Jump to content

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 38

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40→Archive 45

Ancient Egyptian race controversy

Ancient Egyptian race controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has always been a contentious article. The main background is that as the top of the article says, "This article is about the "history of the controversy" about the race of the ancient Egyptians. For discussion of the scientific evidence relating to the race of the ancient Egyptians, see Population history of Egypt." but editors ignore this and use it as a vehicle to push their pov.

One problem is the use of block quotes to highlight an editor's favorite ideas (they were all removed from the article some time ago for this reason0. One new editor, already blocked once for edit-warring, insists on using block quotes for quotations he views as important. One of the quotes, from an encyclopedia on Ancient Egypt, is only 25 words long, so wouldn't qualify for block quotes even if it was appropriate to use them. It's also sourced as though it was written by Donald Redford although everyone now agrees that isn't the case. The other is much longer and is clearly being used to push a pov.

Another perennial problem is the attempt by editors from all povs to have the article state what the position of a group of scholars, that something is agreed broadly, etc - which is never easy to do and here often based on faulty sources. The introduction to the section Ancient Egyptian race controversy#Black African hypothesis has been removed and replaced and so far as I can see is not backed by the sources and is the site of the large block quote. The first sentence reads "It is now recognized by mainstream academia that anti-black racism played a key role in the development of the understanding of ancient Egypt in the Westernized world". The one source I can clearly read is a New York Times article[1] and the editor replacing this says it is backed by the archaeologist Emberling. Emberling is quoted as having written "“We now recognize that populations of Nubia and Egypt form a continuum rather than clearly distinct groups,” Mr. Emberling writes, “and that it is impossible to draw a line between Egypt and Nubia that would indicate where ‘black’ begins.” Even if 3 sources were enough to establish what is recognised by mainstream academia, what Emberling says doesn't back the sentence. The edit summary reinstating this also notes it is backed by Jennifer Chi in the same article, although the only mention of Chi is in the sentence "In one of his catalog essays the archaeologist Geoff Emberling, who conceived the show along with Jennifer Chi of the institute, examines some of these historical errors." The Keita paper (copyvio link to a pdf) says "Earlier studies interested in ascertaining population relationships usually examined the data from a "racial" perspective." and I'd be happy to have that used if attributed. I don't know what the Oxford Encyclopedia actually says.

Note that I think that the statement is probably accurate, but that we should be attributing statements to authors and not using a huge block quote to drive home a point.

This should apply no matter what the pov. The editor adding the above removed some material that said something was believed broadly -- see the discussion at Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy#Mokhtar and Snowden where I checked the sources and agreed they didn't support the statement.

There are I'm sure other NPOV issues in the article, but I think the main ones have revolved around the use of images and block quotes and attempts to show general positions without adequate sourcing. This article really needs help (I won't even start with the spin-off articles from this one, life's too short). Dougweller (talk) 06:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


The citation which supports the opening sentence in my contributions from the NYtimes article reads:

More recently, our own Western prejudices — namely the idea that geographic Egypt was not a part of “black” Africa — have contributed to the dearth of knowledge about Nubia. The early-20th-century archaeologist George Reisner, for instance, identified large burial mounds at the site of Kerma as the remains of high Egyptian officials instead of those of Nubian kings. (Several of Reisner’s finds are in the show, reattributed to the Nubians.)

In one of his catalog essays the archaeologist Geoff Emberling, who conceived the show along with Jennifer Chi of the institute, examines some of these historical errors.

“We now recognize that populations of Nubia and Egypt form a continuum rather than clearly distinct groups,” Mr. Emberling writes, “and that it is impossible to draw a line between Egypt and Nubia that would indicate where ‘black’ begins.”

KAREN ROSENBERG, Partnerships and Power Shifts Between Two Mighty Lands,.

[2]

The source above is clearly attributing the denial of the black racial grouping of the ancient Egyptians to "western prejudice", which is something that Doug must have forgot to include in his description (along with the link to the article).

The next source which supports my opening sentence in my contributions is from leading bio-anthropologist/geneticist S.O.Y. Keita:

There has long been a discussion about the origins of the inhabitants of the ancient northem Nile valley. Probably for many reasons the discussion has focused on the “Africanity” of the ancient “Egyptian” populations. “Africanity” has been frequently inappropriately defined. Specifically, there has been a question about the degree or presence of “Negro” influence (e.g., Diop 1974; Robertson 1978; Robertson and Bradley 1979; Bemal 1987). “Negro” has been used to mean different things. Frequently earlier writers displayed a bias against “Negroes,” “Blacks,” and “Africans,” although the terms have been used in many ways—consistency has not been a strong point. Many would deny that prejudice had any role in the extreme concem about the “origins” of the Egyptians, but Morton’s comments at least are clear: “...civilization...could not spring from Negroes, or from Berbers and never did. . .” (quoted in Nott and Gliddon 1854). “Berbers” in this instance probably means Nubian. On the other hand Gilman (1982) reports the strong esthetic bias of Winckelmann, an eighteenth-century scholar, against Egyptians be- cause of their phenotypic “blackness.” Thomson and Randall-Maclver (1905:110) noted the prejudice in the early twentieth century.

S.O.Y. Keita, S. O. Y. Keita, "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa .

homestead. com/keita-1993. pdf

Keita clearly demonstrates through words of 20th century scholars (throughout the entire study), that anti-black racism was the root of this entire "controversy". This source from a person who is considered an "authority" on the bio-culture origins of ancient Egypt backs my contribution.

The last source presented which supports the opening sentence in my contributions in the section in question is from the Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt 2001 (Donald Redford)

"The race and origins of the Ancient Egyptians have been a source of considerable debate. Scholars in the late and early 20th centuries rejected any considerations of the Egyptians as black Africans by defining the Egyptians either as non-African (i.e Near Easterners or Indo-Aryan), or as members of a separate brown (as opposed to a black) race, or as a mixture of lighter-skinned peoples with black Africans. In the later half of the 20th century, Afrocentric scholars have countered this Eurocentric and often racist perspective by characterizing the Egyptians as black and African....."

Donald Redford, The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt, Volume 3, p. 27-28 .

[3]

These sources have been presented to Doug throughout the talk page. For some reason this moderator has a major problem with the clear fact that one theory on this page of theories has more scholarly support than others. In this case how can you "balance" out the support for theories which are clearly debunked with the one which clearly has the support of mainstream academia? It has been brought up by several other people throughout this talk page that the moderator Doug has an emotional attachment to certain notions and blatant prejudice towards others, and he attempts to reflect this in the article. This is not helpful towards the article as it is not truthfully informing visitors to this page of the contemporary viewpoints of mainstream academia, which is based on sold evidence from multiple scientific disciplines. Asante90 (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Stemming from his prejudice against the "black African" theory for ancient Egypt's origin, Doug objects to almost any new contribution to that section the article. One famous quote from 18th century French scholar Constantin-François Chassebœuf which directly deals with the relevance of this section of the article has been put in a block quote. Doug objects to this, because according to him block quotes are "bad". Two days ago I contributed to this section the views (which are consistent with reviews from scholars on the Amazon page for the book) expressed from the recent publication "Black Genesis" written by best selling author Robert Bauval. Bauval's book is basically stating that the Egyptian civilization derived from earlier advanced black ancient Saharan communities. Bauval bases this on conclusive anthropological and archaeological evidence. Doug objects to the inclusion of these statements because he considers it "fringe", but he himself could not point out on the talk page what exactly was fringe about those very statements. He then removed the statements. Asante90 (talk) 08:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry that my link didn't work - but please don't accuse me of not including it, somehow I simply didn't copy it correctly. In your edit summary you mentioned Emberling, Chi and Keita as I recall. But the statement "More recently, our own Western prejudices — namely the idea that geographic Egypt was not a part of “black” Africa — have contributed to the dearth of knowledge about Nubia." is by a New York Times art critic, Karen Rosenberg and can't be used as a source for the opening sentence. As I said, Keita can be used but only if attributed. Bauval is not an expert on archaeology and anthropology and is clearly fringe. I wasn't unable to point this out, the book is a fringe book claiming that "an advanced black African civilization inhabited the Sahara long before Pharaonic Egypt" - something that Keita for instance, and the writers of the Oxford Encyclopedia, would clearly deny.
Thank you for showing the 'Redford' quote - I was thinking of doing that but didn't get around to it. I doubt that any reader would come away from reading that without assuming that Redford actually wrote it. In fact it's by Stuart Tyson Smith and should be cited correctly and attributed to him. It's a useful quote and I don't object to it, but I do object to the use of block quotes anywhere in this article as my experience is that they are almost always used to show a pov, and I also believe that quotes should be attributed to their author. How could anyone object to that? Dougweller (talk) 09:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I think the following sentence- currently the opening sentence of the Black Theory section- epitomizes the current problems the page has:
Even though personally I acknowledge that racism could've played a role in historical Egypt studies (i.e. the lack of major earlier study on the Nubians), I think the placement and wording of the statement are done specifically to give the implication that opposition to the black theory stems primarily from racism. Along these lines, the editor who added this (and various other contentious material) is pushing upon the page a stance that the Black Theory is the undeniable truth and, worse, that anyone who doesn't completely agree is probably a racist. Not only does it favor of the argument, it also unfairly demonizes the other.
Other general issues include questionable use of sources to make arguments which the sources don't necessarily support, which I think Dougweller already hit on at least somewhat.
Not only does this sort of editing severely violate NPOV, but the fact that the (quite zealous) editor has applies the same uncompromising viewpoint to other wikipedia editors who disagree with him prevents meaningful dialogue, at least as long as talk page rants like these ([[4]], [[5]] ) continue to occur.
All of this ugliness is totally unnecessary. If that editor would take a different attitude, it wouldn't be nearly as ... unpleasant... as it is right now, even though this neutrality issue might still be contentious (though probably less so). Hopefully it's possible to work out a balanced version of the page that satisfies everyone, though, seeing its current state, that's a ways off.--Yalens (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Emberling and Chi confirm the notions of the Rosenburg (the editor) in Emberling's own direct quote when he states that mainstream academia no longer tries to separate Egypt and Nubia racially as both form a black continuum. At this point Doug you cannot logically be disputing the opening statement that I've added to the Black African hypothesis. Even if you take issue with exactly "who" acknowledged racism in the NYtimes article, you don't dispute the acknowledgement of racism from the S.O.Y. Keita study or from the Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt? Those two sources alone are validation enough of my contributing statement.

Doug no one is preventing you or anyone else from block quoting pivotal statement from other theories. The problem that you seem to have is that you don't have any contemporary pivotal statements supporting other theories, and due to your own emotional attachment to this subject you simply don't want it to be acknowledged that one theory has more mainstream support then the others. If block quotes were a problem then block quotes would not be an editing option in wikipedia. The block quoting page does not caution anyone from using this feature, so you have no reason to either. [6]

As far as Robert Bauval goes, I have came to agree with your statements that my additional contributions about his book are a bit much. I say this mostly because his notions of an "advanced" civilization in the Sahara can not be validated by contemporary researchers. His analysis on the archaeology and anthropological evidence however is consistent with mainstream academia.

Yalen you now go on to state that my contributing statement invokes that if you disagree with this that it is rooted in racism . A historical fact is a historical fact! As stated by the Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (authoritative) the notions that the ancient Egyptians were migrating Europeans, Hamites (southwest Asian migrants), or a mixture of Hamites and black Africans is Eurocentric and rooted in racism against blacks, and I also have another direct statement from Keita which suggest just that. Now perhaps we use the term that Keita used which is "De-Africanization" rather than "anti-black" but the bases that it was RACISM should not change as it has been cited by authorities to be just that!

Yalen you too (along with Doug) have been irrational in displaying that you cannot accept even the most authoritative conclusions on the issue at hand. You have an issue with everyone of my edits and support even the most ludicrous opinions so long it contradicts the black African hypothesis. You sir are biased and along with Doug have attempted to censor any additional information added which supported the theory that you simply do not like, and that is also apparent and noted on the talk page by several posters. Asante90 (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

This thread merely indicates why discussions on the article are so very difficult. Long walls of text are produced, usually in relation to a dogmatic model of "black" identity entirely dependent on 20th century American cultural norms but projected back into ancient history. Claims of censorship and conspiracy abound. I think we may need to develop very clear guidelines to deal with this recurrent problem. The prurpose of the board is just negated by this thread, since no useful independent input is possible in these circumstances. Paul B (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The issue of using modern social labels on ancient peoples tends be brought up when we are dealing specifically with the ancient Egyptians, but never any other peoples. Case and point [7]. The National Geographic's heavily controversial 2008 edition of it's magazine entitled the "Black pharaohs" of the 25th Dynasty had no problem with labeling the ancient Nubians as black. Why then is their a problem with labeling other ancient peoples in a modern context based on widely available and consistent evidence? Censorship claim is what is in dispute now sir. For example in the opening paragraphs of the article the second mention of the black Egypt theory was equated with "black supremacy" and "Afrocentrism" while the true cause of this entire controversy (white supremacy and Eurocentrism) had absolutely no mention. Now why was that the case? Asante90 (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Do the walls of text remind you of anyone we know Paul B? Someone with the initials B G? I hope not... Probably not... But Asante90's edits are as far off as that one, and practically impossible to deal with, as you said. There is no way to reason in the face of these edits. I will not bother to go to that disaster zone talk page, but will note here that his edits are far less than constructive, should a user discussion take place about them. History2007 (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

For everyone of my major edits I've started a discussion for them, and presented my sources and reasoning for these contributions. No one disputed them on the talk page. I presented each source (s) for each contribution that I've added to the black African Hypothesis section.[8] I corrected the source distortions and blatant fallacies that sat in the modern scholarship section of the main article for who knows how long, and on the talk page I explained piece by piece what the issue was and what needed to be corrected to reflect what the sources actually state. No one has disputed those corrections on the talk page, so I have no clue what you mean by insinuating that I'm impossible to deal with. [9][10]Asante90 (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You need to read the essay Wikipedia:Walls of text, then take a look just up here. Great wall of China that is... History2007 (talk) 02:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Asante90 reinstating material, claiming he's proven his case here & that I'm rallying Klan members

He (also editing logged out) has replaced the contested material I removed earlier today saying he's proven his case here so he can reinstate it. His edit summary reads "Your dropped your argument in the discussion over both the box quotes and you offered no contest to statements of De'Volney [11] Stop lying!" I had left the Oxford material in, removing the box quote as per our MOS for short quotations and attributing it to its author, Tyson. He's even changed it back to read as though it is by Donald Redford. Besides all the other problems, he has no consensus for this. He says no consensus is required for the block quote and other editors are welcome to add their own block quotes. This is exactly the problem we need to avoid. He says "the most authoritative contemporary source in relation to this article should be given extra attention above." - the problem is, who decides that? If anyone else thinks I've dropped my argument, please let me know so I can fix that. He more or less admits he doesn't have consensus, saying I am "rallying up a of your Klan members to say they don't like it." It doesn't look as though he's going to play nice. :-) Dougweller (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

As I said, his edits are impossible to deal with. Favonian has been looking at his edits and I pointed out the rugby game to him just now. History2007 (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Foundation for Defense of Democracies

This page is not in a NPOV. Efforts to give add any positive descriptions of the organization are often deleted and any efforts to disqualify the criticisms are ignored. Criticisms are fair but where is the praise. The organization in clearly non-partisan by its support from both parties. Its stance on some issues may be controversial but hardly worthy of the edits done to the page. Can anyone contribute to make this page positively? Liberty20036 (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Judging from Talk:Foundation for Defense of Democracies, the page has had NPOV issues since at least 2007. It appears that historically (and presently) most of the POV issues arise from members or employees of this organization who consistently copy and paste text from its website into the Wikipedia article. Liberty20036 is correct that positive descriptions are often deleted, but as far as I can tell this has always been due to copyright infringement or COI issues. (What Liberty20036 does not mention is that the criticisms are also commonly challenged or deleted, apparently always by the same people who add the copyright-infringing or otherwise problematic praise. I am glad to hear, however, that this user at least considers the criticisms to be "fair".) If anyone would like to volunteer to add some reliably sourced material on the acclaim the organization has received, or to help Liberty20036 do so him- or herself, this would be much appreciated. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
The way Wiki-policy is structured now, this type of article (and there are many like it) will be an ongoing, multiparty ping pong game for long. In this case, the insiders seem not to even bother to write new text, but eventually they will do that and copyvio will go away, and it will be a question of who spends more energy on the page. May as well accept that fact. History2007 (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Tishma

After several additions of original research (and removal of maintenance tags) by User:Checkin34z (contribs):

which were reverted by User:Md.altaf.rahman and later myself, and although discussion(s) have taken at User talk:Checkin34z, at User talk:Benzband#Tishma and at User talk:Md.altaf.rahman i don't think we're going to reach an agreement over the article. We would appreciate any input on the matter.

