what is said in the article. So the question here is: what text in the article is being illustrated by this particular image? Blueboar (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, there is a stub/lead at Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism which is consistent with the illustration. If more effort were expended on content as opposed to arguing, we'd have something more substantial to discuss. I posted my vision for content at the talk page some days ago with no response so far. Basically a stub was created, the usual piling on of immediate accusations regarding content ensued, and here we are with more accusations. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

@ Blueboar. The image is fine for the hypothetical article "Similarity between Stalinism and Nazism". However, taking unto account that the article we discuss is supposed both to juxtapose and contrapose these regimes, the image, which gives too much weight to the former, is not neutral.

@ PЄTЄRS J V. In your 1-3 you completely misinterpreted my thoughts. For instance, by pointing at the alliance between two quite different regimes, Stalinist USSR and democratic USA, I demonstrated that the fact of an alliance between Germany and the USSR is insufficient for speaking about similarity between these two regimes, because even much more close alliance is possible between much more different regimes. By saying that, I did not imply that there were no common features between Nazi Germany and Stalin's USSR. Yes, there were some common features between these regimes, however there was also a significant number of cardinal distinctions between them. Both of them are needed to be discussed in the article, and the picture, which overemphasizes the former, does not serve the main article's goal and contradicts to our neutrality policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

@ Paul, your demonstrating that an alliance is insufficient to talk about similarities is a total red herring. The Hitler-Stalin alliance is, in fact, immaterial except for the fact that it resulted in the division of Eastern Europe, which was then subjected to occupation by both powers—two, three, even four occupations—and so was a tragic laboratory experiment providing data for those scholars today who investigate the material effect of Nazism and Stalinism. You continue to contend there were more differences than similarities and therefore to assault the image as failing neutrality. I suggest we see what content develops and then editors can judge whether your editorial POV holds water or not. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. I am not contending (btw, do you think your word choice is appropriate?) that there were more differences than similarities, I just point at the fact that there were both differences and similarities. The image you advocate so vehemently makes a stress on similarities only, therefore, it should not be in the article.

Re content development, I already outlined (on the talk page) my vision of this article. Do you have to say anything about that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I think your proposed organization is:

not easily accessible to the average reader;
vascillates on victims as if they are an abstract "idea";
places exclusive emphasis on a fringe revisionist school of history ("German school") seeking to make Stalin out to be worse than Hitler (as if that were scholarly comparison as opposed to revisionist agenda), first
1. on what it is, and then
2. dismissing it as not mainstream;
then focusing primarily on what made the regimes different from each other

Your organization is structured to shoot down any contentions of similarity by taking a revisionist theory as representative of "comparison" and then tearing it down. To me it screams "agenda driven." But that's probably only because I have digested extensive quantities of propaganda. (Not saying your view is "propaganda," only that it sets off the same receptors.) Other editors may have a more sanguine outlook. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstood me (as usually). I did not propose a structure of the article, I just presented a (non-exhaustive) list of the topics that need to be covered in this article. In any event, since the consensus seems to be that the image is not neutral, we can close this discussion, and switch to the article's content (on the article's talk page).--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the illustration might be misunderstood quite easily by schoolchildren reading up about a topic with the picture in. It is a fairly typical sort of picture used for propaganda purposes and such illustrations should only be used when talking about the propaganda. Just sticking it in an article comparing Stalin and Hitler is more the sort of thing I'd expect of something like Conservapedia. Dmcq (talk) 06:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your "Conservapedia" train of thought here. The image and article are neither an assault on liberal socialism nor defense of social conservatism. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Just they're in to pushing a POV and using images for propaganda, your example of lIberal there is a good example. Dmcq (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. This is a fine example of the juxtaposition of images in propaganda and should be treated as such. Disinformation doesn't stimulate critical discourse, it misleads, that is its function. It isn't clear that it's a composite at all. The image even exploits a depth of field effect to make it look more realistic by blurring the originally-in-focus side of the Hitler portrait. There is no reason to do that unless the objective is to make it look less like a composite and more like an actual photo of an event. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

That might be a later version, one I saw earlier didn't have the blurring. I would agree that Stalin being in focus and Hitler not makes the current incarnation a bit POVish (care more about what Stalin did, less about Hitler). PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Why not just stick in two small photos and be done with this messing around? Dmcq (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

A collage where these two persons are face to face would be good (btw, that would not require us to rotate the original Stalin's photo, as that has been done in this collage).--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. This picture appears to attempt to look as a real photo, and that gives me pause as pictures have tremendous weight, especially with users not familiar with faked images. Also, another editor pointed out recently elsewhere that rotating facial images should not be done as faces are not symmetrical, and thus rotations introduce errors. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

There are two issues at state:

Firstly, is it permissible to include this picture? IMO, Yes - provided that the accompanying text states that this is a composite picture (or montage or some other similar wording).
Secondly, is this picture appropriate? I think not. May I suggest that the interested reader look at the pictures in Mesures usuelles?

Martinvl (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I see a potential for manipulation here. Stalin is in the primary field, while Hitler is distant. This has the feel of trying to emphasise Stalin over Hitler. A two separate pictures presented separately would be more neutral.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Another source of misunderstanding is that the picture creates an impression that one of these regimes was a progenitor for the another, which is totally incorrect.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Some of these interpretations remind me of a Rorschach test. I suppose your suggestion of flipping the images has some merit, we could create something similar to this book cover [51] that could be suitable for an article like Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism. --Martin (talk) 08:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

A. James Gregor, who is an extremely controversial writer, used the picture in order to show his POV. As neutral editors however we should use neutral illustrations. Martin, no it is not a Rorshach - those are really pictures of Hitler and Stalin you are seeing! TFD (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I find no where in his BLP that states Gregor is "extremely controversial". I recall one you once claimed an esteemed scholar in international law held a far-right POV, and claimed certain other widely cited historians as "fringe". --Martin (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

A cover of Overy's "Dictators" shows two photos clearly separated by the vertical line, so it is clear form the picture that the book discusses both similarities of differences between these two persons. In that sense, the summary of the image we discuss (" Inspired by the cover of Richard Overy's Distators") is simply false: this cover conducts a clearly different idea. Moreover, this cover is more adequate then that of the Gregor's book, because the images do not coalesce in the former, whereas in the latter they form two faces of a single Janus-like person. Obviously, the Overy-style picture would be preferable. The only problem is that the Hitler's photo used by Overy seems to be not in PD.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

No this is incorrect, the image summary is entirely correct, Overy's book cover clearly shows the same juxtaposition [52]. --Martin (talk) 22:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

It is correct [53], although you are also right. We probably mean two different editions. In any event, I created an image that, I hope, will satisfy all parties. I've just added it to the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

That seems okay but for the life of me I can't imagine why you felt the need to go out and stick two photos together instead of just sticking two pictures into the article. Dmcq (talk) 23:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Martin, no I never claimed any such thing - I said we should follow his recommendations which you oppose. BTW Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources - Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism, which you created, is an obvious example. Gregor's BLP says he rejected "the traditional interpretation of fascism as an ideologically empty, reactionary, antimodern dead end. [He] stressed fascism's coherence as a serious theory... and argued that it played a revolutionary and modernizing role in European history". That is controversial stuff! TFD (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll be honest and admit that I didn't read the entire wall of text above me per WP:TLDR. (If someone wants to summarize their position and post it on my talk page, I'll be happy to read it.) But my thoughts are that if there's a potential for confusion (that Hitler and Stalin met in person and took that photo), it should be replaced by a different image. There must be thousands of other images we could use instead. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Juan Diego

There has been an attempt to remove what I see as relevant categories to this article - the categories are Category:Mexican legends and Category:Legends with an edit summary " Centainly no consensus that he was only legendary". In fact it is the stories about the supposed appearance of the Virgin Mary that are the legends in question, and I think that the editor is actually disputing that these stories are legends but they are described as such in reliable sources, and the article itself uses legend several times although those are being replaced by the word 'story' by the same editor. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Category:Mexican legends is clearly appropriate. Was going to note such on the talk page, but that's a ridiculous mess. -Atmoz (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It is. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Wet bulb temperature, human health, and (implicitly) global warming

The article in dispute is this version of Wet bulb temperature, and whether the subsection titled wet bulb temperature and human health is within the scope of the article.