Also i have just drastically edited the article to remove unsourced/inappropriate content. Cheers, benzband (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Good move benzband, I appreciate your intervention in this issue. Altaf (talk) 02:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012

An editor as disputed the neutrality of Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012. I am coming here to simply ask for outside opinions on rather the article is written from a neutral point of view. Casprings (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Niteshift36

User:Niteshift36 is repeatedly adding "Juggalos" as a "gang affiliation" on Crips, even though Juggalo is a music fanbase, not a gang. He has repeatedly attacked me for removing this allegation, despite the fact that it very obviously violates WP:NPOV and there is no evidence of any "Juggalo gangs". --BigBabyChips (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

At issue are these sources: [12][13][14]. BigBabyChips believes these sources are biased, due to the FBI's refusal to disclose their sources under a FOIA request (lawsuit by the band is apparently pending). Niteshift and I agree these are reliable sources for stating that the FBI, NGIC and several states have called Juggalos a "gang" and have connected the fan group and/or members of the fan group to criminal activity. Please see BigBabyChips edit history for a list of articles this is an issue in. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The issue, repeatedly ignored, is that there is an NPOV issue regarding description of a music fanbase as a "gang" despite the majority of reputable evidence indicating that it is a music fanbase and not a gang. It is NOT good faith to repeatedly categorize a music fanbase as a gang in spite of evidence. BigBabyChips (talk) 02:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
The first two links provided by SummerPhD are primary sources, and should probably not be used - though even if they were, the first certainly doesn't support a claim that Juggelos are all involved in criminal activity: "This identity has evolved into a subculture and a life-style for many fans. While the majority of fans exercise their lifestyles in a peaceful manner, a small portion of this group have added a criminal element that has slowly been taking hold in certain states." The second source likewise states only that "many Juggalos subsets exhibit gang-like behavior and engage in criminal activity and violence" - 'many' doesn't mean 'all'. The third one may well be WP:RS - but only for what it says, i.e. that 'a police officer has claimed that "certain members of the Juggalos -- a group of followers of the rap duo Insane Clown Posse" have been involved in illegal gang activity. The source doesn't say that 'the Juggelos' are a gang as such, as far as I can see. On this basis, there are no NPOV issues here at all - the sources simply cannot be cited as asserting that 'Juggelo' is always a 'gang affiliation', and attempting to do so isn't an NPOV issue, it is a misrepresentation of sources.
(BTW, an aside for BigBabyChips - contrary to your statement on Niteshift36's talk page, there is no exception to WP:3RR on NPOV grounds - I suggest you read the policy) AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I have to admit, I hadn't considered that we were using a primary source. How about stating that the FBI, NGIC and several states have called them a gang based on cbsnews.com, rollingstone.com, huffingtonpost.com, cnn.com, etc.? - SummerPhD (talk) 03:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't see them as primary sources. The NGIC etc uses reports from media and law enforcement, then compiles them and reports the data. They're usually not the source of the data. If you look at the NGIC report, pages 8 and 9 show all the reliable sources they used to compile the report. The National Gang Threat assessment also shows all of the source material as well. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
How about stating what the sources cited actually say - that the FBI etc are being sued for allegedly labelling (some) ICP fans as a gang. Being sued for something doesn't make it true. Unless you could cite sources that unequivocally state that Juggalos in general are 'a gang' you could not state this as a fact - and given that you have already found a source that states that they aren't[15], you cannot now state it as a fact anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
To be clear: I am NOT saying that we should say they are a gang. Yes, we should say they are suing the FBI for not releasing information (they are not suing for libel, they are suing under FOIA). As part of that, we should be reporting the nature of the report that precipitated the suit: the FBI and several states calling them a gang. We cannot say Juggalos are not a gang any more than we can say they are: There is no factual test, it is a matter of opinion in both cases. All we can say it that the FBI says X, Capital City police say Y, Insane Clown Posse says Z. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I guess the complaining "contributor" failed to see the instructions that require him to notify an editor if they're involved in a discussion. Here it is, hours and hours later and I hadn't been notified, despite the fact that the title of the section is my name, rather than the actual issue. I bring this up for a reason: to illustrate how Big Baby tends to see what he wants to see, disregard directions and pretty much make it up as he goes along.
1) Although BigBaby wants to lay this all on my feet, the facts show otherwise. The Baby has been on a campaign to remove any reference of the Juggalos as a gang from numerous articles, such as theres: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. Despite his efforts to say this is all me, even the most causal observer will note that I'm not the only one restoring the info. That's another point to mention: I didn't add it, I've simply reverted his improper removal of sourced information.
2) Big Baby has continually screams that this is a BLP issue (though I note he didn't go to the BLPN). Using an impeccable, reliable source and reporting what it says about group isn't a BLP issue. As I tried to explain, if I called an individual a Juggalo, that could be a BLP issue since they are, according to the Dept of Justice, a criminal organization.
3) As a NPOV issue, the policy is being misappied. The claim is well source and there is no doubt about the source of the claim. In most cases, this is being mentioned only in the infobox. A mere (sourced) mention in the infobox is hardly going to be an WP:UNDUE issue. FWIW, in the article about Juggalo crime, I've actually removed references and assertions about the national group that were based solely on the actions of a local group. (Such as a local group engaging in a crime, then trying to say that Juggalos as a whole do it)
4) BigBaby, has engaged in edit warring over this, even after I've warned him about it. Most observers, even liberally construing the 3RR and edit warring policies would call his actions edit-warring.
5) The BigBaby has been instructed not to post on my userpage, but did so after warning.
6) BigBaby has not even attempted to improve the article by providing a well sourced counter-claim. Instead, he's simply removed over and over.
7) Most of this boils down to the fact that there are two very solid sources from the DoJ, as well as a couple of states, that state this group is a gang. On the other side, so far it has been BigBaby saying "no it's not" and a lot of WP:IDHT.
I'm going to watch this thread, but I'm very tempted to file at ANI and seek a block over the edit warring and a topic ban. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Niteshift36, as I have repeatedly explained to you, no, I have not been edit warring, YOU have been edit warring. YOU have asserted that a music fanbase is a gang. YOU have insulted other editors for not accepting your viewpoint. You have repeatedly violated WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. You cannot claim a MUSIC FANBASE as an ALLY of a GANG because you do not like the music fanbase. The fact that you do not understand or comprehend how WRONG you are or how much TROUBLE you have is frightening, and quite frankly, I'm willing to categorize Nickelback fans such as yourself as being A GANG sooner than I'd categorize Juggalos as being a gang because CLEARLY Juggalos are not as contentious, angry, and biased as you have been. There is VERY OBVIOUSLY a WP:NPOV and WP:BLP problem in listing A MUSIC FANBASE as an ALLY of a gang, and for you to claim that is not the case is blatantly patronizing. DO NOT TRY TO SHIFT BLAME TOWARDS ME. I have done NOTHING wrong. No, I will not be blocked, because YOU are calling REAL LIVING PEOPLE a GANG because YOU DO NOT LIKE THEIR TASTE IN MUSIC. You are being a fanatical bigot (read the definition, this is YOU), YOU are edit warring to PUSH YOUR VIEW POINT that a MUSIC FANBASE is somehow a GANG because YOU SAY IT IS, despite majority of sources saying that it is a MUSIC FANBASE. WHY DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THIS? Has NOTHING I said gotten through to you? BigBabyChips (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
You seriously can't see how your bigotry is blinding you to the rules of Wikipedia and how your fanaticism is disruptive? The rules have been explained to you repeatedly. The fact that you ignore them shows your clear bias on this matter. It's ironic that you are stalking me, but claim that you need "protection" from stalkers on your talk page. Good grief. BigBabyChips (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • First off, I haven't asked for protection from stalkers. I said I detest ones who can't get their facts straight (something you've demonstrated a serious problem with). Nor have I "stalked" you my friend. With the exception of the article in AfD, I had edits on all the rest of those articles long before you came along with your single-minded campaign to whitewash the articles. Third, you haven't "explained" a single thing correctly. Lastly, you've bitchedwhinedshrieked like a girlcomplained about my "hatred" and "bigotry" (go look up hyperbole, I'll wait) just because I said Juggalos have horrible taste in music. I hope you didn't hurt yourself making that ridiculous leap, but it has been one of the best illustrations of how you see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear. This would all be entertaining if I thought it was an act, but when I think how serious you are, it just gets sad. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • No, I have explained it to you correctly, you just have failed to understand what I am saying. I've pointed out that calling a music fanbase a gang is not NPOV, and you've insisted that I am "whitewashing" articles because they fall out of neutral language. Third, you've directly stated your opposition to ICP and their fandom, so there is a clear NPOV issue in regards to your end. I'm not pushing that the articles should be written to promote ICP or Juggalos, I am pointing out that you can't write articles BASHING ICP and their fandom. BigBabyChips (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • You're not corrdct in your explainations, as numerous experienced editors and an admin or two have already told you. Yes, you've pointed out that calling them a gang isn't NPOV. The problem is, your wrong. Further, I'm not even the first one to say you were whitewashing these articles, but once again, you put everything on me. As for your third "point", wrong again. I never said I opposed them. I said they have horrible taste in music and fashion. Stating that I don't like their music doesn't make me an opponent. I'm not a fan of brocolli either, but feel free to eat as much of it as you want. Not liking it doesn't make me an opponent. The funny part here is that while you complain about what I said, you ignore the context in which I said it. In the statement I made, I readily stated that many Juggalos are not gang members. Of course you only saw that I think the music sucks and your reading ceased there. In any case, you've not shown any consensus for your interpretation. An odd editor here or there has agreed, but many more experienced editors have not. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC in Rape culture

I invite commentary on neutrality and undue weight issues in the article talk page [23]. Handyunits (talk) 06:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict

Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

For a couple months User_talk:68.6.227.26 has kept adding information about Israeli suffering and about Palestinian ill-doing (including children as terrorists) to the article. He has been civil about adopting to corrective edits (though I haven't even tried to remove some of the WP:Undue on some topics). He just seems insensitive to criticism from another editor earlier on and myself and just keeps adding such material. If someone could just take a quick look and comment on the NPOV issue that might help wake him up more to the issue. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 19:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello. First of all, thank you for notifying me about the Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion. I was uncertain where to respond and tried to at your talk page, but it doesn't seem to be allowing edits right now. I looked through my old edits for this article, and they include the following:
1. Expanded the section on Israeli child casualties, mostly to make it less random.
2. Added Sderot statistics to the section on Post Traumatic Stress, as it seems to have the highest concentration of PTSD in Israel
3. Expanded the section on Palestinian child casualties to include examples of individual incidents
4. Added a section on peace projects
5. Added a few photos (three of Palestinians, two involving Israelis, and two for the section on peace projects). None of these had a negative connotation.
6. Added statistics on malnutrition in Gaza
7. Added information on schooling disruptions in Israel as a result of the conflict. It was intended to balance out the section, which previously only discussed schooling disruptions in the West Bank and Gaza. However, the text on those disruptions was removed shortly after by another editor as the link was dead.
8. Rephrased some text from the section on Treatment of Palestinian Children by the IDF in order to make it more neutral
9. Added a section on media manipulation
10. Added some information on Israeli medical aid to Palestinians and cases of organ donation between opposite sides of the conflict.
11. Gave statistics regarding the age and gender trends for Palestinian child deaths
12. Added information about miscarriage and the deaths of pregnant women on both sides during the conflict
13. Gave the age of the youngest victim of violence during the conflict
14. Added some information on child suicide bombers and child indoctrination
15. Added a section on foreign children killed as a result of the conflict
I have also added a few counter-arguments in sections which only included one perspective in order to make it more neutral. As a whole, I don't believe my edits have been particularly NPOV, though I am more than willing to discuss specific issues you have. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 00:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Derby sex gang

I'd appreciate it if somebody would take a look at the new Derby sex gang article, from the perspective of WP:NPOV - it looks far too tabloid and sensationalist to me, and seems overly-concerned with the ethnic background of the offenders. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

How the case was covered in the tabloid press should be mentioned because that is what makes the case notable. However, despite having a section called "Analysis", the article merely repeats the tabloid analysis. TFD (talk) 07:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
By "tabloid", are you referring to the BBC, the Telegraph or the Independent? Ankh.Morpork 11:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
No, I am referring to your usual sensationalist muckrakeing, clearly engaged in as part of your relentless efforts to portray Muslims in the worst possible light. Any more questions? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
The mainstream media did not provide an undue emphasis on the ethnicity and religion of the accused, although they did mention the controversy caused by those who did, for example Jack Straw. The article otoh reads more like a tabloid story. The Telegraph for example mentions that one member of the gang was not Asian, yet that is not mentioned in the article. The story is not that they were Asian but that the case has become a cause for hate mongers. TFD (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
The BBC produced a documentary that investigated "the controversial subject of on-street grooming of young girls for sex by Pakistani men in the UK." which featured footage of the Derby gang grooming girls, Channel 4 commissioned a similar documentary, the former home secretary spoke of a "specific problem" within the British Pakistani community, the Children's minister spoke of "Asian communities hampering child sex inquiries", the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre conducted a report into child grooming; this was not simply about far-right exploitation. Ankh.Morpork 18:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
All of that is quite some distance from simply sticking a label into an article that amplifies the anti-immigration lobby's message about the dangers of "Pakistani Muslims". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • @User:The Four Deuces - it is not as you claim the case has become a cause for hate mongers, but that the sexual grooming of young underage girls by Muslim men is a repeat problem in the UK - Muslim sex grooming - Pakistanis - that was what was reported, they were/are a group of Muslims grooming young white girls - a repeat pattern recently in the UK - Youreallycan 17:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Its funny how your otherwise admirable ethical editing principles stop short of working when it comes to painting entire ethnic groups as criminal sex offenders. Standards are good - double standars twice as good.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Are you a Muslim Pakistani? - I know users are and I understand how its upsetting but it is a repeat pattern - and widely reported in te UK - Youreallycan 18:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Are you a catholic priest? There are lots of repeat patterns, such as old white men abusing small children. Somehow it is easier to see patterns when they conform to one's prejudices.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Of course I am not a catholic anything - I am not even white, lol - soz if you are upset that Muslim men have been abusing young girls. Youreallycan 18:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I am upset about all abuse against children and adults. But unlike you I realize that no ethnic or religious groups have a patent on such despicable behavior.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
You are simply being defensive because you are a Pakistani Muslim - Youreallycan 18:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
and you are simply being offensive.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I need to add this , Maunus removed his comment - but its important to the thread so I leave a diff here - Youreallycan 18:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I realized that it was a mistake to stoop to your level. I wonder when you will realize it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


Note. I have had to remove individuals not convicted of sexual offences from the table in the article, per WP:BLP policy - and in talk page discussions it is clear that some are arguing that these individuals are part of the 'sex gang', even though the sources cited do not state this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Note Can I just remind folks in general to be especially careful on such an inflammatory subject to stay polite and on-topic. --John (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that giving unwarranted significance to the religious background of some of the Derby sex gang and writing in such a way to give the impression this applies to all of the gang members (when it doesn't) is an NPOV infringement and should be rectified.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree and think the above exchange pretty much proves the point. Elinruby (talk) 03:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Moncton High School

Is it me, or has this become a long editorial on behalf of not moving a school from one site to another? 99.12.243.171 (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

  • I'm attempting a WP:NPOV clean-up on it. Qworty (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
    • My congratulations to you for taking on what appeared to me an absolutely byzantine task. One account had put a lot of time into it, and may have a sense of possession, so it would be wise for several editors to watchlist this--there's likely a strong sentiment about this from the local community. Thank you and cheers, Qworty. 99.12.243.171 (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

A simple query on Waldorf education

The following text appears in the lead:

In central Europe, where most of the schools are located,[2] the Waldorf approach has achieved general acceptance as a model of alternative education.[7]

There is a disagreement (diff) about the second half of this sentence ("the Waldorf approach ...") in particular whether WP:YESPOV applies and the words (sourced to a book written by a scholar) should be inline attributed, rather than stated in WP's voice. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Persecution of Serbs and other non-Albanians in Kosovo

I've started an AfD (as of Feb 3 relisted), which for reasons I've explained on that page is in need of as many reviews and replies as possible, so please take a look and review it if possible. Some of the issues debated have to do with neutrality of groupings, headings and sources as well as notability other criteria.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Satguru

Having come across the title satguru in an article I find that the article seems to say nothing beyond how great a satguru is. I am having no luck finding anything that defines it in a neutral manner, as pretty much everything turns up works ostensibly by or about people proclaimed as satgurus. Mangoe (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Experienced editor wanted

We could use some eyes on American Community School of Abu Dhabi, see the history. Any extra eyes and hands would probably help, npov, coi, blp and due weight experience would be clear pluses. I'm on holiday myself, so I'm deferring here. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Falsification of history in Azerbaijan

Someone might want to take a look at this. Created from scratch in one go, "new" editor. Perennial problem topic of course. It seems like a bunch of contentious WP:SYNTH and OR. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Criminal cases against Yulia Tymoshenko since 2010

1 editor (Vles1) has accused me of having writing an not neutral Wikipedia article called Criminal cases against Yulia Tymoshenko since 2010. But to the best of my abilities I can not see anything not neutral in it.... Could an not involved party please take a look at this article and point out to me what is wrong with the current article. I did try to write a good neutral article (although I am aware I am no Gogol). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not yet have an opinion on this, although it seems as though very broad statements are being made in the fifth and sixth paragraph based on single sources. This may well be fine if the sources are reliable. I have not investigated this or looked at the discussion page so consider this just a random possibly helpful comment. I did a little bit of a drive-by copy edit on the lede but right now I have to go. I will try to come back to this and give you a better answer. It seems as though there is going to be one side that feels that the charges are justified and another that does not? Elinruby (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I did get\do have the feeling that Vles1 thought there was too much emphasize on the statements by Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych that the cases of Tymoshenko are "non-partisan measures to combat corruption in Ukraine". I think he was concerned that would push the readers into "a certain way of thinking". But I just wanted to give the readers "Both Sides of the Story". (Something I noticed the BBC does not do in there reporting about Tymoshenko; hence) it is not that easy to find good English speaking sources about this subject. But I do believe the sources used in this Wiki-article are reliable. Kyiv Post is usually not the most objective newspaper in the world but all the facts they write about are true. Thanks for your time and efforts; they are appreciated! — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