Note: (1) wet bulb temp and (2) wet bulb globe temp are different things, and there are articles for both.

The proposal is to simply delete the human health subsection, or alternatively offer limited text to simply point to wet bulb globe temperature while omitting all discussion of the Sherwood paper even though that study specifically addressed wet bulb temperature (not wet bulb globe temp)

The precise issues are concisely summarized at The relevant talk page.

In general AC44CK wants to suppress mention of a peer reviewed paper that takes an original look at what wet bulb temperature can be survived by humans, and estimates the potential for such temperatures to occur in a warming world. I've already sought compromise by leaving out any mention that the world is warming.

IMO, the POV challenge is AC44Ck's previously-debated relevance challenge with a new label. But I'd be interested in what other editors' have to say. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I work (part-time) for this subject and therefore am not going to touch it

Could some unbiased eyes take a look at the recent edit to Renaissance Books? I've worked for the guy (part-time) for 33 years and have an obvious COI that disposes me to leave it to others, although I have occasionally (very cautiously) done what I think of as model edits for an editor with a (clearly disclosed) COI. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The information added was a snippet of a non-notable op-ed, whose content was unencylopedic and added nothing to the article. I have removed it, along with another related bit. Cheers. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. Actually, that was not an op-ed but an article by one of the main business reporters for the J-S. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Regardless, the tone and content was unencylopedic, and it was given far too much weight. At best, it might have deserved a "So-and-so from the J-S claims that neighbors are concerned with the appearance of the building". But really, I think the article is much better without getting into it at all. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

religion related topics

I have a question regarding NPOV in religion related topics. How can I formulate NPOV and give proper weight to academic and religious views? Based on the number of publications on that topic? or based on the number supporters of a certain POV?

If the number of supports matters. What weight should I give to scientific and religious POVs about evolution theory, where studies in America show that still 40-50% of Americans still believe that first humans were Adam and Eve!?
On any topic related to Islam thousands or hundred hadith or Islamic sources can be found written by Muslim Mullahs. However, academic publications on these topics written by acceptable scientific research methodologies are very very few. If number of publications matters how I can formulate NPOV in Islamic topics. What is the traditional Islamic views weight? and what is academic views weight in articles?--Penom (talk) 03:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

First, you need to decide the academic discipline to which an article relates. If it is a science articles then only scientific sources should be used. On religious topics, use religious sources. For example, evolution is a science topic, so our references are to scientists. Christian views on evolution is a religious topic, so there should be reference to a variety of Christian authors, and the official views of the various churches. Get help from the relevant WikiProjects. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Chick tract

Please see the discussion at Talk:Chick tract#Section titles & NPOV.

At issue: does WP:SPADE apply to article building, or only to interpersonal relations? Does it take precedence over WP:NPOV? What about Wikipedia:Don't call a spade a spade and Wikipedia:Don't call the kettle black? Elizium23 (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:SPADE is just a bit of advice to apply commonsense and moderation. WP:NPOV, on the other hand, is a pillar of policy. I hadn't heard of these "tracts" before. Obviously they are extremely controversial, but it is still possible to write in a detached and neutral way about them. Your section heads sound better than the previous ones. There are some scholarly books cited, they could probably be used more. A section called "Reception" is frequent in articles on controversial books; it would take both favourable and hostile opinions. I'm not particularly impressed with the argument "they're anti-gay and we should call them that". Having never seen them, I don't have a clue as to whether they are or not. If many people have denounced them as anti-gay, I don't want to take Wikipedia's word for that. I want to see some examples showing me clearly how and when they were so denounced. HTH. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Judith... the issue here is whether labeling his tracts "Anti-Catholic" or "Anti-Masonic" or "Anti-Gay" etc is neutral. I think it absolutely is. Chick takes a definite stand against each of these things in his tracts. Being against is the definition of "Anti". Blueboar (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not the issue. The headings are acceptable, per WP:ASTONISH. The issue is whether WP:SPADE applies to articles, or editor relations, and how does it apply in the context of WP:NPOV, and contradicting essays such as Wikipedia:Don't call a spade a spade, and Wikipedia:Don't call the kettle black.

Is WP:SPADE telling us to apply common sense and moderation to writing articles, and if so, why does it specifically and consistently use verbiage such as Although editors who consistently engage in disruptive editing are disruptive editors, and editors who consistently vandalize are vandals, there is still a requirement for editors to be reasonably civil to each other. which seeems to specifically address behavior on discussion pages and notice boards, i.e. the forum side of Wikipedia, not the article space. Elizium23 (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I would agree... the page entitled "WP:SPADE" is really a behavior focused essay, not a content focused essay; and as such, I think it was an error to point to it in the discussion at the Chick tract talk page. That said, we certainly have several content policy and guideline statements that center on the idea that it is OK to "call a spade a spade" in content (although none use that exact phrase)... An example is WP:NPOV#Naming (which talks about using common but non-neutral names)... another is WP:FRINGE/PS (which talks about labeling pseudoscience as such). So, in terms of the debate that is behind this question... someone is pointing to the wrong essay to support the right idea. Blueboar (talk) 13:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

That's right per WP:SPADE. About the headings, Blueboar, you're probably quite right that these descriptions aren't inaccurate and it is no violation of NPOV to use them. But are they actually the best headings? Couldn't even more neutral wording be found? It's about presenting the facts to the readers and letting them draw their own conclusions. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:TALKNEW applies, which is a behavioral guideline. "Keep headings neutral: A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it." -- Atama頭 22:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Complete article deleted Quran and science without consensus .

After I added some materials in this editThe total article was redirected along with many topics which reached concesus and had materials from very reliable sources.Quran and science. If this is merged then science and the bible should be merged too meet WP:NPOV. Tauhidaerospace (talk) 21:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure yet if I agree with the redirect. But your argument about science and the bible is irrelevant. We do not have to have matching articles on Christian and Islamic themes. Better to think about the quality of the Islam-related material. What is there in Qur'an and science that needs to be covered and doesn't fit in Islam and science? Itsmejudith (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The sourced content was merged into Islam and science and Scientific foreknowledge in sacred texts first. The article wasnot comparable to science and the bible, that article is about the view of the physical world as found in the bible. The Quran and science article had been turned into some sort of Erich von Däniken or creationist tract saying how Mohamed knew all about science and everything he said is confirmed by modern science. People were sticking in things direct according to their own interpretation without secondary sources. It was just a mess. Dmcq (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that care has been taken to keep the appropriate material and split it between two existing articles, so the redirect is correct. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Quran and science has a critisism section since it does not have much secondary sources. . It has been worked by 100s of editors since 2008. Redirecting it certainly would diminish WP creditibility. This has been discucessed several times about it please look at this discussion. It has been proposed 4 times . Tauhidaerospace (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Canoe River train crash