PS I just paced a "Talkback noticement" on User_talk:Vles1#TB. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I can't look at this right now now but I did want to let you know that the sources are not required to be in english Elinruby (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I know... But my knowledge of Ukrainian (or any other East Slavic language) is not really good.... It always takes ages for me to work with sources from Ukraine... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I still don't have a lot of time but maybe, based on your comment above, we don't need me to, if the heart of the matter is the sentence where I changed "indiscriminate" to "non-partisan" (which I think better reflects the intended meaning -- correct me if I am wrong). So, let's mention that I know little about the Ukraine, although this prosecution rings a bell, vaguely. But if the contention is that she is being prosecuted for political reasons, but the government denies this, ya, you do have to mention the part about where the government denies it. I myself would like to see more sources for the political reasons part, although I am inclined to believe that this is true. Maybe this helps? 64.134.16.87 (talk) 04:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
OK, I have looked at this enough now to have the gist of it. If the current government has any remotely reasonable rationale for the prosecution it needs to be included in the article, yes. I realize that the other party feels strongly that the charges are simply not true. But you are not triers of fact, just explainers of situations.
The sentence where I was complaining about a single source now has seven, which may be enough to impede readability. I would suggest, in the lede, condensing that list of people who've called it politically motivated into something like "representatives of several countries and human rights organizations" with one or two good references, then spelling out the quotes of each in the first or second section. The BBC article is a very good strong reliable source and Amnesty International should be fine as a backup. Are the Russian and Ukrainian articles just quoting Amnesty International or is there additional info there as well? If there isn't they don't really add much.
Last, the Russian and Ukranian Wikipedia articles are not, as far as I know, actually considered user-generated material. If the article contains large amounts of translated content you should probably include a translate template on the talk page and there are probably guidelines about how to handle differences in copyright and quoting standards, etc.... I know a little about this because I bring stuff over from the French Wikipedia, but the articles I handle are usually historical and non-controversial so I am not sure exactly how the process works when the article is about contemporary politicians and allegations of criminal conduct. But if you look around under Community Portal and Help Out there are links there where you may find some guidelines. I should probably also add that this article should also adhere to the standards for a biography of a living person (BLP)...Elinruby (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Did do some tweaking in the article once again the last days (stayed closer to the sources), including following up some of your suggestions. I did not put in any stuff from another Wikipedia, and after a brief look (at the Ukr & Rus Wiki counterparts of the same Wiki article) I concluded this seems not to have happened. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 01:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Thought I saw something like that on the talk page, but I did not pay attention to who it was that was talking to whom. Wikipedia is not self-published material, and can be used. Material from other Wikipedias frequently *is* used. This is in fact an ongoing project. Caution should of course be exercised especially with a controversial topic like this.
But back to the question that you did bring here, can it be considered resolved? So far, where I have seen language that concerned me, it was mildly derogatory to Tymoshenko and I corrected it. I am under the impression that these instances were in the nature of translation issues. "Supporters" is more neutral than "followers" for example, which has cult-ish overtones. If the other party is still unhappy I suppose I can dig further, but to my ear it sounds like, really, you two agree on the facts. He just wants to be more vehement about them, and possibly too vehement. If there is another side, you have to present it. You can present it as a quote, and possibly quote other people as saying that it's rubbish, but you do have to put in whatever it is they are saying about it. Even if you're pretty sure they are lying. Elinruby (talk) 02:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you are right; I also had the impression, that because in the current Ukrainian political climate politicians there are always trying to "destroy" there opponents rather then collaborate with them, Vles1 had the impression that I was out here to outfox him (using the article to promote and advocate anti-Tymoshenko views (which I was not)).

Thanks for all your help! If you want you can help to promote the article to a wp:DYK by adding :*[[File:Symbol confirmed.svg|16px]] Date, size, hook (ref, neutrality) all seem fine. GTG.~~~~ to/at its nomination page . I always think there are always to many USA-ian DYK's... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 00:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

probably so Elinruby (talk) 04:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Sri Vishnu Teertharu

Recently an article, Sri Vishnu Teertharu, was moved into the article space after almost a year of work. However, the tone of the article is worthy of concern. It includes wording such as "one of the greatest seers in Hindu religion" and "Jayateerthacharya was all wealthy by God’s grace. At the same time he was so kind in nature...". I would like some advice on how I should treat this article. Thank you. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, what a marshmallow. Be bold and pare that thing down. If you get any pushback post back here and we'll see about handling it. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Nominated for deletion. Mangoe (talk) 13:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Patrimonium Sancti Petri -- Incredibly biased article...

Hi folks,

I realize this probably isn't the right place to post this, as it isn't a dispute per se; no substantive edits (barring the recent change that brought me to the page) have been made for literally years (last ones I see are from around 2008); whats more, this entire article is possibly the most transparently biased thing I've ever read. To quote an IP editor (the only person to have ever edited the talk page),

"The tone of this article lacks a certain dispassionate, encyclopaedic quality... phrases like "one of the true Faith", and the end of the second section, reading: The time was ripening for Rome to abandon the East, turn toward the West, and enter into that alliance with the Germano-Romanic nations, on which is based our Western civilization, of which one consequence was the formation of the States of the Church. It would have been easy for the popes to throw off the Byzantine yoke in Central Italy as early as the time of Iconoclasm, but waited wisely until it was clearly establish that the Byzantines could no longer protect the pope and the Romans against the Lombards, and they founnd another power that could protect them, the Frankish kingdom, in the middle of the eighth century. Who was this written by? The PR department at the Vatican would write better, and have a more subtle display of bias..."

Unfortunately, the article is somewhat of a wall of text, and I dcn't have the time or expertise to fix it. It's bad, though...really bad. Almost to the point of being a lost cause; it might be a better idea to delete it and start from scratch! So, why am I posting it here, then? Well, honestly I can't bear to walk away with an article in this poor of condition. If you have a few minutes to spare, mind popping over there and trying to improve it?

Okay, that's all I've to say. Please don't eat me for posting this in the wrong place! Cheers, -Zaldax

  • Based on the reference, it appears that this actually was written by "the PR department at the Vatican"—-or, to be more precise, the editors of the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia (here's the text at GBooks [24]). If this had been written by a current editor, you're correct that it would be criticized as POV and maybe OR as well. Maybe the thing to do would be to bring it up on the talk page of an appropriate wikiproject, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism?--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
wait though, just because it's based on the Catholic Encyclopedia, that doesn't mean it's ok the way that it is, does it? I just got around to looking and it really is pretty horrible. I mean, I was raised Catholic so I'm used to this stuff, but still. For example: "The pope thus became the champion of all the oppressed, the political champion of all those who were unwilling to submit to foreign domination, who were unwilling to become Lombards or yet wholly Byzantines, preferring to remain Romans." Elinruby (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I did a run through and got some of the low-hanging fruit. Article still needs a lot of help Elinruby (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Edwin Mellen Press

I'm a trying-to-be-retired editor, who recently came across a blog-post on this topic's most recent lawsuit. Looked up the Wikipedia article and found this self-describing whitewash.

Contrast this with what one of the sources (who strangely enough were used only for the irrelevant fact that "the company typically limits the initial printing of each title to 300 copies but titles are guaranteed to stay perpetually in print") has to say about it:

Many readers may already be aware of the publishing activities of the Edwin Mellen Press and of the controversy that has arisen concerning the quality of the books which they publish. Those who have not already done so are strongly encouraged to read an account of the publisher's somewhat unusual practices reprinted in the December 9-15, 1993 issue of the newspaper "Campus Review".

Briefly summarised, the reprinted report suggests that this publisher produces what appear to be from their titles to be properly researched, refereed and edited scholarly books but which often prove to contain quite extraordinary gibberish. It is suggested that manuscripts are accepted unread and that proof readers are strongly encouraged not to correct errors.

Edwin Mellen Press uses electrostatic (photocopying) technology and usually prints only 300 copies of any title, but titles are guaranteed to stay perpetually in print. A recent catalogue from the Press promises 450 new titles per year and also makes it clear that academic and research libraries are their target.

By getting their books included in approval plans and publishing nearly all of their books in series to induce standing orders, Edwin Mellen has succeeded in selling some very bad books to many of the world's best libraries.

Monash University Library (MUL) too has purchased many titles from this imprint in good faith. Possibly some of these are quite good scholarly works which were judged to arcane by other publishers. At least one title is on a recommended reading list for an undergraduate course. Nonetheless we cannot but be concerned on reading the allegations in "Campus Review". MUL has no brief as a censor of scholarship, but would be very grateful to hear the opinion of Monash scholars on the value of many Edwin Mellen titles which the Library holds and can supply at least partial lists of these. Contact the Collection Management Librarian, Robert Stafford by telephone on 52613 or email [email protected]

The success of this publisher, who to date has generally confined its interests to the humanities, cannot be separated from the publish or perish syndrome which has long plagued the sciences. In sciences, and indeed the social sciences, one consequence has been ever increasing serials costs to libraries, who have had to develop a range of strategies in response. We would be very pleased to have the advice of the academic community on whether or not we should continue to circulate new title information for this publisher's books. For those who are interested we can also supply copies of a four-page extract from Mellen Books in Print entitled 'how to publish a scholarly book '.

It's quite clear (from this and other sources) that academic librarians regard this publisher below pondscum. I've tried to give WP:DUE to this viewpoint, but it probably needs more nuance, expansion & monitoring, which I won't be around to provide. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Establishing Weight and Due

One suggestion for establishing WP:WEIGHT at Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute is that WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE should ideally be established by reference to neutral 3rd party sources to ensure coverage is commensurate with the weight of opinion and prominence is given in proportion to the coverage in the same. Another editor argues that anything that could be sourced should be included and that this could be modified by what he suggests to "add only what we can source with two different reliable sources". I am bringing this here for outside comment as to which of the two suggestions best follows WP:NPOV. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, if you go to the talk page and look at the discussion, what Wee proposes is to completely remove from Wikipedia an entire section of the article (the "International position" section). He bases his proposition in that since we can't find published books about the international position in sovereignty disputes to use as guides for weight, everything must go. My opposition to this "quality standard" can be summed up as follows:
  1. Established newspaper are reliable sources (though not as good sources as published books).
  2. The standard that every section in an article should be guided by extension found in books is not reasonable, virtually half of WP would absolutely not pass this test and hence would have to be removed.
  3. Relevance in WP is measured by its mention in reliable sources, not only and exclusively in books.
As I've mentioned in the talk page, attempting to apply this standard to several sections in the main article Falklands Islands (to give just one example) would mean an immediate deletion of those sections. The same would happen with entire articles such as Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum, 2013 which would have to be completely removed from WP. This is not to mention virtually any article about the Israel-Palestine conflict (see for example Operation Pillar of Defense) which would end up being skimmed to the bones or removed entirely.
I mentioned in the talk page that a compromise to weight the inclusion or not of a country's position regarding the Falkland's issue (what actually initiated the discussion) would be to adhere to a strict "two reliable sources" rule so as to no add everything indiscriminately. As I've pointed out, the standard that everything needs to be present in a published book to merit being added/mentioned in WP is absurd. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I think we should concentrate on the issues that this section raises Gaba. I think it is the responsibilty of other editors working on articles you mention to have a similar debate to this, and leave I/P, Kashmir, etc to resolve themselves. Irondome (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
It's not about concentrating on the article or not. It's about a general guideline being proposed to asses the complete removal of content from a WP article that is being discussed. The mention of other articles is pertinent to put the guideline into context. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
It's about a general guideline being applied in the same way that is absolutely standard across the rest of Wikipedia, such as to ensure that appropriate WP:WEIGHT is given to each part of the articles. If similar issues exist elsewhere, they are separate from this discussion. Kahastok talk 20:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Gaba does not accurately describe the argument made against his viewpoint. The key point made is that reliable and scholarly sources on the subject of this particular dispute do not give any significant weight to the views of third parties. Whereas appropriate sources (in the form of reliable history books) have been provided that demonstrate this lack of weight, no source has been provided either on the subject of this dispute or on the subject of disputes in general that would suggest that the weight currently given to the point on the article is appropriate.
It is further argued that the existence of news reports describing the statements that result from Latin American regional summits are not sources on the subject of the dispute - but rather on the subject of the statements and summits - and thus that while they may be used to demonstrate specific points of fact, they cannot be used to determine how much weight should be given to any particular point. Kahastok talk 20:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Try this: take everything Kahastok just said above (ie: the "quality standard" being proposed) and try to apply it to articles like Falkland Islands, Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum, 2013, Gibraltar, Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Gaza War, etc.. (or sections within them) and see how those articles or most of the sections inside those articles would do. History books (or books in general) are not by any means the only form of reliable source in WP. The ideal case we would be to have many reliable published books for any topic at hand to choose from, but this is not the case for a large large number of articles en WP. This does not mean that we should remove all that content from the encyclopedia.
Applying this guideline as is would imply that if I can raise the point that a section in a given article (or even the whole article) in WP can not be made to comply with the length present in books, then it has to be completely removed. This is just absurd.
My compromise/middle ground is to find at least two reliable secondary sources for every country being mentioned in that section as a form to asses weight. If the issue is the length of such mention, nobody is asking for more than a line or two as far as I can tell, which I believe to be much more reasonable than asking for the whole section to be completely removed from WP based on that ad-hoc standard. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Suffice it to say that I do not agree with the points above: not that it would have the effect described on other articles discussed, not that it would make a difference in this case if other articles have similar issues, not that removing sections from articles is necessarily a problem where they currently give undue weight. I have never argued that reliable sources have to be books, though I would argue that books are preferable to media reports and would remind everyone that in this particular case history books have actually been cited.
But both of us, and others, have made these points often enough now and I don't think it helpful to belabour them when the point of coming here is to get input from outside editors. As such I will not be responding to any response from an insider to this message and would encourage other insiders not to respond either to this message or to any insider response to this message.
So, outside editors. Should we be basing the weight given to this section on the weight given to the point by outside reliable sources on the subject of the article, such as the history books that have been cited? Or should we instead apply a condition such that we consider anything that can be sourced to two news reports to meet WP:WEIGHT? Kahastok talk 21:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me Kahastok but your final questions I believe do not sum up the issue quite properly. I'd say: should we be basing the removal or not of a section (or article) or its extension based exclusively on published books or article journals? Or should we also take into consideration the existence of reliable secondary sources (such as newspapers) to make that assessment? My opposition to the "quality standard" attempting to be applied to that section (with the aims of removing it) it's because it would have a devastating effect over a large number of articles in WP if applied as is, and thus it is just not sensible. Reliable secondary sources exist for a reason, not every article can be based (or have the weight of its sections based) on books or journal articles. One only needs to go to some of the articles I've mentioned in the comment above (among many other) to see this. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I've collapsed a lot of tendentious argument from those involved, in the vain hope that they will allow outside editors to comment on the issues germane to this noticeboard. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
You know better than doing this Wee. Please do not start an edit war here, the views of other editors have as much value as yours. Do not hide comments again please (also the accusations of "tendentious" are definitely not helpful). Regards. Gaba p (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
The whole purpose of coming here was to get an outside view on your assertion we judge WP:WEIGHT by requiring that two different sources, primarily newspaper reports, be supplied. I gave a very neutral summary, you deterred outside comment by attempting to reprise the argument on here. Please allow outside comment and cease the disruption. Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for outside comment

I apologise in advance for repeating myself, the purpose of this section was to get outside comment that WP:WEIGHT can be judged on the basis of requiring that two different sources, primarily newspaper reports, rather than the current community standard in WP:NPOV. Please could I have outside comment, thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Wee your "neutral" summary of the issue leaves a lot to be desired and your attempts at being the only one with a voice in this discussion are quite disruptive. The question is not "should we do this rather than follow established guidelines?", you are purposely presenting a loaded question. Nobody is talking about violating WP:NPOV. The question is: can we base a section of an article on reliable secondary sources (such as established newspapers)? Or should every section in an article that can't be made to match with the length of the same topic present exclusively in published books/journals be removed from WP?
I would request editors to please head on to the Talk:Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute to get more background on what is being discussed. I quote editor Scjessey who I believe summarizes my point rather well:
"If a country's position on the matter receives significant coverage in high-quality secondary sourcing (mainstream media and scholarly works), it is worth inclusion". Regards. Gaba p (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Which is no different from my interpretation of WP:WEIGHT but its not what you propose. The reason removal is proposed is that high-quality secondary sourcing doesn't attach much weight and newspapers are not high-quality sources. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
While two reliable sources are certainly desirable, I think one is sufficient; newspaper accounts are acceptable-quality sources. All the best, Miniapolis 03:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Reliable sources do not have to be books. Nor is there any requirement that given points reference more than one reliable source. Newspapers on the whole are reliable sources, though clearly an in-depth explainer in the New York Times or The Atlantic is better than news agency coverage if you are looking for a citation for a complex situation. Similarly UPI or Reuters may be a better bet for to-the-point coverage of specific events. Really, it all depends. If you're looking for sources for statements like "country x is on this side of the dispute" then it seems to me that a public statement from a representative of country x as quoted by any reliable source woould do just fine. Seems to me that either I am missing the point or you guys are overthinking this.Elinruby (talk) 01:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC) 23:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Herodotus & the Ancient Egyptian race controversy

Despite considerable discussion at Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy about the reliability of Herodotus, the latest edits by Dailey78 (talk · contribs) leave the discussion of Herodotus's reliability starting with "Scholars, ancient and modern, regard the works of Herodotus as reliable. A.H.L. Heeren quotes Herodotus on nearly every page of his work and provides examples from modern scholarship (source of the Nile, Meroe, etc.) that corroborate Herodotus' claims". This has two sources, Cheikh Anta Diop and Arnold Hermann Ludwig Heeren. This is followed by "Diop also defends the reliability of Herodotus by providing examples of corroboration in modern scholarship,[143][120][119] but Snowden claims that Diop is distorting his classical sources and is quoting them selectively.[144] Many scholars, ancient and modern, regard the works of Herodotus as being unreliable as historical sources.[145][146][147][148][149][150][151][152] The reliability of his writings about Egypt are particularly questioned.[153][154][155][156][157]" which does show that numerous scholars question his reliability. I believe that we need to start by making it clear there is a dispute, citing and attributing those that say he is reliable and then ditto for those who disagree. 'Scholars ancient and modern' is too broad a statement, especially when only 2 people are cited. I'm not convinced that we care that an early 19th century scholar mentions Herodotus on almost every page (and I strongly disagree with the idea expressed at Talk:Black Egyptian Hypothesis that someone writing that long ago can be used to show a "high level of agreement between Herodotus, other ancient historians, and modern archaeologists".

This isn't a huge deal but it's been impossible to work out arguments like these on the respective talk pages. It would be nice to get comments from someone not involved with the article. Dougweller (talk) 11:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

There is indeed a lot of problems with that wording. Heeren is not a modern scholar by any standards, but even if he was it wouldn't matter, since the claim that "Scholars, ancient and modern, regard the works of Herodotus as reliable" cannot be cited with examples of scholars using Herodotus, that would be WP:OR. Such a claim needs a secondary source, preferably a scholarly historiographic overview, which specifically states that modern scholarship unquestionably regards Herodotus as a reliable source. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Diop is a modern scholar. Strabo is an ancient scholar. Heeren is a modern scholar when viewed in the context of Herodotus, as Herodotus lived 2500 years ago. All three of these scholars found Herodotus as reliable in the context of Nile Valley civilizations. Heeren nearly quoted Herodotus on every page of his book concerning the Nile Valley. Heeren provided several examples of 19th century scholars that corroborated Herodotus' findings from the Histories. As an example, Herodotus successfully located Meroe in his work, the Histories, and for the next 2500 years no scholar could improve upon his findings concerning the location of Meroe (which is highly relevant to the Ancient Egyptian discussion). Although it may initially seem unwarranted to quote a 19th century author, you must consider the context. The article in question Ancient Egyptian race controversy is primarily comprised of quotes of 19th century authors. If you removed the quotes by 19th century authors, there would be nothing left of the article. Please review the article and notice how many 19th century authors are quoted in the article in question. I am not particular to the "ancient and modern" wording, but it must be noted that many scholars cite Herodotus in their work and many of Herodotus' findings have been corroborated in the 2500 years since he published "The Histories." Of course, Herodotus was not correct on every point, but the article is full of quotes from scholars that have since been disproven on various points. It appears that Herodotus is being singled out for NPOV violations, although the same could be said of nearly every scholar that is cited in this controversial article. Nearly all of them have had major sections of their work disproved by modern scholarship.
Finally, can we agree that scholars would not cite Herodotus extensively in their works if they thought that Herodotus was unreliable? To date, I haven't taken the time to look up the numerous authors that cite Herodotus in their works. I will do that within the next 24 hours and provide a litany of sources that have based their research on Herodotus' work.Rod (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
19th century scholars are not modern scholars. They cannot be used to source claims about the state of contemporary scholarship on the subject. Furthermore if you make an exceptional claim then you need exceptional sources to verify it. That means contemporary scholarship from reliable secondary sources, you cannot simply list examples of scholars mentioning Herodotus and then make a general claim about the state of scholarship on the subject. You will need a historiographical source for that, otherwise it is WP:SYNTH. It doesn't matter how many examples you can provide (as you have done below), it is simply against the basic Wikipedia policy of WP:Verifiability. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
The following authors cited Herodotus in their works concerning the Nile Valley (author/book):
  • AHL Heeren, Historical researches into the politics, intercourse, and trade of the...Ethiopians and Egyptians (cited Herodotus on nearly every page and specifically wrote passages to DEMONSTRATE the reliability of Herodotus' accounts of the Nile Valley)Rod (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Henry T. Aubin, The Rescue of Jerusalem (cited Herodotus extensively in this book about the Nile Valley and Levant)Rod (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Basil Davidson, The African Past
  • Basil Davidson, The Lost Cities of Africa
  • Ivan Van Sertima, Egypt Revisited
  • Richard Poe, Black Spark White Fire (literally throughout the entire book)
  • Derek Welsby, The Kingdom of Kush
  • Cheikh Anta Diop, Civilization or Barbarism
  • Cheikh Anta Diop, The African Origin of Civilization (throughout the entire book with pages devoted to defending Herodotus' reliability)
  • Cheikh Anta Diop, Precolonical Black Africa
  • Theodore Celenko, Egypt in Africa
  • Constantin de Volney, Voyages en Syrie et en Egypte
  • Pierre Montet, Sciences et Avenir
  • G. Mokhtar, General History of Africa
  • Martin Bernal, Black Athena (throughout the entire book)
  • John G. Jackson, African Civilizations
  • W.E.B. DuBois, The World and Africa
  • Strabo, Geography (see the index in the last volume for the numerous references to Herodotus' work)
As you can see, NUMEROUS scholars chose to reference and often heavily cite Herodotus when writing books on the Nile Valley. These scholars span all time periods and prove that Herodotus earned his title, "Father of History", in the eyes of many. I'm sure there are those that believe that Herodotus' work is unreliable, but surely they are not in greater number than those that believe that his work is reliable.Rod (talk) 04:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Its also true that many scholars "mention" Herodotus, rather than profess his reliability. I think an important distinction needs to be drawn between people who merely mention that "Herodotus said ...", vs those who cite him as though they trust him, vs those who specifically say "We can rely on Herodotus who said ...". A number of sources have been cited in the article which specifically state that "Herodotus is NOT reliable when he discusses ancient Egypt", since that is the actual topic of the article. I therefore think Rod's argument would be much stronger if he cited sources who state specifically that "Herodotus IS reliable when he discusses ancient Egypt", (other than just a succession of repetitive assertions from Diop). The fact that Herodotus got right the location of Meroe is true, but hardly significant - he could have heard about this from a traveler in a bar in Athens, and fortuitously this one anecdote turned out to be true, while many other such anecdotes about Egypt proved to be false. We could also point out here that the Harry Potter stories reference a city called London, and a railway station called Kings Cross. Both these places really do exist - but can we therefore also assume that broomsticks can fly? Wdford (talk) 08:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Please, we don't need or want a long list of authors who cite Herodotus in their works, especially if they are going to be named several times (or only mention him say, 3 times as in Welsby's case). We know that most or all Afro-centrists like him. We know that a lot of people mention him with no comment on his reliability or negative comments. All of this misses my point entirely, which was about the way in which this was presented. Dougweller (talk) 10:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Rod, it really wasn't necessary to post a list of scholars who mention Herodotus, especially if you're going to duplicate names to extend the list. I might note that some of these scholars get quite chilly receptions: for example, Ivan van Sertima has been accused by studiers of Mesoamerica of "racism". --Yalens (talk) 15:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Quite a predictable response. Intelligent people would NOT call most authors on this list Afrocentrists. Many of them are white and European. This false allegation is commonly levied to discredit authors that don't agree with some editors POV. Logic would tell us that an author finds a primary source reliable if they cite his work throughout their books. These authors used Herodotus' words to demonstrate various points concerning the Nile Valley. All of these books are on the Nile Valley, so they are supremely relevant to this discussion. I didn't say what was in the books. You are making an assumption that the books don't contain a statement supporting Herodotus' reliability. Have you read all of these books? Can you say for certain that they don't support Herodotus' reliability?
There is no need to dignify Harry Potter responses, or responses telling me what we do or do not need in MY responses. Please focus on making your case and let me make mine. Please stay on topic (Ancient Egypt and the Nile Valley). If you are moving on from trying to discredit the Father or History to trying to discredit other authors, will you please start a new thread? I am getting the impression that no author is trustworthy (when writing about the Nile Valley) unless they agree with your POV. These are very popular and widely read books. They have a good reception in the global community. Your POV has allowed you to make the rather astounding claim that Meroe (in the Nile Valley) is not significant. Meroe was one of the most important societies/cities of the time period in question and was recently named a UNESCO world heritage site (in 2011). The civilization of which Meroe was a seat lasted for 1000 years and was nearly identical to the Ancient Egyptian civilization in culture, arts, religion, writing, etc. How did you conclude that it is not significant?
This is the point: Some editors found every author that disagrees with Herodotus and cited them. The editors then tried to construct a narrative that MOST people find Herodotus unreliable and that he is some type of fringe historian. This POV pushing completely ignores the fact that NUMEROUS people use Herodotus as a major source for their works on the Nile Valley and several of those authors explicitly state that Herodotus is reliable (in the context of his writings concerning the Nile Valley). Therefore, the true narrative is that some people disagree with Herodotus and some people agree with him (find him reliable and worth citing extensively in their books). There is a disagreement on Herodotus, but it's not worth discussing for several paragraphs in an article about Ancient Egypt (as opposed to an article about Herodotus). A couple of sentences on this disagreement is sufficient.Rod (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
In the original post, DougWeller's concern was the citation of two authors to back the position that Herodotus is viewed as reliable. I have now cited 14 separate authors (not including Van Sertima) that substantially cited Herodotus in their work on the Nile Valley. Also, there was a concern about the usefulness of quoting a 19th century scholar. Please keep in mind that the subject in question is 6000 years old (at least) and that the articles in question are heavily laden with quotations from 19th century authors. I look forward to some impartial commentary on the original claim.Rod (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Read my original post above.

Rod's current version, which he calls balanced (about 110 words for the Herodotus is reliable position vs 30 for the other), reads:

"Many scholars (Aubin, Heeren, Davidson, Diop, Poe, Welsby, Celenko, Volney, Montet, Bernal, Jackson, DuBois, Strabo), ancient and modern, routinely cite Herodotus in their works on the Nile Valley. Some of these scholars (Heeren, Aubin, Diop, etc.) explicitly mention the reliability of Herodotus' work on the Nile Valley and demonstrate corroboration of Herodotus' writings by modern scholars.[139][117][116] A.H.L. Heeren (1838) quoted Herodotus throughout his work and provided corroboration by scholars of his day regarding several passages (source of the Nile, location of Meroe, etc.).[140] To further his work on the Egyptians and Assyrians, Aubin uses Herodotus' accounts in various passages and defends Herodotus' position against modern scholars. [141] In contrast, many scholars, ancient and modern, regard the works of Herodotus as being unreliable as historical sources.[142][143][144][145][146][147][148][149] " Dougweller (talk) 06:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I now have 14 independent authors that cite Herodotus extensively in their works about the Nile Valley. I've quoted from four of the authors that specifically and explicitly comment on the reliability of Herodotus' work. I actually tried to reduce the entire Herodotus discussion to 2 sentences for Herodotus and 2 sentences against, but other editors chose to keep this long digression about Herodotus in an article about Egyptians. Most of the con-Herodotus text is lifted verbatim from the Herodotus article, so it would seem that we could just link to the Herodotus article. Furthermore, Dougweller is not behaving as an impartial administrator in this article. He is clearly on the side of a few editors and never finds fault with any of their contributions, but always finds fault with the contributions of any editor that does not agree with his POV. He is now threatening to block and censor me, when my cited additions comprise a large portion of this article and they have been accepted for the last year by the community at large. He is not interested in balance in this article. He is interested in pushing his POV and suppressing all other positions, even when most scholars do not support his position.Rod (talk) 06:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Don't be misled into thinking that I am supportive of this lengthy discussion of Herodotus in an article about Egyptians. In fact, I am the editor trying to shorten the section. However, I cannot allow the false narrative to stand that states 'most scholars find Herodotus as unreliable' when in fact MOST scholars cite Herodotus when writing about this subject and many scholars explicitly defend the veracity of Herodotus' work. If we must discuss Herodotus detractors, we must also discuss his numerous supporters and followers. This is the concise and balanced version that I attempted to add. It was reverted by others:
"Many scholars regard the works of Herodotus as being unreliable. The reliability of Herodotus is particularly criticized when writing about Egypt.[1] In contrast, Diop provides examples that he claims support his view that Herodotus was "quite scrupulous, objective, scientific for his time." Diop also claims that Strabo corroborated Herodotus' ideas about the Black Egyptians, Ethiopians, and Colchians.[2][3]"
I won't respond to the other attacks, but I earlier explicitly told Dailey78 that I was not acting as an Administrator and would not take Administrative action against him. What I did do is give him a 3RR warning after he'd reverted 3 times and had himself been reverted 3 times but by separate editors (including me) each time. Accusations of censorship simply show a lack of understanding. Dougweller (talk) 09:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
The article specifically states that the Black Hypothesis relies heavily on the writings of the Classical authors, of whom Herodotus is the foremost. Some editors have therefore labored the article with every instance they could find where Herodotus et al used the word melanchroes - which wasn't very many actually. However the reliability of Herodotus - and thus those ancients who quoted him - is highly suspect, especially when he wrote about Egypt (his work on Greek society is apparently much more reliable). Since this is seemingly the core of the Diop hypothesis, it needs to be properly ventilated - both the pro's and the con's. To fill the article with a turgid list of quotes in favor of the POV but then try to exclude the criticisms thereof, is not balanced. I would be happy to rely on a link to the Herodotus article for the criticism of Herodotus, if the long list of Diop's cherry-picked quotes is deleted and merely linked to the Diop article. However, to do this Hypothesis properly, I feel we should actually represent the fact that the Hypothesis relies heavily on Herodotus and a few other such, that their writings re Egypt are criticized and disputed, that to the extent they have support at all it is just for "SOME" facts not all facts, that the matter is thus controversial, and that Diop did not get support from most scholars for his Hypothesis.
It is WP:SYN to list authors who agree with Herodotus on some non-relevant issue, as though this somehow indicates that every detail of his work on Egypt must thus be reliable in its entirety. Some editors have a history of amassing lists of authors who agree with their POV (however tangentially) in an attempt to make it look like a "democratic majority" of scholarship supports them.
Re Meroe - I merely said that Herodotus could have known the location of Meroe from others, and need not have traveled there himself. Once again you try to distort my comments. Although Meroe was only founded when Egypt was on its last legs, by the time of Herodotus Meroe was a well-known place and many traders had visited it - and written about it. Herodotus was reporting stuff he heard from others, with much embellishment, and sometimes he was correct and sometimes not. He has already been proved conclusively wrong about so many other things, so the mere fact that he got it right sometimes does not give grounds to believe he was correct about everything he wrote - as many scholars have duly noted.
Some scholars have suggested that Herodotus was deliberately writing fiction, and sprinkled his stories with actual places and events to make them more accessible to readers - my Harry Potter example was very apt in this regard. Shakespeare did the same, and his work is no more historically reliable than Herodotus.
Wdford (talk) 10:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Every author listed above cited Herodotus while writing about Ancient Egypt, which is the topic of the article we are editing. I am yet to receive a response to the simple question, "Why are so many authors voluntarily choosing to cite Herodotus throughout their books on Ancient Egypt if he is so unreliable?" Furthermore, I gave examples from world respected scholars (on Ancient Egypt, e.g. Welsby) and Welsby explicitly stated in his book "that archaeological evidence supports Herodotus' claims"(about the Nile Valley). It is not WP:SYN. It is a real stretch for you to even make that claim.
Diop, Bernal, Aubin, Heeren and others have cited Herodotus extensively while creating their works on the Nile Valley. Diop is not the only one to do it. All of the authors found Herodotus reliable enough to base their books mostly on Herodotus' work. As can be observed by the following quotes from the articles, there was wide support for these views throughout history:
"Gaston Maspero states that "by the almost unanimous testimony of ancient [Greek] historians, they [Ancient Egyptians] belonged to the African race, which settled in Ethiopia."[4]"
"Around 1785 Volney stated, "When I visited the sphinx...on seeing that head, typically Negro in all its features, I remembered...Herodotus says: "...the Egyptians...are black with woolly hair"..."[104]
Welsby said that "archaeology graphically confirms some of Herodotus' observations." [52]
Finally, it is not reasonable to expect an author writing 2500 years ago to get every point correct when viewed through the lens of a person living today. If that was our criteria, we could not cite any author on this subject. That would cause Wiki to stand in stark contrast to the academic community at large, because, as I have demonstrated, MOST scholars cite Herodotus when writing about Ancient Egypt.Rod (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
You haven't demonstrated anything of the sort. You keep mentioning historians from the 19th century (and completely out of context at that), none of whom have any bearing on modern scholarship. You digging even further back and citing 18th century travel memoirs aren't exactly helping your cause. As I stated above the number of primary source examples you can provide is irrelevant, since a general claim worded to the effect that Herodotus is unequivocally considered a reliable source by modern scholars is your interpretation, and you will need a very good secondary reliable source that states exactly that for it to be acceptable in Wikipedia. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
The context is the Ancient Egyptian civilization. Every single author listed wrote a book on the Ancient Egyptian civilization and they all used Herodotus in part or in large part to create their work on Ancient Egypt. How would an objective person find this as out of context. Again, I ask that you read the article that we are discussing. Most citations by most editors are of 19th century authors. That is the nature of the subject matter. This article is about a controversy that started in the 18th and 19th centuries. How would we possibly write an article that is EXPLICITLY ABOUT THE HISTORY OF A CONTROVERSY FROM THE 18TH AND 19TH CENTURIES without citing any scholars that participated in the controversy in the 18th and 19th centuries? That is absurd. Shall we not use any sources from the time period in question while writing this article? The controversy did not start in the modern era and therefore the encyclopedia article on it cannot only use sources from the modern era. Many of the scholars listed above (Aubin, Diop, Williams, Welsby, Jackson, Bernal, etc.) wrote books in the 20th or 21st centuries, somehow that is being completely ignored. I have listed several reliable sources that state that he was reliable (Aubin, Diop, etc.). Here's another:
"Herodotus' comments about the ethnography of Egypt could presumably be considered reliable since they are the eye-witness testimony of a visitor to that land. In this matter Herodotus did not rely on what the priests told him; he saw the black skinned and curly haired Egyptians with his own eyes!" in History in Black: African-Americans in Search of an Ancient Past by Yaacov Shavit, copywright 2001 (21st century).
Shall we suspend common sense on Wiki? If nearly every author (from every country and ethnicity) that writes about Ancient Egypt cites Herodotus, why would it be unacceptable in this encyclopedia to follow the lead of so many other authors and cite him? Do we know more than the countless other scholars that have cited Herodotus? Would so many people cite him if the general consensus was that he was unreliable? I provided several demonstrations that modern scholars found him as reliable.Rod (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
And no one denies that. It can be denied that they are all experts on Herodotus or that they examined his claims with an impartial eye of course, or that they represent any general consensus. It's the way this is all presented that is the issue. Your quote from Shavit is interesting. Of course, in context it might be read differently. Eg a few sentences above that he writes "No Greek doubted that the Egyptians were darker than the Greeks, but not as dark as black Africans."[25] And the next bit directly after your quote says "However, he begins by distinguishing clearly between Egyptians, Ethiopians and Libyans, and writes that he was told that the Egyptians (and not the Ethiopians) shave their heads from childhood, while the Ethiopians are said to be 'the tallest and best-looking people in the world' (II:20.i). Physically, they are radically different from the Egyptians." Shavit then discusses the Colchians and cites Frank Snowden's pointing out that Herodotus used the word melanchroes not Aethiopes, "thus distinguishing between the dark or black-skinned peoples from the south of Egypt, and those from the southern fringes of northwest Africa." But even if one accepts the view that the Egyptians were closer to the Nubians in skin color than to the Greeks, this still does not make them and the Nubians one nation, sharing the same skin color and hair. A footnote on page 296 suggests that Shavit was dubious about Herodotus's reliability when he discusses Egypt - did you miss that? On the other hand, he does say that his eye-witness testimony on ethnographic facts can't be ignored.(p.62) before he writes in more detail about it as quoted above. Dougweller (talk) 06:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