Canoe River train crash is currently a good article nominee, see Talk:Canoe River train crash/GA1. Under the section Trial and aftermath, there is a issue regarding the neutrality of the coverage of a court case. This comes from the bias of the sources which are used. The defense attorney was a high-profile person (later Prime Minister of Canada), and has had several biographies written about him. In addition, the media at the time took sides with the accused, which means that there are essentially no NPOV sources available. As a result, it is only possible to write about the article from the view of the defense, which is POV. Any feedback on how to resolve the issue would be appreciated. Feel free to make comments about this at the review page. Arsenikk ^(talk) 16:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm the nominator. I don't think the coverage from the time was particularly POV, it is just that the defence tends to get more press and be more colourful, and in this case John Diefenbaker was a press favourite for that reason. I'd also appreciate some guidance from editors.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Steven Downes and a U.K. MP

Subject Steven Downes has been exchanging accusations with an MP. The information we have has been sourced to a local paper, but a series of editors (most recently an IP with no other edits) have been changing the article to state Downes' POV on the incident, with the phrase "potentially libelous" being used on the latest edit summary to describe the newspaper account and explain why Downes' own website should be our preferred source of information. Could somebody take a look at this mess? --Orange Mike | Talk 12:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I looked, I agree that they are changing the point of view to his where it is no longer neutral anymore. Since you said the article is having these incidents with mostly IP editors, I suggest you make a request at WP:RPP so you can get the page semi-protected to stop the point of view change until the issue settles down. JoeGazz ▲ 16:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Tdl1060

This editor is showing a pattern of extremely selective editing on Wisconsin politicians, specifically those involved on either side of the upcoming recall elections in Wisconsin, apparently with the intention of making the Democrats look as ~~good~~ bad as possible and the Republicans as ~~bad~~ good, at least by his lights, as can be done by cherry-picking votes from VoteSmart that fit his agenda. Since I have strong opinions on these matters, I've reverted my latest edit, but feel his edits should not be left to stand. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If you feel that the votes which I have added to Democratic state rep. Sandy Pasch's article add undue weight to make Pasch appear in too favorable of a light you are free to add votes which you feel may be less popular. The votes which I added were selected because they are more notable and have received a greater level of press coverage than other votes that I did not include.--Tdl1060 (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but my response stays the same. The votes that were added are notable, and if you feel that there are other votes that she has taken that are either more or less popular that are worthy of inclusion, you are free to add them yourself.--Tdl1060 (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Such lists are not customary content for state legislator articles, due to the temptation to pick and choose among votes to fit an agenda. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Not customary content? Numerous articles of legislators including some state legislators list notable votes and positions that they have taken. And secondly, unless a policy or guideline exists that you can point to, wouldn't your argument be merely a deletionist version of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS?--Tdl1060 (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I have added secondary non partisan sources from notable, respected newspapers and TV stations to illustrate the notability of the votes that are included and to remove any problems which may arise from reliance on primary sources. Hopefully this will clear up any remaining objections. --Tdl1060 (talk) 22:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, I feel that the selectivity of the votes picked is a clearcut violation of WP:UNDUE. On a global basis, her vote on raw milk is incredibly trivial; but it might annoy a few farmers (or raw milk advocates) in her district, and cost her a few votes. These edits seem clearly hand-tailored in an effort to alienate as many people as possible in her district, and to ignore other votes less controversial among the swing voters necessary in order for her to win her election. The same goes for the other Wisconsin articles you've edited, each related to the recalls and the candidates therein. If I were not so close to the subject, I'd be much more agressive in this matter; but I'm typing this a few hundred yards from the boundaries of her district, and look forward to the elections with great glee; so I felt that other non-involved editors should be judging the merits of my interpretation of your edits. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Your own statement undermines your claim that my edits are made with the intent of influencing the election, as there are no farmers who would live in Pasch's district, and very very few farmers in Alberta Darling's district. There are certainly not enough farmers in the 8th district to make any difference in this election. However I have provided a reference (and could provide more if need be) to show the issue regarding the legality of raw milk has emerged as an issue both nationally and in Wisconsin in particular due to its status as a dairy farming state. Maybe the way that a Wisconsin lawmaker voted on the legality of raw milk may be trivial on a global basis, but the legality of raw milk is not only being debated in Wisconsin [54]. Secondly; you have raised the issue of other edits to articles related to Wisconsin politics. Yet aside from Sandy Pasch and Jennifer Shilling, what edits have you found objectionable, to support your claim that I have demonstrated a "pattern of extremely selective editing"? --Tdl1060 (talk) 23:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Your edit to Dan Kapanke seemed rather disingenuous, since the tenor of the discussion made it pretty clear that the intention was to distract the Democrats, delay the election, and make it easier for Kapanke to beat the recall. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the wording and choice of the text at Sandy Pasch is intended to be negative, more so than a neutral telling of her political record. For instance, one of the votes makes it appear that Pasch is against "businesses who create jobs in Wisconsin". This is utter tripe, of course; the vote in question was about tax incentives which would have allowed some businesses to put less money into the state budget. Also, Pasch is painted in a bad light for not censuring Jeffrey Wood, with Wood's full ugliness trotted out to smear Pasch in its filth. Pasch isn't even mentioned in the Fox News bit about the Wood censure.
To make the choice easier of which votes are described for the reader, each vote must be accompanied by a news or editorial connection to Pasch's vote. The use of the Project Vote Smart website, a raw accounting of how Pasch voted on an issue, is not enough to establish that Pasch's vote on the issue was significant. Binksternet (talk) 23:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I have removed the poorly supported voting records from the Sandy Pasch and Jennifer Shilling biographies. The guideline I quoted was WP:SYNTH in which we are instructed not to cobble two sources together to make a new argument that neither source makes. The combination of a news source saying that the legislation was important, combined with a raw voting record of the legislator taken from Project Vote Smart, is not enough to say that the legislator's vote was significant. The legislator must be mentioned in the news regarding her vote. The news sources that Tdl1060 added were ones without a connection of the vote under discussion made to the legislator. Pure synthesis, and unsuited to a BLP. Binksternet (talk) 00:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Because this is a concern for BLP and reliable sourcing, I have raised a related question about Project Vote Smart at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Project_Vote_Smart_and_politician_voting_records. See you there! Binksternet (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with OrangeMike on this one. Look at Rep. Sandy Pasch (Democrat) and Sen. Alberta Darling's (Republican) pages. Look at the revision history for each of the pages. I played Devil's advocate to see Tdl1060's reactions would be to things posted to each politician's Wiki article. Just like clockwork, Tdl1060 starts adding votes to try to cast Sen. Darling in a positive light and when I tried to be balanced on Rep. Pasch's article by modifying this sentence, "Sandy Pasch was a deciding vote in passing the 2009 Doyle Budget, which included $1.7 billion in tax and fee increases and allowed for local property tax hikes of 3.2%," to "Sandy Pasch voted to pass...," and Tdl1060 reverted my changes fairly quickly, stating falsely that it was in the source when it was not explicitly stated. I believe that most people would agree that "Sandy Pasch voted to pass..." sounds more neutral than what Tdl1060 is trying to defend. I would ask Wikipedia moderators to keep a closer eye on this user. --Idq000 (talk) 23:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem continues: I found that the Doyle Budget of 2009 was misrepresented by User:Tdl1060 by only describing its worst aspects. There are good aspects of the budget! I added new referenced text to the article describing the budget as Doyle's bid to fix a $5 billion shortfall in the state finances, and I reworded Pasch's incremental one-vote contribution to that in a neutral tone. :Tdl1060 appears to spin every bit of text against Democrat and for Republican politicians; that's his purpose for being on Wikipedia. This is not the activity of somebody who wishes to build the encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 15:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Bigoted views in Wikipedia's voice

The following sentence:

One must take into account the importance of its psychological effect as an essential background for the terrorist in Islam

currently appears in the article on 'Asma' bint Marwan, of what Penom (talk · contribs) claims to be a statement made by a University of Madrid scholar. Yet this statement is not properly attributed to the mentioned scholar in quotations or any other form, rather as it stands now, it is expressed in Wikipedia's voice as quoted above. Penom has repeatedly reinstated the content, unmodified, numerous times (here, here, here, and here) despite being told via edit summaries and eventually on the article's talk page that the statement is not neutral. He reinstated the quote even after being told by an admin that the statement is "very poorly written".

This is only a sample of his editing, as he also added views by other scholars expressed in a similar fashion. For my reverts and edits, I've heard nothing from him but accusations of censorship, disruption, vandalism, pushing my POV...etc and including views by the Taliban. Thank you. Al-Andalusi (talk) 02:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Antonio Elorza's view actually is written as follows not the one quoted by Andelousi : " The psychological effect of such actions by Mohammad cannot be ignored, when studying the background of terrorism in Islam. "

Well! Andelousi is trying to push traditional Muslim views for a long time he deletes sourced materials and views by secular scholars. He changes non-Muslim views to `claims`, "alleged", "purported". He has a long history of pushing traditional Islamic views in other articles. Just look at hist talk page, you will find many warnings by other users, complaining about Andelousi POV pushing in Islam related articles.

For the long history of his disrupting edits please see here and here and here.--Penom (talk) 03:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I re-wrote Antonio Elorza view in a natural language and provided the quote in discussion page. Therefore A_I claim about Antonio Elorza view is incorrect

Admins please see the amount of efforts that me and other users spent to convince him let non-Muslim academic views stay on the article (see article discussion page)

--Penom (talk) 03:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Penom, you are only being asked to avoid stating Elorza's opinion as a fact in Wikipedia's narrative voice. You are required to do that by policy (see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Explanation_of_the_neutral_point_of_view). You could just add "According to Elorza, the psychological effect..." etc and move on. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

That is what I exactly did. I wrote: "Antonio Elorza suggests: ...." Does it meet WP policies?--Penom (talk) 12:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Not quite. There are 2 sentences. The first, S1, is clearly attributed to the source of the view, Elorza. The second, S2, is in Wikipedia's narrative voice. S2 needs to be changed to make it clear that it is (still) Elorza's view that is being described. The attribution of the view expressed in the second sentence isn't carried over from the first sentence by placing the sentences next to eachother.

S1 = Antonio Elorza, historian and professor at Complutense University of Madrid, reviews Asma's execution and similar cases and suggests that eliminating political opponents by any and all means possible, was common practice during Muhammad's time.

S2 = The psychological effect of such actions by Mohammad cannot be ignored, when studying the background of terrorism in Islam.

Sean.hoyland - talk 13:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

(EC) The entire paragraph is about Elorza, so it should be fairly obvious, but I added the phrase "Elorza notes..." at the beginning of the sentence in question. That should resolve the issue, and was a much neater solution than repeatedly deleting the line. Doc Tropics 13:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The use of the verb "notes" takes for granted that what he says is an impartial observation of a fact; a better verb would be something like "states" or even better "asserts". --Orange Mike | Talk 13:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Either of those would be fine too; it's an easy thing to fix. If Al-A had ever tried to resolve the issue, rather than simply deleting referenced text, this would never have come up. Doc Tropics 14:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Any chance to put the blame on me, even after a number of admins have ruled in favour of my position. For the record, I added "Gabriel argues that" to one of the views expressed in WP's voice, yet it has been removed multiple times by Penom (here) and you (here) which you strongly defended on the talk page, claiming that the opinions of scholars should be treated as facts. So I don't believe you were accurate in describing what happened, and I also find it really hypocritical to be dictating that to me. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps now that Penom has a better understanding of attribution this problem won't happen again. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

As Doc said. All statements are associated their authors and addressed as their view. Not as the fact. The problem is that Andelousi has so much affection toward Islam and Muhammad and cannot stand no view other than traditional Muslim views. Using terms such as "claim" for academic views or deleting views shows his attitude toward non-religious views.

Andelousi says "claiming that the opinions of scholars should be treated as facts" but it is not true. I have never said that. On the contrary he insisted to represent traditional Islamic POV and orthodox Muslim views as fact.

As the position of admins he is again not true again. On the contrary he got warned by admins and admins pointed that "there is a problem" with his editsPenom (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Allegations of fraud involving Chinese stocks

I stumbled upon this article when it was named China Stock Frauds, which I renamed to its current less POV title. Though toned down a little at my request, I'm still concerned about sourcing and possibly painting these companies with too broad a "fraud" brush. I have the same concern with P Chips Frauds, created by the same editor. It's good to see articles in this subject area but I think we need to be careful when using the word "fraud." A fresh perspective on this and the P Chips article would be helpful. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The chart is blatant SYNTH and the sources are poorly formatted and scattered. I doubt you'll find an uninvolved editor willing to sift through the sources and provide an independent opinion. Wikifan^{Be nice} 11:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

There's definite issues, but there's the glimmer of something there. A couple of the sources I skimmed yesterday seemed to talk about a pattern. I'm not totally sure about the title, but I also haven't been able to come up with something better. I've raised a couple of concerns about sourcing, or/synthesis and tone on the talk page. As I get time, I'm planning on doing more here. I've got a financial planning background, so this is an interesting topic to me (and pisses me off to no end that crap like this (investment fraud) happens). Ravensfire (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Flag of Algiers in 1669

I personally don't see this as a POV issue, but the users involved apparently do, so I'm bringing it here in the attempt to stave off an edit war... Battle of Cádiz (1669) was a battle between an English warship and several Algerine warships. Algiers being part of the Ottoman Empire at the time, should the flag in the infobox be the Ottoman flag (this), or a striped Algerine flag (this)? (Or another flag entirely?)

No source appears to strongly favor either. We have a website that says that it was the Ottoman flag that flew over Algiers, but this website is both not RS and gives a date for this fact which is later than the battle in question. (As well, the same website also gives, further down and for the same date, a striped flag, so it's by no means conclusive even if we accepted it as RS and fudged the date!) Contemporary images of the battle show the Algerine ships with a striped flag, but the images are in black and white, and one user has also suggested that it might be a naval ensign rather than a national flag.

Pending the resolution of this issue, I've removed the flag from the article, but outside input would be appreciated.

--Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Imho, it is not a POV case but an OR one, since the source used on Commons for the red-and-yellow flag is the same one that attests that the only flag used on all the Vilayets of the Ottoman empire at this time is the Imperial one (red with a yellow crescent), that the other flags were the ones of regiments/battalions or pacha/beylical/deylical dynasties, but not the national ones.

The only thing we are sure about is that the North African regencies were part of the Ottoman empire.