And his latest version:

Many scholars (Aubin, Heeren, Davidson, Diop, Poe, Welsby, Celenko, Volney, Montet, Bernal, Jackson, DuBois, Strabo), ancient and modern, routinely cite Herodotus in their works on the Nile Valley. Some of these scholars (Welsby, Heeren, Aubin, Diop, etc.) explicitly mention the reliability of Herodotus' work on the Nile Valley and demonstrate corroboration of Herodotus' writings by modern scholars.[139][117][116] Welsby said that "archaeology graphically confirms some of Herodotus' observations." [140] A.H.L. Heeren (1838) quoted Herodotus throughout his work and provided corroboration by scholars of his day regarding several passages (source of the Nile, location of Meroe, etc.).[141] To further his work on the Egyptians and Assyrians, Aubin uses Herodotus' accounts in various passages and defends Herodotus' position against modern scholars. [142] In contrast, many scholars, ancient and modern, regard the works of Herodotus as being unreliable as historical sources.[143][144][145][146][147][148][149][150] The reliability of his writings about Egypt are particularly questioned.[151][152][153][154][155] Snowden claims that Diop is distorting his classical sources and is quoting them selectively.[156]" I'd like to know which Egyptian observations Welsby is referring to, if any. No one has said that Herodotus was never right so it's not clear why this is here. Dougweller (talk) 10:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The text that I added is in response to the following text (added by other editors) that would leave a lay reader with the impression that Herodotus is completely unreliable and not worth citing in any scholarly work. This stands in stark contrast to common practice in the academic community, as most scholars quote Herodotus extensively on the subject of Ancient Egypt. Other editor's words:
"Many scholars regard the works of Herodotus as being unreliable as historical sources. Fehling writes of "a problem recognized by everybody", namely that much of what Herodotus tells us cannot be taken at face value. [39] Sparks writes that "In antiquity, Herodotus had acquired the reputation of being unreliable, biased, parsimonious in his praise of heroes, and mendacious".[40][41][42][43][44] Najovits writes that “Herodotus fantasies and inaccuracies are legendary.”[45] Voltaire and Hartog both described Herodotus as the "father of lies".[46][47]
The reliability of Herodotus is particularly criticized when writing about Egypt. Alan B. Lloyd states that as a historical document, the writings of Herodotus are seriously defective, and that he was working from "inadequate sources".[48] Nielsen writes that: "Though we cannot entirely rule out the possibility of Herodotus having been in Egypt, it must be said that his narrative bears little witness to it."[49] Fehling states that Herodotus never traveled up the Nile River, and that almost everything he says about Egypt and Ethiopia is doubtful.[50][51]"
Thanks for conceding that Shavit admitted that Herodotus was reliable on this subject, as Herodotus was an eyewitness. Then Shavit goes into his nonsensical analysis where tall Ethiopians and people that don't shave their heads are necessarily a different race from (shorter people that get haircuts?) Egyptians. No comment needed, as height and hair cuts do not characterize race. This is what Herodotus said, as opposed to poor interpretations of what he said:
Herodotus said: "It is...manifest that the Colchidians are Egyptians by race...they have black skins and kinky hair...second...more reliably...the Egyptians and Ethiopians have practiced circumcision since time immemorial...These are the only races which practice circumcision." Strabo concurred that the Egyptians and Colchoi are of the same race, but holds that the migrations to Colchoi and Ethiopia had been from Egypt only. "Egyptians settled in Ethiopia and in Colchoi."
Herodotus' words and Strabo's corroboration are self explanatory. Herodotus and Strabo both link Egyptians, Ethiopians, and Colchidians into the same race based on their physical appearance (black skin and kinky hair) and both scholars state this explicitly.
Welsby (on page 40 of Kingdom of Kush) is discussing the use of Ethiopians in the armies of the Egyptian pharaohs. In paragraphs 3 and 4, he (like most other scholars on this subject) references Herodotus' views on the armies and then states, "archaeology graphically confirms some of Herodotus' observations." Yet another mainstream and well respected scholar that uses Herodotus' words to make their points on Ancient Egypt. That is the normal course of action for scholars on Ancient Egypt.Rod (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
And once again, this Welsby quote precisely makes our point, which you consistently refuse to hear - only SOME of Herodotus has been proved right, but he has been proved wrong on many things - especially regarding Egypt. He has been proved wrong re the Colchians, and right re the fact that Meroe lies upstream from Egypt (although Meroe was a well known kingdom in his own time). As usual, you are happy to quote Shavit as an authority when he supports your POV, but you belittle him on other points. If you could let go of your bias and read things objectively, you would quickly see that our point is that Herodotus is the mainstay of Diop's hypothesis, but although some authors are prepared to quote him, others regard him as being decidedly unreliable - especially re Egypt. If all of mainstream scholarship was prepared to accept that Herodotus is gospel, then there would be no controversy to begin with, would there? And finally, for the umpteenth time, it doesn't matter how many quote him and how many say he is a liar - scholarship is not decided by voting. Wdford (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
I actually agree with you. Herodotus was not right about everything, but then again none of the authors that were cited in this article were right about everything. If we challenged all of them, there would be nothing left of the article. Why the undue scrutiny for Herodotus, as opposed to a consistent approach that would challenge any author that has made a mistake in his/her work? In the interest of ending this lengthy debate, let's try to find some common ground. We all agree that Herodotus was right about some things and wrong about others. We all agree that he is heavily cited by scholars when writing books about Ancient Egypt. Feel free to add lengthy commentary on the veracity of Herodotus in the article. I will use this same standard when considering the numerous other citations in the article. I will quote from secondary sources that question the reliability of any other cited authors (from all the debunked theories). I will add similar commentary from their detractors explaining all of the mistakes that they made (e.g. stating A.E.'s were Mongols from Asia).
This will balance the concerns about the reliability of Herodotus with concerns about the reliability of all of the cited authors.Rod (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
As a general principle, that's actually fine. However the article already makes is clear that the other theories are no longer accepted by modern scholarship - the only reason why the Black Hypothesis gets more ink here than the others is because a handful of people are still banging this drum, and are still trying to scratch up some "evidence" to support their discredited POV. What would really solve this problem correctly, is if you would accept that the Black Hypothesis is based on ancient writings that are not considered to be reliable, and that a lot of people therefore don't take Diop seriously because they don't take Herodotus seriously. As long as you keep piling in "evidence" it will be necessary to keep balancing that "evidence" with counter-points from all the scholars who have debunked it. You are well aware that Herodotus was wrong about many things he said re Egypt. He was certainly correct about a few geographical details, as was Harry Potter, but that doesn't make him reliable as a historical record. Plato is still widely admired and widely quoted on many issues, but few take seriously his descriptions of Atlantis. Shakespeare is probably the most widely quoted person on earth, but while books on Julius Caesar or Henry V often quote Shakespeare on the subject they certainly don't rely on Shakespeare for historical accuracy. So let's simplify all this to merely state clearly that Diop relied heavily on Herodotus, but that relying on Herodotus is not generally considered to be a very wise idea, and then move on. What do you say? Wdford (talk) 08:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


I agree with you that the article makes it clear that the theories are debunked and modern scholarship has gone away from the racial model. However, the article did not mention (within the Asiatic/Hamitic/Turanid sections) that they were not reliable or accurate. I just added statements (within the last week or so) to add balance within those sections. Before, the balance would need to come from the introductory paragraphs at the top of the article. Conversely, the Black theory was opposed in the introductory paragraphs, as well as WITHIN the black theory section itself. That is a striking lack of symmetry in the article's construction. It has been mostly remedied by my recent edits that challenge the other theories WITHIN those theory's section. As I said before, Herodotus was not right about everything, but neither were any of the other authors in the article. Petrie was a great scholar, but he got a lot of stuff wrong. If we use the same approach that we're using to challenge Herodotus, this article will be filled with paragraphs pointing out the errors of all of these scholars. Let's stay focused on A.E. and Herodotus. I don't know anything about Harry Potter. I've never seen the movies or read the books. I would rather read a 2000 year old book about A.E. than watch that type of movie. Therefore, I can't understand your analogies.Rod (talk) 20:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Health care profession

Request for comment regarding if chiropractic is a 'health care profession'. Regards, DVMt (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

This issue is currently under discussion at the chiropractic talk page here. This discussed has occurred before and can be found in the archives here. Puhlaa (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
The editor who is challenging is basing her challenge on the source reliability, not the neutrality of the text, thus I am moving the discussion to the RS noticeboard. Thank you. DVMt (talk) 03:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

RfC in Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming

Looking for some unbiased opinions on neutrality and undue weight issue for the lead of NLP in the article talk page Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming. Allisgod (talk) 00:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

(explective deleted} Not NLP again? It's always the fringe topics that cause trouble. Just tell them that NPOV does not mean equal weight, and if it's junk science, it's going to say so in the lead. KillerChihuahua 23:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
As happens on some fringe articles, the undue weight on this article is on evaluation of it as a science, resulting in it being unequivocally and way too repeatedly called a pseudoscience based on relatively weak sources, when it is actually more like a multi-level marketing scheme for self-improvement, selling techniques and motivation. Hans Adler 00:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
From my read, for what it is worth, it appears to have originated as a serious scientific theory/method of therapy, and has evolved into that, subsequent to sustained mainstream scientific criticism. Dont know if its origins were linked to its ultimate "New age" self-improvement niche it appears to now occupy. Irondome (talk) 00:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
More eyes would help. htom (talk) 01:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I like your edit summary[26] more than your plea, but I'll try to answer your plea too. KillerChihuahua 12:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, but it's not wit, they actually said that. They also said it would fail scientific testing. The only real claim they made was that it could -- not would -- work. That the scam artists find it so useful seems to me to demonstrate that there's useful something there, just not what this round of science is looking for. Science frequently wears blinders, cf. that bacteria that causes ulcers. htom (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I wanted to close this RfC but I have decided I'm too involved, having made three edits to the NLP talk page. Could somebody fresh take a look, and either close it unresolved, or propose something, please. pretty please. Roxy the dog (talk) 11:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Maafa 21

(Preface: Really this shouldn't have got this far, as multiple discussions have shown a clear consensus in one direction, but what can you do when users insist on edit-warring tendentiously in service of a POV.)

Maafa 21 is an anti-abortion film (by Mark Crutcher, car salesman turned activist) about the conspiracy theory according to which Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood were formed with the aim of facilitating genocide against black people through birth control and abortion. This WP:FRINGE claim is not remotely supported in the historical scholarship, and Esther Katz (NYU professor and editor of Sanger's papers) has deigned to comment on the film in order to point this out. All our policies not only allow but require that this fact appear in our article, but for the past week or so, users whose love for the film seemingly outweighs their commitment to building an encyclopedia have been edit-warring to remove it from the article, or at best, weakening it to "criticism" from "some people." (While adding rubbish promotional sources, as though volume were a substitute for quality and NPOV.) It's strange to pose this question to the board when the answer is so obvious, but here it is anyway: does NPOV require censoring any mention of the mainstream view in an article on a fringe view?

The minimum text I would like to include: "It claims that eugenics movements targeting African Americans in the 19th and 20th centuries are the basis for reproductive rights movements and in particular for the creation of Planned Parenthood by Margaret Sanger, a claim which Esther Katz, a leading scholar on Sanger's life and work, identifies as completely wrong and without evidence." This language is a softened-up paraphrase of Katz's statement that the film's claims are "flat wrong...just stupid...there's no way she ever said any such thing...there's no action she's ever taken to signify that." There are also specifics that could be included (Katz points out specific false or misleading claims and explains why they are false) but we can get to those later.
Talkpage discussion: various sections at Talk:Maafa 21

(Multiple RSN discussions have determined that Katz and other historical scholars are reliable sources on the history of Sanger and PP, while Crutcher is not, and also that our sources (a newspaper which quotes Katz, and material from the MSPP website) are acceptable references for those scholarly views. On the other hand, one user at the article has apparently stated an intention to continue removing the material forever since her own personal interpretation of NPOV overrides everyone else's consensus, so more content noticeboards instead of behavioral boards may be a waste of time, but hope springs eternal.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC) [Edited to add diffs/text –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)]