Regards,

Omar-Toons (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Further down on the same page, however, is a section on a striped flag which also says it was the flag (not just an ensign) from 1671 (same date which it gives for the flag you wish to use). No source directs us to use the Ottoman flag, and sources all refer to the force as Algerine. It would be original research to describe that party to the battle as Ottoman or to use that flag. Again, the red and yellow flag might not be right (the right flag might be the blue-red-white one on the linked page) but the Ottoman flag is certainly not right. (I took this here because you described your edit as reverting POV.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Acupuncture: aggressive skeptics pushing POV

There appears to be an (ongoing) problem with the Acupuncture page.

Militant skeptics have substantially hijacked the page, negating, criticizing, or qualifying much of the content -- this should instead be moved to a separate page.

There is clear, highly biased POV:

1) Acupuncture safety/ deaths are presented as a problem. US figures for deaths due to medical error are 250,000 per year; with harmful side-effects of prescription drugs, and pain-killer addiction, also being very major problems.

2) Many studies, by reputable Western institutes, find clear benefits/ advantages to acupuncture. Yet certain studies or reviews, eliminating Asian publications & not finding benefits, are seized upon as "authoritative". Search PubMED for acupuncture examples -- there are over 16,000 publications in this database alone.

3) Discussion has degenerated into argument, about trivial technicalities -- skeptics happily arguing, about how to & how much, acupuncture has been disproved.

4) Aggressive skepticism being pushed, has discouraged & driven off any of the genuine Chinese contributors & actual "domain experts" -- people who know acupuncture, are being literally driven off from contributing.

5) Claims of "publication bias" used to reject positive Chinese evidence, are not matched by consideration of very major "funding bias" -- present in much so-called "evidence", for Western medicine. Western medicine, and the claim of impeccable science, are vastly weighted by pharmaceutical & medical-devcie funding. Publication bias in this field, is also well established.

6) Attempts to discuss this on the Talk:;Acupuncture page, have been rejected and wiped.

7) Attempts to propose & write more neutral (factualyl correct) content, have been reverted.

8) The page has been taken over by 'Skeptics' -- who are attempting to push their POV. Users such as Usertalk:OrangeMarlin explicitly state a pre-assumption on their page, that "Alternative Medicine is bullshit". This is a gross logical error, and a violation of scientific principles -- science is meant to be about genuine inquiry, rather than attempting to prove pre-formed assumptions.

Diffs of neutral content, and reversion

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Acupuncture&action=historysubmit&oldid=429176041&diff=428574416

Section on talk page

This article is inappropriately negative. It's meant to be about Acupuncture, not 'Acupuncture Skepticism'.

Acupuncture is a long-established form of treatment, coming from a pre-scientific background. The fact of this background does not in way, prove it is not effective or does not work -- that is a logical fallacy.

It is inappropriate for this page, intended to be about Acupuncture, to be hijacked to convey a clear skeptical POV. This page should be removed from the purview of the 'Skepticism Project'. They can write a counter-page if they want.

Acupuncture has been of significant scientific interest, for a long time. With many studies ongoing. It is unlikely it would be of such interest, in finding the means, if there were no effect.

Many current studies, appear to find it useful for Cardiology, Anasthesia as well as Musculo-Skeletal and other conditions.

Here are just a very few studies:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15078586 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9330670 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18452622 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12528093 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12528093

There are dozens or hundreds more, searching PubMed alone. (Published under auspices of the US Government NIH).

If acupuncture were any empty phenomenon, there would not be this level of scientific investigation (16,457 published papers). This is a subject, which is receiving genuine & substantial amounts of investigation -- to uncover why it appears to be efefctive.

However, acupuncture is the primary phenomenon -- not the partial and limited understanding of it, yet gleaned by science. *That* should not be the topic, or focus, of this article.

I also challenge the objectivity & neutrality of skeptics -- very few surgical procedures have been validated by double-blind trials, and 'medical error' is a leading cause of death in industrialized countries.

195,000 deaths from errors in hospitals, per year in US: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/11856.php http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/deadbymistake/6555095.html

up to 780,000 deaths from wider medical errors, per year in US: http://www.ourcivilisation.com/medicine/usamed/deaths.htm

[Iatrogenesis] [26] $19.5 billion cost per year, from medical errors in US http://www.soa.org/news-and-publications/newsroom/press-releases/2010-08-09-med-errors.aspx

Where are the skeptics defacing pages, on surgery & Western medicine? I'm a supporter myself, but this a clear embedded bias which the skeptics seem too irrational & uninformed to acknowledge.

It is unnecessary -- and outright incorrect -- to garnish every single statement about acupuncture, with criticisms or negatives based on a limited & skeptical understanding and 'selective viewing' of evidence.

By comparison with Western medicine, acupuncture is safe. Article on gardening, do not immediately focus on legionella deaths from planting mix -- articles on rocketry, do not immediately focus on rocket explosions -- articles on Western medicine, cover the 'positive purpose & benefit' with little mention of the 20% - 33% rate of hospital complications and 250,000 deaths per year (in the US).

Yet the supposed 'rationalism' of skeptics -- actually, a *logically false* and erroneously argumentative form of criticism -- comes from a weak & limited understanding of their own 'embedded mindset' and accepted background. Things considered to be 'normal' or 'accustomed' practice, by them, are not equally considered or subjected to such criticism.

Such 'skepticism' is logically false, and should not be the major feature in this article. This is exceptionally hostile, exceptionally POV, and both exceptionally weak & arrogant -- to assume that a raft of selective minor criticisms, should assume first-class status & take over the article.

I call upon the editor to remove this page from the purview of the skeptic's group -- and to edit the page, so it provides a genuine neutral view of Acupuncture rather than this negatively biased POV.

Furthermore, I'd like and expect this discussion of 'purpose', 'bias' and 'criticism' to REMAIN IN THIS TALK PAGE -- until such time as it becomes unnecessary, or a better and more comprehensive NEUTRAL DISCUSSION succeeds it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twhitmore.nz (talk • contribs)

Would you be satisfied with a treatment something like what we've done with the Cold fusion controversy? Say that proponents have published arguments and evidence in favor of acupuncture, but that the Western medical establishment has dismissed all pro-acupuncture advocacy as irreproducible, i.e., that only proponents can get the effects, while skeptics get nothing? --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Sowell NPOV exclusion of criticism

The editors of the page seem to hold a consensus of excluding certain criticism based on a violation of NPOV and a misunderstanding of nobility. The section in question reads as such:

The liberal watchdog group, Media Matters has criticized many of Sowell's remarks^[3] such as a comparison Sowell made between President Barack Obama and Adolf Hitler in an editorial for Investor's Business Daily^[4] after the creation of a relief fund "as a result of negotiations between BP and the White House".^[5] However, Republicans such as Sarah Palin^[6] and Representative Louie Gohmert^[7] have endorsed Sowell's comparison. Sowell was also criticized for an editorial in which he stated that the Democratic Party played the Race card, instigating ethnic divisions and separatism, and argued that a similar situation occurred between the Tutsis and the Hutus in Rwanda.^[8]^[9]

I've addressed the non-POV arguments on numerous occasions (nobility of media matters etc.) (Diffs:[55] and [56]) leaving obvious POV arguments.

These are the POV arguments made by the users:

Chris Chittleborough

(Diff: [57])

PokeHomsar

(Diffs: [58] and [59])

Unfortunately the culmination of these arguments creates an unjustified consensus for the page.

(Note: This could also belong in BLS and if an admin wants to end the discussion here I'll move it)

CartoonDiablo (talk) 02:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The full discussion is available at Talk:Thomas Sowell#Media Matters Criticism. 6 editors (4 usernames, including the 2 quoted above and myself, and 2 IPs) have expressed concerns about the inclusion of this content–some with a bit of soapboxing to be sure, but nonetheless. User:CartoonDiablo is the only one that supports it. I personally feel that Media Matters, being an organization with a blatant liberal bias, is unsuitable for a BLP. The fact that they criticize Sowell is not notable because they criticize virtually every conservative. This would be akin to adding Media Research Center criticism to the BLP of a liberal economist. –CWenger (^ • @) 03:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I've argued that the criticism is notable since it was commented on by politicians (ie Sarah Palin) cited by secondary sources such as Politico, with media matters as an example of the criticism. Even if it was based on nobility argument alone I don't think the consensus would justify it. CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

CartoonDiablo keeps reverting into the article 2 cites to articles at mediamatters.org which make false claims about 2 of Sowell's columns, backed up by cleverly selective quotes from Sowell. (The Politico article does the same.) If needed, I can explain the dishonesty at length, but a careful read of Sowell's articles and his attackers responses should be enough.

Worse still, CartoonDiablo also keeps reinserting a cite to every article on mediamatters.org tagged "Thomas Sowell", which requires us to believe not only that MMfA has been honest and decent in every article with that tag currently on their website, but will be honest in every future article with that tag.

It is not a violation of WP:NPOV for me to point out that a partisan activist organization is prone to dishonesty, particularly when I can demonstrate numerous examples of that organization being maliciously deceptive. (That is, my low opinion of MMfA is not just my POV, it is backed up by facts.) To edit Wikipedia in accordance with policies such as WP:BLP, editors need to discuss which possible sources can be used in conformance with those rules, and give opinions like I did, so we can come to consensus like we have in this case.

(While I'm here, let me point out CartoonDiablo's edit summary here: "The fact that I have to undue POV edits means those editors are the ones edit warring." As said above, the consensus is 6 to 1.)

More importantly: this is the wrong noticeboard for this dispute. The proper place for discussing this is WP:BLPN (or, alternatively, WP:RSN?). Cheers, CWC 08:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC) Edited 17:44, 18 June 2011

And I should have mentioned that CartoonDiablo has been asked more than once to find alternative, better sources for this partisan criticism of Sowell, but has not done so. CWC 12:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Thomas Sowell is a Republican and a Conservative. As such he would be a target for criticism from Democrats or Liberals. Media Matters consistently promotes a pro-Democratic or pro-Liberal viewpoint. Perhaps we could label MM as "pro-Liberal" as in:

The pro-Liberal group Media Matters criticized Thomas Sowell, citing remarks like the following . . .

In partisan politics and in several high-profile controversies, the practice of quote mining is a regular part of presenting a one-sided argument to support a favored position. Rather than (a) accusing a source of bias or (b) endorsing a source as objective, we might try (c) describing their position fairly. Meanwhile, we should also try to describe the position they oppose, fairly. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point, I was thinking the section should focus more on the actual statement and then have the reactions of groups like media matters and politicians like Palin. As it stands it seems centered on Media matters. CartoonDiablo (talk) 05:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

RFC at Billy Bob Thornton Perspectives welcome

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Billy Bob Thornton about the inclusion or removal of certain information. The disagreement seems to involve conflicting interpretations of whether inclusion or removal of the information would comply with or violate the policies on BLPs and undue weight. Additional comments and perspectives from uninvolved editors would be welcome. BashBrannigan (talk) 06:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Can someone straighten out this paragraph in a fringe article??

This is a bit complicated. The 3rd paragraph of Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact#Material evidence of possible contact is a bit of a mess as it mixes up statements about two substances (cocaine and nicotine) and the time line of the reports. After I added a statement from a 2008 report dealing with a failure to replicate findings of cocaine (" Two attempts to replicate Balbanova finds of cocaine failed, suggesting "that either Balabanova and her associates are misinterpreting their results or that the samples of mummies tested by them have been mysteriously exposed to cocaine." an editor added right after that sentence " Skeptical of Balabanova's findings, Rosalie David Keeper of Egyptology at the Manchester Museum had similar tests performed on samples taken from the Manchester mummy collection and reported that two of the tissue samples and one hair sample did test positive for nicotine, however. In response to these results Balabanova said, ""The results of the tests on the Manchester mummies have made me very happy after all these years of being accused of false results and contaminated results, so I was delighted to hear nicotine had been found in these mummies, and very, very happy to have this enormous confirmation of my work." Note that the new addition is not about cocaine, but about nicotine and refers to work discussed earlier in the paragraph and uses the same source as that discussion. But it could easily be read as referring and contradicting the statement about cocaine. The quote from Balabanova also seems a bit undue. I've been discussing the editor's edits on the talk page but not getting very far as can be seen there. This is the sort of article that almost always is prone to NPOV issues. (And I don't mind being told my edits aren't perfect, again these articles are difficult) Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt

The tone of this article is clearly that of support for the woman's controversial claims. The article barely talks of the woman herself, rather it serves to advertise her statements and viewpoints. Several paragraphs do not even discuss subjects connected to Ms. Iserbyt, instead focusing on topics related - only to the contents of her writings such as Ronald Reagan's affiliations and Yale societies. Further, there is a dearth of citations for the numerous claims in the article, and two of the three references are the author's website and an amateur Youtube video. In all, this is a very poorly written article that requires a serious rewrite to establish any amount of neutrality. Trorbes (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, very poor article not meeting our standards for WP:BLP. My first question is whether she is notable. She was a rather junior policy advisor, if the article is to be believed, and has written two books, one of a conspiracy theory nature, probably with minor publishers or self-published. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Nair

The new article about nair posted in wikipedia is full of misinformation. One paragragh reads like this "Pork was also noted as one of their favourite foods,[107] and even high-status Nairs were noted as eating buffalo meat.[108]" In india, everybody knows that Beef or Pork is not cooked in Hindu homes, even in this day. Another one "The worship of snakes, a Dravidian custom,[5] is so prevalent in the area that one modern historian notes: "In no part of the world is snake worship more general than in Kerala."[6] There is no proof that it is purely a dravidian custom, even other hindus in different parts of northern india also practised this. In the first paragraph itself there is an attempt to show the whole community in badlight. it says "the pre-puberty thalikettu kalyanam and the later sambandham. The practice, in which some women, predominantly from central Kerala, bore legitimate children with their several husbands lasted in some areas until the late nineteenth century and in others until as late as the 1960s. Some Nair women from higher sub divisions also practiced hypergamy with Nambudiri Brahmins from the Malabar area." Actual is the pre-puberty thaliketty kalyanam is just a ritual and the girls need not continue any relationship with the brahmin boy and will get married to another nair, sometimes with same brahmin boy also. But not all nair women had multiple hunsbands and Sambandam with Brahmins are not limited to malabar area. Too many mistakes are there in the article. In the Etymology section, deregatory reference and comparison to dogs are mentioned citing an unknown author who recently published a book full of nair, brahmin hatred In the military history, an unknown alliance with portughese is mentioned, also proposing that portughese were influencial enough to bestow the "nair" name to all people who fought with them, thus making many, instantanious upper class. This is ridiculous!

The section of caste system should not have been there as it is irrelevent to the article subject. this section and sub group section cites a lot of foreign authors who dont really understand the subject and subsequently the facts are distorted in those sections as well. Under the section, Historical customs and traditions, which says "Pullapilly has suggested that the Nairs may share a common heritage with the Ezhava caste. This theory is based on similarities between numerous of the customs adopted by the two groups, particularly with regard to marking various significant life stages such as childbirth and death, as well as their matrilineal practices and martial history. The theory is that only a common parentage can explain some of these issues.[32]" Ezhavas didnt follow the matrilineal practice and it is common knowledge. these two castes are entirely different from each other. Who is pullapilly? nobody has heard about him. There is a very sick attempt to bring down the nair caste in all the sections of the article.