Perhaps if you read the instructions above and actually follow them then somone might be able to focus on your NPOV issue. So far the only diff you presented is a talk page comment that doesn't even say what you are purporting.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, I was in a hurry and forgot which specific guidelines applied where. Edited now. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
LGR, please focus on the issue at hand, namely the alleged contributions in violation of NPOV, and not on contributors. Viriditas (talk) 23:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Issues raised by Roscelese:
  1. Consensus for NPOV established on Talk:Maafa 21 is not being followed
  2. Consensus directs editors to note WP:FRINGE claims per Esther and Katz
Is this everything, Roscelese, or have I missed something? Viriditas (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
That's not a good way of phrasing the issue - everyone (well, theoretically) agrees that there should be NPOV. The problem here is that the consensus of editors does not see a POV issue in the inclusion of the mainstream view in the article, but other users are refusing to heed this consensus in the ostensible name of NPOV. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Are you trying to say that there is a consensus to include the material and that some editors are misinterpreting NPOV to exclude it? Viriditas (talk) 05:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you should ask for diffs of the text in question, not the strawman argument above.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you will assume good faith and expect diffs to be forthcoming? I've been in many situations where I'm out the door and can only file a report, with diffs added much later. Do you agree, LGR, that there is consensus on the talk page, and that NPOV directs involved editors to add Esther and Katz? Is this an accurate summary of the dispute? Viriditas (talk) 23:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to be away for a bit, but if you read the last thread on RSN, you should get a better picture of this issue.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
To answer your questions, yes there is consensus for NPOV, but its not what Rosclese thinks it is. Consensus claimed by one is no consensus at all. No one is denying that Katz views cannot be made, but once again there is no consensus for the POV version Roscelese prefers. Several editors have used the word "attribution" which only one editor has a WP:IDHT problem with. However yesterday she made IMO a somewhat decent edit, which might have addressed this issue.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  00:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
UMHHH . . . Excuse me but did I read correctly that in her complaint Roscelese said "what can you do when users insist on edit-warring tendentiously in service of POV" and that "users whose love for the film outweighs their commitment to build an encyclopedia have been . . . adding rubbish (to it)? If so why does our initial conciliator here, Viriditas, caution my colleague little green rosetta, but NOT my colleague Roscelese, to focus on the issue and not on contributors?? Badmintonhist (talk) 01:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
That is not a helpful comment and fails to address the topic under discussion. Please fix your use of italics and avoid tu quoque in the future. Please work to resolve the dispute not to continue it. Viriditas (talk) 05:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Actually, Badmintonhist is making a perfectly reasonable distinction, while pointing out the kind of etiquette (or lack thereof) that has been exercised by Roscelese since (and--I'm sure--long before) I first met her at Maafa 21 in August of 2012. (Frankly, we're all a bit tired of it.) -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
With all due respect, your input in this issue is most unwelcome. You have lost all right to expect me to AGF when it comes to you. Please let someone else that regularly comments on these issues moderate.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  06:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid you are distracting from the issue under discussion again. Please refrain from attacking the OP or changing the subject to what you think of me. If you can't do that, then don't reply. I'm only interested in seeing this issue resolved. If you feel that you have interpersonal issues with other editors, then please seek guidance elsewhere. Viriditas (talk) 06:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
No, I don't have interpersonal issues with other editors, just hypocrites like yourself.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  07:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
The seasoned POV editor warrior said what? Insomesia (talk) 12:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Viriditas: If I may, I would like to summarize what I believe the dispute to be from the point of view of an uninvolved editor who contributed to the two discussions in WP:RSN (see 1st and 2nd). I think there is agreement that Katz is a reliable source for her opinion, but Little green rosetta asserted that the Wikipedia text did not accurately reflect what was stated in the article. I think there is/was some validity to that complaint. They were referred here to hash it out. Good luck! Location (talk) 07:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
That's incorrect; I brought it here in the perhaps misguided hope that yet another demonstration of the same consensus would get LGR to finally stop edit-warring. Can you explain what you believe to be a problem with the paraphrase of "flat wrong...just stupid...there's no way she ever said any such thing...there's no action she's ever taken to signify that" as "completely wrong and without evidence", as linked above? (Other than that it's overly gentle, but I don't think it's a good idea to describe a film as "stupid" in the lede even if that's the sourced, scholarly viewpoint.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
It's mind boggling that everyone that has commented on this issue has disagreed with your position and you still claim consensus on your side. IDHT indeed.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  13:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I haven't seen any comments that disagree with Katz's analysis that claiming that Sanger wanted to erase blacks from the face of the earth is just stupid. I mean, there's no way she's ever said any such thing. There's no action she's ever taken to signify that, so why would we be talking about it? The problem with her statement, as I have explained here, is that the subject (i.e. the documentary Maafa 21) doesn't make that claim (i.e. global extermination of black peoples), so when Katz offered that analysis, she wasn't talking about the film: she was responding to the interviewer (i.e. Frank Carlson, who makes it perfectly clear in his two articles that he is openly hostile to pro-life activists).
That being said, Katz is being used as a reliable source in the article. No one has tried blocking the use of Katz, only the POV mishandling of her statements, orchestrated by Roscelese and supported solely by Binksternet. Over the past year, all consensus beyond those two editors, has been to remove the overtly anti-pro-life tone of the article (not of sources, mind you, but of WP's voice). The article is finally in pretty good shape: it accurately describes the nature of the film; it highlights Katz's perspective as the scholar that she is; and it offers a variety of significant responses to the film. Naturally, some adjustments can be made, but as the article currently stands, there is no real POV issue.
-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
It might also be pointed out that neither when posting at this notice board nor when posting at WP:RSN did Roscelese alert/notify those with whom she has disagreed at the Maafa 21 article. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Beleg Strongbow (related, perhaps, to Chief Jay Strongbow?) has stated the situation quite accurately. The article as it now stands contains substantial negative criticism of Maafa 21; certainly more negative criticism than positive commentary. In no sense is it a "whitewash" of the film perpetrated by "users whose love of the film seemingly outweighs their commitment to building an encyclopedia." Badmintonhist (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
An excellent example of Roscelese's approach to the article on Maafa 21 is the following: when advised at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to attribute Esther Katz's criticism of the film to Professor Katz in-text and by name (rather than making a declarative statement of the criticism in Wikipedia's name and mentioning Katz only by footnote) she created the following bifurcated sentence:
In reality, birth control activist Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood, the film's subjects, did not have racist aims and worked in coordination with black leaders; according to Esther Katz, a leading scholar on Sanger's life and work, the film is not based on any research, and its claims rely on misrepresentation of historical events, suppression of context, and attribution of quotes to Sanger which she never said.
This is the kind of mindset we've had to deal with. The "not based on any research" part, incidentally, is also a misconstruction of what Katz said which was actually that she was "not aware of the research" that the film's creator had done. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Your example of Roscelese's contribution fails to worry me about her "mindset". The Roscelese contribution is a collection of true facts except for "the film is not based on any research", which is wrong because we know the film is based on research which has been twisted, altered, misrepresented and taken out of context by the filmmaker. Can these facts be presented to the reader in a different manner, with different wording? Of course. Binksternet (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
The devil is in the details with respect to "of course". I particulary like the phrase you suggest "out of context" because that is pretty much what the sources say. In fact Roscelese made an interim edit which is much better then the proposed text she is vociferously defending. I do see that Badmithonhist improved upon that edit, but it is no worse for wear.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  18:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Binksternet, right on cue, has just perfectly demonstrated the kind of POV tone that he and Roscelese wish to impose upon the article in WP's voice. From my first edit at Maafa 21, I have made an attempt to allow the critics to speak for themselves, which they have opposed at every turn. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, in the "true facts" department that Binksternet refers to above, he and Roscelese have been exceedingly eager for Wikipedia, in Wikipedia's voice, to declare Margaret Sanger to be free of any racial prejudice in this article, something that the Wikipedia article on Sanger, wisely, does not do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badmintonhist (talk • contribs) 20:27, 19 February 2013‎ (UTC)
While Sanger certainly held views that would be considered racist today, those views were commonplace in her era. And yes, I think (and the evidence seems to support) that Maafa 21 takes advantadge of this to full effect to support their narrative. The sources say this and it should be included in the article. Additionaly Sanger was quite progressive for the time and one of the sources called her a "race liberal", so any explanation of her racial views needs to be tempered with context.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Current text (as of 22:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)):
"It claims that the eugenics movements that targeted African Americans in the 19th and 20th centuries formed the basis for the abortion-rights movements of the 20th and 21st centuries. The film has been enthusiastically received by anti-abortion activists but has been criticized as deceptive by others including Margaret Sanger Papers Project director Esther Katz."
Proposed text (by Roscelese at the top of the thread):
"It claims that eugenics movements targeting African Americans in the 19th and 20th centuries are the basis for reproductive rights movements and in particular for the creation of Planned Parenthood by Margaret Sanger, a claim which Esther Katz, a leading scholar on Sanger's life and work, identifies as completely wrong and without evidence."
In my opinion, neutrality would best be served by separating the statement regarding the film's claims from the statement regarding Katz's opinions of the film and its claims. Regarding the first statement, the past-tense "targeted" is more accurate than the present tense "targeting" and "reproductive rights movements" is more accurate in this context than "abortion-rights movements". Also, the phrase "and in particular for the creation of Planned Parenthood by Margaret Sanger" is a valid addition. I suggest changing the first sentence to:
"It alleges that the eugenics movements that targeted African Americans in the 19th and 20th centuries formed the basis for the reproductive rights movements and in particular for the creation of Planned Parenthood by Margaret Sanger."
The second sentence of the current text is also preferable to the second clause of the proposed text in that I read "leading scholar" as puffery and there are issues with WP:CLAIM. If we have agreement to have two ideas placed into separate sentences, then we can work on the text of the second sentence if it is still not acceptable. Location (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I've put your proposed text into the article and swapped "leading scholar" with a more specific description of Katz's scholarship. It avoids perceived puffery but also seems clumsy and sort of irrelevant as to the specifics? What do you think? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Roscelese, do you object to the current text (i.e. "The film has been enthusiastically received by anti-abortion activists but has been criticized as deceptive by others including Margaret Sanger Papers Project director Esther Katz.") because you think it is not accurate or because you think it is not descriptive enough? Location (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
It's inaccurate. Katz doesn't say the film is deceptive, she says it's totally wrong. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
The source states: "...Katz says Maafa 21 and the black genocide movement are flat wrong in their depiction of her views and work."[27] Would you be OK with: "Esther Katz, founder of the Margaret Sanger Papers Project, has stated that the film incorrectly depicts Sanger's views and works."? I understand that this may not be strong enough for you, but we don't have a direct quote from Katz saying "totally wrong" or "flat wrong" nor do we have a complete understanding of what "flat wrong" means anyway. Location (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
In the source, Katz does in fact go into detail about ways in which the film is wrong (and describe its claims as "stupid") - we just haven't been putting them in the lede. Also, in my haste I neglected to point out what has been an issue throughout this recent flurry of editing, which is that factual disputation from experts is not on the same level as popular reception and the phrasing cannot suggest that it is. If we were able to source significant popular pushback from pro-choice advocates, that is the sort of thing we could put after that conjunction, but history is history. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
The sentence Proposed by Location just above is fine by me. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Roscelese, you need to stop with the disruption. You are adding text you every editor that has cared to comment has said is problematic. Instead of working with others to draft mutually acceptable text, you game the system and thumb your nose at everyone else in the process. Do it again and it's going to ANI. Or you can propose some text here and others can sound off. And if we do come up with an agreeed upon version, please don't "improve" other parts of the article at the same time with POV edits, or else this will start all over again.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Please stop attacking and threatening users as if this was some kind of battleground rather than a collaborative, educational project based on civility and camaraderie. Please consider taking a break from this topic and come back refreshed. Viriditas (talk) 05:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Start an ANI thread if you think I'm guilty of any of the above. Now please stop your trolling.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  13:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Asking you to abide by Wikipedia's civility policies is not trolling, please focus on contributions rather than the contributors. Insomesia (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Location, thank you for your suggestions, but I do have a concern about using the term "reproductive rights." The main problem that I have with replacing "abortion-rights" with "reproductive rights" is that the Wikipedia article on the topic calls it "Abortion-rights movements," therefore this term appears to be the preferred between the two. I have no other reservations for Location's specific suggestions. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 13:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the constructive feedback. The reason I choose "reproductive rights movements" over "abortion-rights movements" was not because of political framing, but that I assumed that the movements also encompassed other forms of birth control. Given that abortion is/was certainly the primary issues, I would be OK with "abortion-rights movements". In this case, the appropriate link is likely United States pro-choice movement. (Note that Abortion-rights movement redirects to Abortion-rights movements and Abortion rights movement redirects to United States pro-choice movement.) Location (talk) 16:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree with updating the link and changing the text to "abortion-rights movement" (from "movements"), as the United States pro-choice movement is "also known as the United States abortion-rights movement." On that same vein, we should probably update "eugenics movements" to "eugenics movement." (Notice the link change along with the text.) Any objections? -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I would consider the comment below as a legitimate objection. Can you briefly comment on whether you think the film addresses other forms of birth control aside from abortion? Location (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes - the film is substantially about how awful birth control is, not just abortion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
The film discusses in great detail the threat to black populations in the US from birth control sponsored by Planned Parenthood and/or supported by government funding. Binksternet (talk) 21:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
And these observations by R&B would lead them to suggest what specific wording for the sentence in question? Badmintonhist (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Please strike the toxic term "R&B" which you obviously intend to attack Roscelese and myself. Belittling two editors is a violation of WP:NPA. Binksternet (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC) My response is at my talk page. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Having not watched Maafa 21 I wouldn't know. Nor do I care. From what sources that have been presented so far the general impression is that the film's raison d'etre is to rail against abortion. But if you have sources that say the film is anti-contraception, then by all means let's see them.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the film's purpose is to poison the Black community against abortion. It does so by telling them that they have been targeted for elimination by Whites, from instances of sterilization through government-funded abortion and birth control (aka family planning). The folks at Catholic.net, Religion Dispatches and Celebrate Life magazine noticed the same thing as I did. You might want to pay attention to the sources if you are going to discuss the topic. You have been working on this topic quite strenuously for almost two weeks, reverting others and pushing for this or that version, but if you do not know what the film is about you ought to leave the issue for others to discuss. Binksternet (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, contraception is used in the film to inflame, but the sources make the connections, not us. They have made they connection between this film and US pro-life supporters. Where is the connection against contraception? Pro-life does not always (or daresay usuall?) equal anti-contraception. By the same logic we would call this film anti-eugenics as well, however I would suspect that edit wouldn't go over too well with some editors.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  00:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
You are showing your topic ignorance again by guessing about the film's attitude regarding eugenics. Please research the topic or let others work with it. Regarding eugenics, yes, the film is anti-eugenics. It is anti-anything related to the suppression of Black populations. Its main purpose is to get Black people to push against legalized abortion.
You know, for most Wikipedia film articles, the "plot" section does not need any cites because the film's content serves as the reference. This film does not have a plot but it certainly has content. It seems to me that a statement that the film presents arguments against birth control and abortion, but primarily against abortion, is so obvious that it does not need a reference. Binksternet (talk) 01:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
There is/was a group of editors who were against plot summaries for the lack of cites. IAR won out I guess. Page view stats indicate that very such articles about movies and films are the most popular. I suppose if someone challenged a plot summary a source would be needed. Did Sight & Sound cover The Waterboy?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
WP:FILMPLOT has been undisputed for many, many years now. Viriditas (talk) 02:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, this is text that I believe to be neutrally worded:

"It alleges that the eugenics movements that targeted African Americans in the 19th and 20th centuries formed the basis for the reproductive rights movements and in particular for the creation of Planned Parenthood by Margaret Sanger. The film has been enthusiastically received by anti-abortion activists. Esther Katz, founder of the Margaret Sanger Papers Project, has stated that the film incorrectly depicts Sanger's views and works."

Interested editors can take this back to the talk page for further discussion. I am going to recommend that an administrator close this thread as further progress is unlikely to occur here at this time. Location (talk) 02:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. I might have said "eugenics movement" (singular) but that is hardly worth quibbling about. Badmintonhist (talk) 02:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Very nice. Thank you.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Location, I appreciate your efforts at rewording and it's certainly more neutral than the total omission or "whiny pro-choicers 'criticism'" fare we've been getting from disruptive users, but I'm concerned that it's still basically obscuring the issue here: that Katz directly addresses the film's central claim and says that it is unambiguously not true. What do you think of: "It alleges that the eugenics movements that targeted African Americans in the 19th and 20th centuries formed the basis for the reproductive rights movements and in particular for the creation of Planned Parenthood by Margaret Sanger. Historian Esther Katz, director of the Margaret Sanger Papers Project at NYU, has dismissed these claims, stating that the film incorrectly depicts Sanger's views and works. The film has been enthusiastically received by anti-abortion activists." (Note that Katz is the director, not AFAICT the founder, of MSPP; I've added brief explanatory material on the two since MSPP could otherwise sound like an activist entity.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Location et al, for your assistance as we work through these concerns. As the article currently stands, no additional significant changes need to be made. I believe that we should remove the POV tag. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Flavio Briatore opinions

Hi all. I've been working to correct factual errors at Flavio Briatore, based on an OTRS ticket. I believe I've reached an outcome that everyone is happy with on every point bar one. The final point is an NPOV issue, so I thought the best solution is to get some outside eyes on it. It concerns the Nelson Piquet Jr quote, the last paragraph of this section. It is a very negative quote with regards to Briatore, made soon after Piquet Jr was sacked. The request is that it is either removed from the article, or balanced with some more positive quotes (I've been sent a few very positive pieces, but haven't seen any that were directly relevent to his skills as an F1 manager).

My thoughts were 1) leave as is or rather 1a) move the quote to the departure section to give it more context or 2) remove it. I'm not keen on adding random quotes to balance things. I'd appreciate any thoughts, alternative solutions or just anyone doing the hard work for me . WormTT(talk) 13:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Option 1a, context is appropriate. I would also remove the bit about his sister.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  13:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Piquet Jr's own website is not notable, and should not be quoted except as much as it was quoted by Autosport in the August 2009 article. I went in and greatly trimmed the Piquet Jr comments because this is an encyclopedia. We summarize the contents rather than putting in extensive quotes. The essence remains, of course, that Piquet Jr was angry and critical. Binksternet (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Ticonderoga attack date

I don't know the history here, but I've seen a mistake (I think) that needs correction. The biography states that the USS Ticonderoga was attacked on September 30, 1918. This appears to be in conflict with the citation noted which says the date was October 4, 1918. It's clear from the report that this was not a 5-day battle so one of those dates is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.224.6.26 (talk) 04:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Louisiana Science Education Act

Could someone please review the article on the Louisiana Science Education act, here: [28] The article appears to be written completly from the viewpoint of the small group seeking to repeal the act. Their original version did not Even cover the text of the act or the reasons it was proposed or passed in he first place. I have sought to add some balance to the article by including the purpose of the act, but am facing accusations of 'vandalism' by annonymous ip addresses for having done so. They are claiming that the statements by the bills author made in the legislative hearing are the authors opionion and not indicative of the intended purpose of the act. Pikachudad (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

You probably should not have raised this issue here. Your efforts on this article are the ongoing violations of NPOV. This bill has attracted opposition from the entire scientific community, has been opposed by a lengthy honor roll of Nobel prize winners, and the article should reflect this. Instead, you have insisted that the rhetorical assertions by the sponsors, pretending (as "intelligent design" backers always do) to be advocating for "neutrality", are in some mysterious way reliable. The bill's advocates are the ultimate in unreliable sources.
It is also uncivil to insult anonymous editors just because they are not registered users. You will note that I am not one of them; I'm a proud dad and not even vaguely anonymous. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Although this article is well-written and generally well-referenced, I believe the questioner has a point. It does strongly take a particular point of view, and the other perspective is given little air time. However, there is some justification for this. From looking through the refs, it appears that it is actually no small group that opposes this legislation, and that most of the media coverage has highlighted the drawbacks of it. Still, some coherent statement of the other perspective is conspicously absent. However, I would suggest that if Pikachudad or some other editor wishes to include the pro-legislation point of view, that they do so using reliable SECONDARY sources. “Statements by the bill’s author made in the legislative hearing” sounds like a reference to a primary document, such as legislative records. Excuse me if I am wrong. If you can find some quotations from pro-legislation spokesmen in newspaper or other media or scholarly accounts (not the websites of pro-legislation groups), I think it would enrich the article to add this significant point of view.
But speaking of primary sources, my opinion is that although this article is well-referenced on the whole, the authors have leaned too heavily on primary sources. There are quite a few references to the websites of groups that oppose the legislation. Sometimes this is OK, to reference simple facts or to give access to a relevant document; but sometimes, as in the case of the three substantial paras quoting Barbara Forrest under “Creationism,” it goes too far. WP:RS states that “Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.”
In summary: article is generally well-done, but would be better if it included a little more of the perspective of the pro-legislative group, in proportion to the media and scholarly attention it has received; also, in one or two sections, it leans too heavily on non-neutral primary sources. EMP (talk 01:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I do tend to agree with you that the article makes too much use of primary sources. I only came across it a few days ago, and have made some efforts at improving it, but haven't had time to go through all of it yet. I also agree with you that it would benefit from the addition of a coherent statement of the supporters' perspective... but I haven't been able to find enough high quality secondary sources talking about the pro side to do a proper rewrite of it yet. Kevin Gorman (talk) 08:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
After reading through this article I believe that the article is fairly biased against bill. Since most of the media coverage does seem to be against the bill, I don't think that it is bad that this is more heavily weighted in the article. I do believe however that some of the diction used just puts the bill in a very negative point of view, right from the start. I think that this could be presented without using such strong biased language.--MartellRedViper (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Taking a look at this article, I agree with the original assertion that it is not presented from a neutral point of view (NPOV). The article is very biased against the bill, and definitely doesn't equally represent both sides. As many folks have pointed out, this may be due to a lack of credible secondary sources in favor of the bill. The primary source is not going to cut it, because making the article biased in the other direction will make it worse rather than better and adding the author of the bill as a source will most certainly accomplish that. It is possible that if valid secondary sources can't be found for both sides then the article should be deleted altogether. The lack of secondary sources in favor of the bill should not excuse a blatant violation of NPOV.--Mdcoope3 (talk) 05:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
An absurd suggestion. WP:NPOV requires that articles reflect the balance of opinion in reliable sources, not that they be balanced in some absolute sense with every opinion represented equally. - Cal Engime (talk) 05:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Good point that WP:NPOV doesn't require that articles be balanced in an absolute sense. Editing from NPOV involves showing the "relative prominence of opposing views." The second paragraph of the introduction does acknowledge that proponents of the law say that its purpose is "to promote critical thinking and improve education." If the article did nothing but harp on creationism, that might raise questions about its neutrality, but the reference to critical thinking seems to admit to more nuanced thinking by some of its proponents.--Brodmont (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the idea that WP:NPOV doesn't require articles to balanced in an absolute since but instead involves showing the "relative prominence of opposing views." I do however think that some parts of this article are quite biased in tone when representing the information. It sounds like it is condemning the act along with the majority view when it should instead be presenting the views in a NPOV tone. --Youngpenn (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Khaybar KH2002: did the Iranians intend to call their rifle "That Time We Killed Jews" or "Reference to Well Known Shia Fable of Divinely Inspired Heroism"

This article here: [[29]] has this section:

Basis of name

Khaybar is an oasis approximately 95 miles east of Medina, which was once the largest Jewish settlement in Arabia. The name was chosen as a reminder of the Battle of Khaybar, a battle that took place in 629 between Muhammed and his followers against the Jews who inhabited the settlement.[6]

As I noted on the Talk page [[30]], the [6] reference "providing 'support' for the explanation of the name given here doesn’t mention the assault rifle at all, is an article slandering Muslims as rabid anti-Semitic jihadists, and is written by someone who authored a book called “The Islamization of America”. It's anti-Muslim hate-speech, and at the very least is NPOV. Worse, from Wikipedia’s perspective, it doesn’t give any evidence the Iranians named their rifle after a massacre […]"

My point is that the article claims the name was specifically chosen as a reminder of a battle against a Jewish tribe (without mentioning the attack was in response to betrayal), when no evidence from anywhere – least of all not from the manufacturers website or the supposedly supporting reference – backup that assertion, and there's a frankly more compelling case to be made for the reference to the well known Shia myth.

Its unwarranted and biased, akin to suggesting something like: "American arms producer, Colt, is named for the horses ridden by the US Cavalry as they slaughtered Native Americans".

I'm not the first to raise this, but the blatant race-baiting remains. Its unwarrantedly partisan: at the least, the alternate explanation should be included.

I am not familiar with Wiki culture, and do not know if I have support for my position: I feel, without any reference that actually explains the verified reason for the choice of the name, the section is pure speculation and should be removed entirely, but I know that simply deleting sections is frowned on. What would be a good way to proceed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.80.171 (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

A difficult case. The SPME reference doesn't specifically mention the rifle in question; it simply speaks to a general use of Khaybar as an antisemitic name in Iran. Looking at SPME's page I'm not sure I would accept them as the sole source for such a claim. On the other hand the name's import is a little, well, blatant. Perhaps the approach to take would be to not haggle over this single source and to look for others. It's hard to imagine there aren't others. Mangoe (talk) 00:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Having a look for other sources, I noticed something: neither the Iranian military DIO (manufacturer website) nor the MODLEX export agency (export website) refer to the rifle as anything but the KH-2002. The nickname 'Khaybar' doesn't appear at all. The nickname only seems to show up on various 'list-of-guns' type websites (ie Modern Firearms) - sometimes there is a reference to the historical battle of Khaybar as the reason for the name, but that claim is never backed up with a reference, press release, etc (one of these sites has almost exactly the same text the wiki page does, including the clunky reference to 'Arabia', are they the source of the claim used on Wiki, or did they get it from here? - see here - they claim the info came from one ‘Pierangelo Tendas’ - does he count as a verified source, whoever he might be?). I don't see any reason to rely on these gun-fan sites as sources: they give no indication the name is official, nor that the rifle is widely known by that name, and any claims as to what the basis for the name might be are pure conjecture. Also, the above mentioned SPME page specifically takes an interpretation of references to Khaybar as being explicitly, exclusively anti-Semitic, but alternate interpretations exist - the SPME claims are one thing, but do most Shia really think of the event in these terms, or do they hold the less incendiary interpretation suggested on the KH-2002 talk-page?
I think that claims are being made on the wiki page that are unsupported by evidence. If someone has a press release from the DIO where they talk about the KH-2002 as the Khaybar and mention the battle as a glorious slaughter of Jews, then yes, we would have support for what is in the article, otherwise, its conjecture, and somewhat defamatory at that.
Last point: this reminds me of the way the Russian AN-94 rifle became known throughout the West as the 'Abakan' despite that not being an official name (it was the name of the rural area whre the project to develop a new rifle was held, the AN-94 was one of several tested). Site pointed back to site, all spreading the idea this rifle was called Abakan, it showed up in computer games with that name, etc, but it was wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.80.171 (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Looking back into the history of the article, I find that it is first cited to [31], and I find that the oldest version of that page says "The KH-2002, also known as the 'Khaybar rifle' (Khaybar is the name of an historical oasis approximately 95 miles east of Medina, which once was also the largest Jewish settlement in Arabia), was launched by the D.I.O. (State-Owned Defence Industries Organization of Iran) in the early 2003." Mangoe (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Based on the various references I've moved the article to KH-2002, reflecting the official sources. I haven't struck "Khabar" from the article but I'm somewhat inclined to do so given how thin the justification is for the supposed nickname. Mangoe (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I have not commented on this so far because firearms are far removed from my areas of expertise, but for what it is worth I have been following the discussion and looking at the links, and I agree, the documentation for the name is *very* thin, and the Colt example brought home to me how insulting this might be. So fwiw I'd be inclined to remove it. Personally. Elinruby (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I have read this article and the source, and the reference to the Battle of Khaybar is obscure and definitely not reliable. The source that Mangoe found from the original article is written by an Italian arms enthusiast as far as I can tell from an internet search, but his sources are not referenced, and so his information cannot be considered reliable, especially since it comes to us on a page riddled with ads. The language is defamatory and is listed under the "Design" heading as well. It may be a nickname used by the Iranians but that is not proven anywhere on the page, and its origin is not necessarily relevant and needs to be removed, in my opinion. Tinaface86 (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

RfC - FactCheck.org citation for inclusion

I have commenced an RfC referencing the appropriateness for inclusion, per WP:NPOV, of a FactCheck.org assertion within the John Kerry military service controversy article. Opinions are solicited from editors who may be both interested and informed in the subject of WP:NPOV. Thank you. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

As an aside, John Kerry-related articles should be placed under some kind of arbcom restrictions. The amount of disruption we've seen since 2004 on Kerry-related articles is too much. For a time, we even had active accounts devoted only to disrupting Kerry articles. Considering this past history, I'm wondering if we can place all Kerry articles under the umbrella of the Obama article probation. It would save everybody a lot of grief. Viriditas (talk) 02:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Of course, your benign "aside" being of the impeccably pure, non-disruptive variety. (insert eyeroll). JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Pure, because I have no interest in this topic nor have I been an active contributor for years on end like you. Do you object to sanctions because you feel your contributions will be impacted? If so, you may want to evaluate your role in this ongoing dispute. Viriditas (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I believe I read something recently somewhere on this very subject. Ah yes...here it is...

I'm afraid you are distracting from the issue under discussion again. Please refrain from attacking the OP or changing the subject to what you think of me. If you can't do that, then don't reply. I'm only interested in seeing this issue resolved. If you feel that you have interpersonal issues with other editors, then please seek guidance elsewhere.

Mind if I borrow that? JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree that a Kerry-article sanction would be a good idea. Activist editors need to be reined in. Binksternet (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh dear. And editors who first cite, then will not or cannot, when WP:V challenged, identify the purported content within the source they cite with anything more than "my dog ate my homework"? These entertaining and non-disruptive "asides" can certainly become...um...disruptive?...can't they? JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Lest the subject of this section be lost in further non-disruptive "asides"... I have commenced an RfC referencing the appropriateness for inclusion, per WP:NPOV, of a FactCheck.org assertion within the John Kerry military service controversy article. Opinions are solicited from editors who may be both interested and informed in the subject of WP:NPOV. Thank you. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Jake, out of curiosity, how many Kerry disputes have you been involved in and for how many years? Check your talk page and AN/ANI archives for reference. Viriditas (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Viritidas, out of curiosity, do you have anything at all to contribute to the question posed within my RfC...or will non-disruptive "asides" be the extent of your contributions here? JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
The only disruption I could find was this. Viriditas (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
You forgot this. I guess I should feel better now. It seems your baseless accusations aren't personal, you've made them before. An unsavory habit, but we all have feet of clay.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
In this little thing called reality, Jake's ongoing campaign against John Kerry has lasted eight years and has disrupted multiple articles and wasted a great deal of time by editors and admins alike. His latest RfC has failed in the most spectacular fashion, and even though it is advertised appropriately, he is here spamming the RfC across Wikipedia in the hopes that someone, anyone will support his battle. That a fellow POV warrior has stepped up to volunteer for his cause is not at all surprising. That Jake was last blocked for disrupting another noticeboard is par for the course. Viriditas (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Although this isn't the place for it, I'll note that I'd also back a Kerry-based sanction. Dougweller (talk) 09:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I was just looking at some recent contributions and found this. Coincidentally I just expressed a similar opinion at an MfD (at 22:34, 22 February 2013). Johnuniq (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Tishma

Hi, i asked here last month (to no avail), but now another editor is adding similar unencyclopedic/poorly sourced content and puffery to the Tishma article. history. benzband (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Biased, opinionated, non-neutral edits to Gun politics in Mexico

It has come to my attention that the Wikipedia editor EnochBethany (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made at least seven recent edits to the Gun politics in Mexico article of which at least five, I believe, are in violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.

The following is the lists of all seven edits done by EnochBethany to the Gun politics in Mexico article as of the time I am submitting this complain. Highlighted in bold are the exact changes done by EnochBethany which I consider biased/non-neutral:

The use of embrace passionately was an emotive term out of place in an encyclopedia article. I allowed it, however, in my first revision. And if it were appropriate in the original, it is appropriate in my revision. However, I decided to omit those words altogether, as well as the reference to the USA, since the purpose of the article is not to criticize the USA. Any comparison should be with the world, not with the USA. The article is not about the USA. (EnochBethany (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC))
  • 2nd edit: (here EnochBethany added a reference link to 1st edit) ...Contemporary Mexican society has embraced gun homicide more passionately than its northern neighbor, the United States,[5]
Adding a citation was in order. (EnochBethany (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC))
  • 3rd edit: [33] A common misconception is that firearms are illegal in Mexico and that no person may possess them.[6] [...] Of course those who watch Spanish language news have no misconception that criminals commonly carry firearms and kill persons in Mexico, regardless of paper laws.
Reference to a "common misconception" would be very hard to prove. If a secondary source said that, it would be commending itself as unreliable. The generalization about misconception needed qualification, which I provided. Indeed those who watch Spanish language news would not have a misconception "no person may possess them," as the new is full of persons may and do possess them, especially against the law. This is a fact, not a POV. (EnochBethany (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC))
  • 4th edit: (deletion done by EnochBethany, no violation here)
  • 5th edit: [34] Private ownership of firearms is restricted to the home only,[7] except for criminals who commonly ignore the law, carry guns, and shoot them wherever and whenever they so choose.[8]
No reference to owning guns is complete without including the fact of criminal ownership. This is not a POV, criminal ownership is a fact. Also that criminals choose where to carry and shoot guns is well-know. The supporting citation is valid and is just one of many citations that could be given, as you well know. (EnochBethany (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC))
  • 6th edit: [35] The transfer of ownership and the sale and purchase of firearms between individuals is also permitted, but the transaction must receive authorization from the Secretariat of National Defense by both parties (buyer and seller) appearing in person along with the weapon, to conduct the transaction in accordance to requirements set by law,[9]except in the common case of criminals who get need no permission from the government, yet carry and use guns quite commonly.[10]
There can be no doubt but that crimnals in Mexico get no permission, yet carry and use guns commonly. This is no POV, but a fact. The supporting citation is valid as well as common knowledge. You know very well that many sources could be added to support this, but they are not necessary. This is not POV, but fact. (EnochBethany (talk) 02:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC))
  • 7th edit: [36] ...With all receipts and documentation, along with photo ID, appear in person at DCAM to pick up firearm. A temporary transportation permit (valid for 24 to 72hrs) is granted, which permits the owner to transport the firearm from DCAM to his or her home by personal or public transportation (ground or air). As an alternative, a person may choose to ignore the law and privately buy guns and ammunition without regard to the law.[11]
It is a fact & not any POV what persons may choose to buy guns and ammo without regard to the law. An article about owning and possessing guns in Mexico should be objective, not biased to give a false impression. (EnochBethany (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC))

It appears editor EnochBethany wants to assert to Wikipedia readers that despite the fact that there are laws governing the lawful ownership and possession of firearms in Mexico, there are people who choose to ignore these laws and proceed to own and possess guns illegally. This is true, but the article is a not a forum to rant about how some people choose to break the law in Mexico because lawbreakers exists in all societies, not just Mexico.

This is no rant; it is an objective presentation of facts. The rant is the irrational objection to my factual additions to the article. For some reason some person or persons does not LIKE the facts. (EnochBethany (talk) 02:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC))

Imagine the driver license article stating something somewhere along the lines of: "A driver's license/licence or driving licence is an official document which states that a person may operate a motorized vehicle, such as a motorcycle, car, truck or a bus, on a public roadway. However, one can always ignore the law and chose to drive a vehicle without a driver license or authorization from the government."... The sentence in bold is an example of the style of writing EnochBethany has chosen to let readers know there are those who choose to break firearm law in Mexico.