The editors should be warned or the Nair community will come together and approach the government and the courts to punish such culprits. There have been previous instances of people from Ezhava community and Christian community who indulged in such activities and they were arrested by police for spreading false information. The whole article is edited by such people and we will not rest until such nonsense published in Wikipedia is removed. Thanks The king555 (talk) 14:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Above user now blocked for making the legal threat. Most of what is alleged above is a distortion of the article. The article is currently being closely watched by at least two non-involved admins & there has been substantial POV-pushing, probably orchestrated off-wiki, by people who claim to be members of the Nair caste. There are at least two SPIs in the queue right now, and the article has on several occasions - including today - featured at WP:ANI. - Sitush (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:LEAD matter at Talk:Femininity#Definition of femininity

Hi. Is there anyone here willing to read or partially read through the long discussions about this and help out? I feel that a few editors there are controlling the lead in a way that is not consistent with the Manual of Style, and that they are also going against Wikipedia's principles. There is more than one thing that femininity encompasses, including biological factors, and yet a few editors at the Femininity article are trying to keep the definition of femininity limited to only or mostly a social construction, despite the reliable sources I have provided that demonstrates that femininity is considered to be due to both biological and sociological factors. They only want to stick to their sources, instead of having the lead present a wider definition of the term. And per WP:LEAD, all the ways the term is defined should be included in the lead, especially any significant controversies or debates, such as the biological vs. sociological debate in this case. With such a narrow version of the lead, it also currently violates WP:Neutral. And as one editor weighing in on the RfC stated:

The sources above definitely indicate there are a variety of views of "femininity", perhaps even a sharp disagreement. Clearly the lead needs to reflect the various definitions. The sentence from the proposal above "Though largely socially constructed and distinct from the female biological sex, femininity may encompass biological factors as well" seems like a very good characterization, and should probably be in the first 2 or 3 sentences. I understand that some editors may find the clean definition "femininity is a social construct, period" very tempting, but the article must follow the sources (editors cannot pick-and-choose which sources' definitions to use, and cannot rely on their own viewpoint). If the sources provide a variety of interpretations to "femininity", so must the lead paragraph.

So please...can (or rather will) anyone here help out? I don't believe this is the way Wikipedia is supposed to work regarding its leads (excluding or under-representing other ways a term is defined) simply because editors prefer one particular definition.

I would provide diffs, but there isn't any one diff that I can provide to show that I have tried to resolve the matter on the talk page. The linked section above, which leads to the other sections where the discussion is still going on, shows how I have tried to resolve the matter (including the RfC, which has been a bust so far). I have even tried to compromise, but the few editors are insistent upon limiting the lead. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 13:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

This IP editor can't see that we're in agreement and is arguing again and again over a non-issue. EVERYONE (not an exaggeration) agrees with the IP, and yet we still argue for some reason. I've suggested that we're just not communicating well. Despite full agreement with the IP, the IP insists on seeing this in contentious terms with 2 'sides', when in reality every single person in the discussion fully agrees on the points. So, if anything, come and help explain things in a way to end this pointless debate. -- Avanu (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

We were not entirely in agreement, which is why extensive debate took place on the talk page and there were people who agreed with me about the lead being narrow in its scope and non-neutral. Even so, this matter now seems resolved. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 18:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

a Fred Pearce sentence / reliably sourced loosely worded sentences

This illustrates a frequently recurring problem in content disputes with climate change regulars so I'd appreciate some outside views.

As we all know, ostensibly reliable sources sometimes still contain loosely worded sentences as well as statements better described as opinions which just happen to appear in otherwise reliable sources.

To illustrate in relation to the present content dispute, the following sentence from Fred Pearce in The Guardian has been added as a fact in Wikipedia's voice to the Hockey stick controversy (now redacted in prose) and has been a bone of contention:

The contrarians have made [the hockey stick graph] the focus of their attacks for a decade, hoping that by demolishing the hockey stick graph they can destroy the credibility of climate scientists.

The various problem with the sentence are that (a) obviously not all 'contrarians' wanted to destroy climate scientists' credibility, and some were presumably motivated by curiosity (i.e. it's a generalisation); (b) we have removed the sentence from its context in the article; (c) the sentence insinuates that the HS graph's chief critic Stephen McIntyre had an alterior motive; and (d) we find in Fred Pearce's more carefully written book that he actually believes Stephen McIntyre & similar bloggers were motivated by other factors such as intellectual curiosity, desire for openness, and so on, and certainly it is not said that their chief aim was character assassination. In other words, I don't believe the sentence is the considered view of its author.

For all these reasons I believe use of this sentence in the article is not consistent with NPOV (or V or BLP).

I would also appreciate comments on the general point, i.e. that just because a sentence appears in a reliable source it does not automatically follow that the sentence makes a fact that can be stated in Wikipedia's voice.

Cheers, Alex Harvey (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm an involved editor. I support Alex's analysis and query. Ongoing problem at Hockey stick controversy and other controversial CC pages. Thanks for outside opinions and advice. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 16:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm involved, both Alex and Pete have been arguing on the talk page for interpretations not found in reliable sources, and despite repeated requests have failed to provide reliable sources supporting their contention that clear majority views by respected mainstream authors are in some way disputed. If such sources are provided, we can discuss it on the talk page, but there has been a consistent pattern of original interpretation by these editors: for example, in Alex's argument above the repeated attempts to "destroy the credibility of climate scientists" as well attested in Pearce's writings, somehow becomes "their chief aim was character assassination" which is not the same thing. . . dave souza, talk 18:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

In other words, a reliable source says something that Alexh19740110 does not agree with, so he wants it removed or qualified. I frankly don't see a valid reason for either; WP:RS is pretty clear here, and WP:SYNTH covers the latter. Tarc (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
No, Tarc, I was hoping that other Wikipedians interpreted NPOV as it is actually written, rather than deferring instead to the 'Word of God' interpretation of WP:RS. NPOV is quite clear that reliable sources sometimes say things which we should avoid repeating. In this case, we almost certainly have attributed to Fred Pearce a view that he doesn't actually hold. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I have written to The Guardian to point out that this sentence is not accurate and to ask if possible for Fred Pearce's view on Wikipedia's use of the sentence. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Fred Pearce has written back and agreed with me on every point, i.e. that (1) as I guessed, he didn't actually write this in the Guardian article in the first place, but that one of his editors changed the sentence without his knowledge; (2) as I said, he expressed a quite different view in his book The Climate Files; (3) he agrees with me that the statement is a "bald over-generalisation". I am not sure at this stage whether The Guardian intends to make a correction to the online article, but I'll reproduce his email with permission in the relevant talk page.
I trust some editors can see this is a good example of why NPOV says that we should not assume that just because a source is reliable we can or should simply quote every word. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Unless there is an official editorial correction/retraction, none of this "I got an e-mail" stuff...if it even to be believed...is even remotely applicable to making an editorial decision here. Tarc (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I have reproduced the correspondence in the talk page at the Talk:Hockey_stick_controversy. I am happy to write to Fred Pearce and request on behalf of Wikipedia a formal retraction. This should not, of course, be necessary. The statement is, self evidently, an over generalisation. NPOV say, therefore, we should not use the wording, whether it's in an RS or not. You are just plainly wrong. You are answering here at NPOVN but have you actually read NPOV? Alex Harvey (talk) 17:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have, as opposed to you who clearly have not. All you do is pop up about once a month to whine about how your fringe POV isn't being represented in the climate change topic area. Guess what? That's why they call em "fringe". Take care, unwatching this dead-end discussion now. Tarc (talk) 22:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Despite Tarc's smear, my question is a serious and I would be grateful for a serious response. This isn't the RS/N so if all that was required were reliable sources there would be no need for the NPOV policy at all. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It looks like there have been about six edits to this page in as many days. Does this mean there are hardly any active editors left? Or am I in the wrong place? Alex Harvey (talk) 11:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

sikh

A Sikh is a follower of Sikhism. Sikhism primarily originated in the 15th century in the Punjab region with the birth of Guru Nanak Dev ji. The term "Sikh" has its origin in Sanskrit term शिष्य, meaning "disciple, student" or शिक्ष, meaning "instruction". A Sikh is a disciple of the Guru. According to Article I of the "Rehat Maryada" (the Sikh code of conduct and conventions), a Sikh is defined as "any human being who faithfully believes in One Immortal Being; ten Gurus, from Guru Nanak Dev to Sri Guru Gobind Singh; Sri Guru Granth Sahib; the teachings of the ten Gurus and the baptism bequeathed by the tenth Guru; and who does not owe allegiance to any other religion". Sikhs believe in the One Supreme God (Ik Onkar), the Guru who is main driving force behind Sikhs, truth, equality of humankind, universal brotherhood, truthful earning, respect towards life and all other creations/decisions made by GOD and they believe that no one can understand the supreme God without the blessings of the Guru and outmost love. Sikhs are recognized by their 5 Ks. 1) Kesh, specially maintained hair 2) Kara, special metal ring like bracelet 3) Kirpan, special small sword in a Strap called gatra. 4) Kashera, specially designed underpants, 5) Kanga, special comb for hair. These are applied to Baptised Sikhs called Khalsa. Sikhs are recognized by their distinctively wrapped turban, uncut hair, beard and moustache and they are supposed to wear an iron/steel bracelet (kara). The surname Singh (lion) being used by men and Kaur (princess) by women (Waheguru) the name of One Supreme God, (Sharbat da Bhala) selfless service and believe for the benefits of all is an integral part of Sikh worship, Due to their distinct identity they can be very easily observed in the masses as well as in the Gurdwara where visitors of any religious or socio-economic background are welcomed, where langar (free and unbiased food for all) is another way to break the caste system (as observed by Hindus) by serving people of all origins with the same (vegetarian) food, while sitting together on the same level of the floor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.254.214.108 (talk) 07:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

propaganda at United States and state terrorism

It would be great to have more editors involved in the discussion. The article's highly contentious and has been flagged for neutrality violations since September 2010. I'd love to have input regarding peacock terms ("notable," "foremost," etc.) puffing up people quoted in the piece.

Please see discussion at Talk:United_States_and_state_terrorism#Chomsky.

Thank you.--Scaleshombre (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky does not need to be "puffed up" to place him among the topic's strongest proponents. He is certainly notable, and perhaps foremost. This is not puffery or peacockism, it is simply an accurate description of the most vocal gadfly on the topic. Binksternet (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Then his work can speak for itself. The role of Wikipedia is to be an impartial chronicler, not a cheerleader.--Scaleshombre (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

We are correct to tell the reader new to the topic that Chomsky is notable. Many observers have described him as such. It seems obvious, but the casual reader should be told the state of scholarly thought including a bit of who's who on the topic. Binksternet (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

In fact the source says that he is one of the notable writers on the subject. TFD (talk) 04:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

4th Halifax Highland Scout Troop / Scots Highland Company

Reeks of agenda, potential BLP violations, and the like. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh god. Someone obviously had a very large amount of prose to unload, but it's virtually impenetrable. I'm tempted to simply stub the article, keep the references, and start all over again, but someone better than me at salvaging content should have a crack at it first. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

This is being discussed in several places. Please look at the merge discussion flagged at the top of the page which will also lead to other discussions. --Bduke (Discussion) 09:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it acceptable for an encyclopedic article to reinforce only one side of a controversial issue?

In the article for conspiracy theories a vested contributor has relinquished any responsibility to write for the opponent since he or she assumes that the opponent might not be supported by reliable sources. Of course, this assumption is based on nothing but sheer arrogance.

Is it acceptable or fair to write for only one viewpoint unchallenged then soft-own the article by demanding consensus for the opposing viewpoint? Tsnuemuozobh (talk) 23:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you asking for an opinion on an editor's conduct? You might consider reviewing WP:AGF, as your questions strike me as pretty abrasive. Editors often disagree about content, but our goal is to present material in a neutral manner, according to reliable sources. To choose an extreme example, on an article about cigarette smoking, we say that it is bad for you based on the vast number of sources supporting that view. We are not obligated to balance that view with statements arguing how it is good for you, unless reliable sources support those claims. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm asking for clarification about accepted standards for Wikipedia articles. The article contains more quotes from sociologists than from conspiracy theorists. The appeal to emotion in the article is an example of the lack of balance resulting from bias or anecdotes rather than facts. Informing about the harmful effects of cigarette smoking is necessary for the public good. Writing an article for the sake of "debunking" conspiracy theories, on the hand, appears to be motivated chiefly by a political agenda. Tsnuemuozobh (talk) 02:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I have only had a very quick look at Talk:Conspiracy theory#This article is full of judgmental statements, but it appears that Loremaster has explained WP:NPOV very well ("we only represent viewpoints published by reliable sources and in proportion to the number of reliable sources that express this view"—that is of course a slightly simplified version of the policy, but in essence it is correct). It also appears as if the disagreement started very recently; assuming that's correct, such a matter should not normally be reported to a noticeboard unless there is some kind of urgent need for action (that's just a general thought, and is a minor issue). The next step would be to focus on some content in the article and explain your problem about that (on the article talk page). Johnuniq (talk) 04:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

^ "Official Facebook Site, Boycott The Woods Coffee". Retrieved April 25, 2011.
^ "The Woods Coffee Scraps Sculpture Plan". The Bellingham Herald. Retrieved April 25, 2011.
^ Media Matters category for Thomas Sowell
^ Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny? Investor Business Daily.
^ Sowell falsely claims Obama essentially "confiscated" $20 billion from BP and compares Obama to Hitler"
^ "Sarah Palin praises column linking Obama, Hitler", Politico
^ "Gohmert Endorses Sowell's Hitler Comparison", The Washington Monthly
^ Race and Politics, Townhall.com
^ [http://mediamatters.org/blog/201004070005 Media Matters

[1] "Official Facebook Site, Boycott The Woods Coffee". Retrieved April 25, 2011.

[2] "The Woods Coffee Scraps Sculpture Plan". The Bellingham Herald. Retrieved April 25, 2011.

[3] Media Matters category for Thomas Sowell

[4] Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny? Investor Business Daily.

[5] Sowell falsely claims Obama essentially "confiscated" $20 billion from BP and compares Obama to Hitler"

[6] "Sarah Palin praises column linking Obama, Hitler", Politico

[7] "Gohmert Endorses Sowell's Hitler Comparison", The Washington Monthly

[8] Race and Politics, Townhall.com

[9] [http://mediamatters.org/blog/201004070005 Media Matters

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]