I was going to proceed and revert all edits done by user EnochBethany that I consider biased/non-neutral but I did not want to fall into an Edit warring & 3RR incident with him or her. I would appreciate if an Administrator would revise my grievances and decide. I suggest that if EnochBethany wants to remind readers of the gun violence and unlawful proliferation of firearms that does exist in Mexico, he/she creates an additional section in the article, similarly to the Gun violence section of the Gun politics in Honduras article. I have informed EnochBethany of this notice. Thank you. --Usfirstgov (talk) 11:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Usfirstgov apparently is opposed to NPOV, as his complaints are directed against including all relevant information. What I added to the article is inclusive material on the subject with citations. As the article was before my improvements, it ignored the realities of illegal activity. The emotive words in the article came from whomever edited before myself. Apparently USfirstgov wants to edit war and has made this complaint to support his activity. The article should not be written from the POV that the attitudes of the people in a nation are defined by the mythical idea that the people all adhere to the law in their conduct. (EnochBethany (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC))
Besides some poor language, at least one source, the aljazeera article, doesn't back the statements. Maybe this should have been at WP:NOR. Dougweller (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Reverted it. Dougweller (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Since this is an NPOV violation, attempt to censor material that is factual and not POV at all, but someone who evidently wants negative comparisons to the USA, I put my material back. A discussion should take place & an attempt at consensus before reverting additional information, which is what I added. Indeed the aljazeera article does back the statements, which in fact are common knowledge and could easily be supported from many sources, as surely you must know. But I went further in fixing this article now. This article is supposed to be about Mexico, not the USA. Thus all the negative things about the USA or unfavorable comparisons need deleting. If you want to compare Mexico, do it to the entire world. It appears that there may be some POV ax to grind vs the USA in this article. It is totally out of place. Thus I have removed the irrelevant references to the USA.
Another matter is the edit-warrier's comment above: "Besides some poor language, at least one source, the aljazeera article, doesn't back the statements." Where is any "poor language"??? Note how you start that sentence with "Besides some poor language." In English class you may find that called "a dangling modifier," as it has no rational connection to the main sentence. (EnochBethany (talk) 02:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC))


Dear EnochBethany, I am not attempting to censor you or censor any information out of the Gun politics in Mexico article (proof of that is that I did not revert any of your edits, instead I called for a dialogue to get more opinions on the matter), I am simply pointing out that your choice of words and structure within the article is not encyclopedic and therefore inappropriate. The comparisons about the United States are valid because Mexico and the United States are neighbors and as such both countries are influenced by each other's cultures (for good or bad). There is nothing about the article attempting to grind against the US. The references about the US is to give world readers a compassion of two neighboring nations (one with a high cultural attachment to firearms, as in the case of the US and one who no longer has an equal cultural attachment, as in the case of Mexico). And I mainly speak of the lawful cultural attachment to firearms, not unlawful activity. Now, I understand that gun violence in Mexico has been rampant in recent years, it is fine to point this out in the article but it should be done within Wikipedia standards, not with sentences such as (I quote your own contributions):
  • Of course those who watch Spanish language news have no misconception that criminals commonly carry firearms and kill persons in Mexico, regardless of paper laws.
  • ...except for criminals who commonly ignore the law, carry guns, and shoot them wherever and whenever they so choose.
  • ...except in the common case of criminals who get need no permission from the government, yet carry and use guns quite commonly.
  • As an alternative, a person may choose to ignore the law and privately buy guns and ammunition without regard to the law.
The aforementioned statements do not fit within the article. Anything pointing out the unlawful use of firearms should be dealt with in a difference section, not within the sections that tell readers what the laws says and how persons can engage in lawful acquisition, ownership, and possession of firearms in Mexico. I hope others in the Wikipedia community can see what I'm trying to convey and let you know. Thank you. --Usfirstgov (talk) 03:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
You are repeating material posted above. I responded to all those references to my additions above. They are objective facts, not POV. Well, I suggest a simple revision to the first sentence. I posted it on the article talk page where, I think, discussions like this belong. If it is stated at the outset that the article only covers legal considerations without regard to criminal and illegal activities, that should make my additions unnecessary. Then I have no objection to their deletion. The USA references, however, need to be deleted. (EnochBethany (talk) 03:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC))
OK so. On first reading on thing that strikes me here is edit #1 where does not embrace as much becomes "has embraced gun homicide more passionately." The reference is rather sketchy and c'mon, 3.66 vs. 3.6? Yeah, that's more, but...the site itself looks user-generated. I'd be inclined to say it's ok for non-controversial stuff since it does look like a relatively clear-eyed attempt at factual presentation, but as who's more passionate...and look at that source link. Might as well just link to wikipedia directly. So. Passion is emotion in my book, and in my opinion it would be better to restate. I do find the repeated insertions unreferenced statements about what criminals do to be pretty obnoxious. If you really want that in, go find a newspaper article or two that says this. Gun violence in Mexico? Try the El Paso Times, geez. As for the comparison to the US, that really should cite a secondary source also. Elinruby (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC) 21:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

A big part of the problem is sourcing and original research. I found:"Of course those who watch Spanish language news have no misconception that criminals commonly carry firearms and kill persons in Mexico, regardless of paper laws.[37] - there is no article at the link that says this. I've left that in for the nonce.

" except for criminals who commonly ignore the law, carry guns, and shoot them wherever and whenever they so choose.[38] - the linked article doesn't say this, the editor is using it as an argument for his edit - this is what we call original research, see WP:NOR.

"except in the common case of criminals who get need no permission from the government, yet carry and use guns quite commonly." (ctrl-click)"> (ctrl-click)"> (ctrl-click)"></ref> - basically the same thing.


And "As an alternative, a person may choose to ignore the law and privately buy guns and ammunition without regard to the law."[39] - I've deleted all 3. Dougweller (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd take the first one out too. It's an assertion of "common knowledge" which really requires a reference. I do see your point about the Al Jazeera link. It documents *one* incident of gun violence, not the blanket assertion that the editor wants to make. It's not like there aren't sources that say that gun violence occurs in Mexico -- I just found three on a fast Google. Of course none of them exactly say that laws don't keep Mexicans from buying guns, but some of them come close. In other words, yeah, there may be a case for making edits to the article, but not these. Elinruby (talk) 01:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

IMHO wp:npov is just one of the problems with the edits. The others are wp:ver / wp:nor lack of reliable sourcing for the statements as worded, and also unenclyclopedic writing, bordering on being rants. North8000 (talk) 12:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

And pardon my dangling modifier, my edits outside article space (and some edit summaries) are more casual and not proofread. I hope I don't write sentences such as "except in the common case of criminals who get need no permission from the government, yet carry and use guns quite commonly." Unnecessary comma and what is "get need no" (yes, poor proof reading probably rather than just bad grammar). Nor does that make sense - they carry guns in defiance of the law, not because they "get need no permission", and what does 'yet' mean in this context? They need no permission to carry guns yet they carry guns? That's what I meant by poor English. Dougweller (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
I presume "get need no" should be "get/need no".--Auric talk 19:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Just reading through this notice made my head spin, but as I see it this is a violation. I believe that the statements made by EnochBethany were opinionated and unwarranted. The sources are a bit on the lighter side (content wise) but yet demonstrate common misconceptions and beliefs about Mexico. It is as if his/her statements are something that could be added to any Wikipedia page and be proven in the way that EnochBethany did. But like I said, his/her sources were not substantial and a bit biased.--Thepresidenthal (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Herodotus, by Alan B. Lloyd, pg 4, at http://books.google.co.za/books?hl=en&lr=&id=8DiTX_EsWasC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=%22reliability%27,+%22herodotus%22,+sesostris&ots=ui_23LKXIT&sig=uRIZ_w_T7UYmxLfqZLlwGIL9Z08#v=onepage&q=egypt&f=false
  2. ^ Diop, Cheikh Anta (1981). Civilization or Barbarism. Chicago, Illinois: Lawrence Hill Books. p. 1. ISBN 1-55652-048-4.
  3. ^ Diop, Cheikh Anta (1974). The African Origin of Civilization. Chicago, Illinois: Lawrence Hill Books. p. 2. ISBN 1-55652-072-7.
  4. ^ Diop, Cheikh Anta (1974). The African Origin of Civilization. Chicago, Illinois: Lawrence Hill Books. p. 2. ISBN 1-55652-072-7.
  5. ^ http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_hom_fir_hom_rat_per_100_pop-rate-per-100-000-pop
  6. ^ Redaccion DJ MX (2012-03-12). "Most Mexicans are unaware that they have the right to keep and bear arms: Ernesto Villanueva". Diario Jurídico México . Retrieved 2012-10-16. {{cite web}}: |author= has generic name (help); External link in |author= and |publisher= (help)
  7. ^ Jorge Humberto Álvarez Moreno (2008-12-22). "The garantee to possess firearms in the home under Article 10". Universidad De La Salle Bajío. Retrieved 2012-12-22. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
  8. ^ http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2010/12/201012126317334111.html
  9. ^ SEDENA (2012-07-27). "Transfer of ownership of firearm". SEDENA. Retrieved 2012-12-22.
  10. ^ http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2010/12/201012126317334111.html
  11. ^ http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2010/12/201012126317334111.html

Is the word enemy neutral?

[Note: Links to the BBC may not be visible outside the UK]

I came across this article on the BBC web site which led me to this one then, on a hunch, our article. Is the word enemy, used in our article, a neutral term in this context? --Senra (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It depends on context. The article you refer to simply says that the British army uses them to "fly into enemy territory". That's generic. The enemy is whoever the army is engaging at the time. I can't see how any other word could be as meaningfully used. Paul B (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
I would second Paul B's response. I don't see how anyone could dispute that the intended target of a military weapon is considered an "enemy". --Brian Z (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with you both in this context. How can you say that the following is neutral? "Operation Herrick personnel in Afghanistan deploy the Black Hornet from the front line to fly into enemy territory to take video and still images before returning to the operator". It talks about a specific deployment and thus identifies the Afghanis as enemy. Compare our article with the two BBC articles which are clearly more neutral --Senra (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
The usage of "enemy" in the article happens in a separate clause that I read as just talking about the technology's purse in general, which seems to be neutral.--Jeflicki (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
The word "enemy" is never neutral. There is always a negative connotation because of the way it's talked about. An "enemy" is never going to call themselves an "enemy" therefore it cannot be neutral. However, using the word "enemy" is unavoidable in the context. Rebaduck (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to change "enemy territory" to "other territory"? Just saying enemy territory would exclude the fact that they could use it on neutral territory as well. By saying "other" the article will not label areas as good or bad, but rather just territories that are not their own. --MangoDango (talk) 02:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if "enemy" is unavoidable...the Mirror states that the Black Hornet can run thirty-minute reconnaissance missions, so it's a simple fix: "Operation Herrick personnel in Afghanistan deploy the Black Hornet from the front line for thirty-minute reconnaissance missions before returning to the operator." More problematic, I think, is: "Designed to blend in with the muddy grey walls in Afghanistan, it has been used to look around corners or over walls and other obstacles to identify any hidden dangers and enemy positions." I agree with Senra; the "enemy" is inferred to be Afgani, and I can't see how such a sentence could be considered neutral. And in my mind, the perhaps overly-descriptive mention of "muddy grey walls" isn't helping the neutrality matter, either. --Katerwaul (talk) 07:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, enemy is a neutral term. Why would anyone the British are fighting be offended by the idea that they are the enemy of the British and the British are the enemy of them? If the article called these Afghan rebels, for example, the enemies of freedom and democracy, that would be different, but as it is I just don't see an issue. - Cal Engime (talk) 08:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
How is "enemy" a neutral term? The dictionary states, "a person who feels hatred for, fosters harmful designs against, or engages in antagonistic activities against another; an adversary or opponent." I don't see any neutrality associated. But, I don't know if "enemy" is avoidable in the article.--Jastout (talk) 16:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I do not see an issue either. This is like saying the word opponent is not neutral. Each side is fighting against each other and both would consider them enemies. Depending on who is attacking who the word enemy is relative. The same people defending the attack would say they are defending the enemy. There are other ways to word "enemy territory" to completely bypass this whole neutrality. But if everyone insists on using the word enemy, I do not see a problem with it.--SJRick (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Dealing with criticism section of a private prison company

Hi! At Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#GEO_Group there was an issue over a private prison company trying to scrub its controversies section.

But I heard that it is usually better to have the controversies and praise mixed together throughout the article. How should the criticisms section be re-arranged? WhisperToMe (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Why not include a reference the article on Deadspin? Rather than continue with the on-and-off changes, provide an objective account about this "edit war" happening in the first place, including both critics' and the prison's viewpoints (if they've said anything).

  • If Deadspin is an RS it could be cited. I also argued that details about specific prisons should be moved to specific prison articles while only criticisms related to the overall system be retained in the prison system article WhisperToMe (talk) 19:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Kosovo

I recently attended a workshop in Kosovo, where I taught student to edit Wikipedia. A number of articles were created, and some of them are now subject to NPoV disputes:

It would be good if they could have some attention from neutral editors, especially these with an understanding of the politics of the region. Please bear in mind that the article creators are all young, and new to Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Have put all three on 'watch list', and will follow developements with interest. RashersTierney (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Also Tourism in Kosovo. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Tourism in Kosovo probably isn't one for the hotlist, I say this as one who may appear to be a belligerent on that article! The article hasn't seen anything drastic that a plain old revert won't fix such as here [40] and here[41]. Concerning my own aspirations, I am now looking to merge as much from a revision with which I came into conflict as possible. If the editor in question returns, I hope the page will be to his satisfaction. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 12:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC) Actually, problem is bigger then this. 

Wikipedia:WikiProject Kosovo/Wiki Academy Kosovo 2013

Most of those articles are highly POV, with all names in Albanian, without any other relevant information beside Albanian. This looks like a propaganda tool for me. When number of editors pop up, and create a number of very non neutral articles, that is a problem for a project and its balance. All of those articles need to be fixed. --WhiteWriterspeaks 22:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Albanian placenames are reasonable enough, since that's the primary language of Kosovo. It is unfortunate that you consider that a propaganda tool. bobrayner (talk) 23:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
No its not, as this is actally not Albanian wikipedia, but English one. We have agreed names of articles, and only that should be used. Also, you should stop hoarding my edits, and comment everything against me, often without any real arguments, or i will be forced to report you. --WhiteWriterspeaks 12:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
If I may also add, we would use English for places in any part of the world, not just Kosovo. For example we have Munich although the endonym is München in standard German and Minga is local Austro-Bavarian dialect. Likewise in English we have Pristina for Kosovo which corresponds neither to Serbian Priština nor Albanian Prishtina. With the ugly political climate of Kosovo, the reliable sources (UN/OSCE publication) will today refer to a settlement in dual form such as Gnjilane/Gjilan or Glogovac/Drenas and these forms just won't suffice. Meanwhile the articles are all right, the propaganda element may form a part of the original draft but I believe some NPOV-editing can help smooth out a decent article. Tourism in Kosovo is a real thing and it cannot in any practical sense be merged with Tourism in Serbia, but I've noticed that many sources have originated from Albanian language text which is why we have seen Stjepan Mesiq (red link) for what should have been Stjepan Mesić. Not the end of the world as I said, just simple copy-editing will solve the problem. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 12:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
This is indeed "English wikipedia", which is why the insistence on serbian variants of names is so baffling. If a place has a common name in English, we should use that. If it doesn't then we should use the most common local name, or the name preferred by the strongest sources; that's not an propaganda tool, it's best practice across the encyclopædia. Sometimes the Albanian variant of a Kosovo placename will be more widely used; sometimes not. If you know of anything that overrides our article title policy, I'd love to know. bobrayner (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Current article titles are established based on our WP:AT guideline. You should not seek for anything that overrides that, as it may be wrong. Therefore, i must insist on usage of article titles. Everything else is only POV. --WhiteWriterspeaks 18:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree that WP:AT should apply to article titles (some articles should be moved to comply with it). I find that very hard to reconcile with your argument that using Albanian placenames (rather than Serbian) for Albanian-speaking places is "a propaganda tool". If there's established usage in English, that would be preferred, but english is not serbian. bobrayner (talk) 11:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
No, titles are COMMONNAME in English language medias. So, actally, current titles ARE English. --WhiteWriterspeaks 11:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Allow me to clarify the policy. Wikipedia does not care what language a place name is in. What the English language Wikipedia cares about is the principle of "recognizability" by English speakers. We determine our article titles by examining English language sources, and seeing what name they use to refer to the place. If they use more than one name, we look to see which name is more commonly used. What that means for your argument is this: if a significant number of English language sources refer to a place in Kosovo using a given name, so do we... we don't care whether that name was Albanian or Serbian in origin... we really are neutral on that question. We rise above such debates by using whatever name appears in the majority of English language sources.
Note... sometimes common usage in sources can change. And when that occurs, we change with it. There was a time when English language sources routinely called the city in China: "Peking", and if Wikipedia had been around back then, we would have done the same... today, the majority of sources call it "Bejing", and thus so do we. So... if you object to the fact that the name Wikipedia uses is Albanian or Serbian in origin... convince the sources (newspapers, map makers, scholars, etc.) to use whichever version you prefer. When/if the sources shift their usage, Wikipedia will be quite happy to follow suit (because we really don't care whether the name we use was Albanian or Serbian in origin). Blueboar (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps if I can elaborate on Bobrayner's concern on why Albanian is considered a propaganda tool and the "name according to majority" argument. As the post above this says, Common English invariably comes first. However, no editor must ride the myth that anything is poorly sourced because there has been publication in English down the decades that have rendered certain names English. It just happens to be rare. But not as rare as one might imagine, Kosovo became world-famous during the 1998-1999 period in which time people that had never heard of this place before suddenly became familiar with Peć, Uroševac, Gnjilane, Podujevo and Mališevo - as indeed they did with the villages, even those not to contain a Slavophonic resident. Naturally things do change but it is very difficult to change terms interwoven into a publisher's idiom. I hope this answers the point. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Hoax Categories vs NPOV - Bat Creek inscription

The Wikipedia article on the controversial Bat Creek inscription is included in the Wikipedia categories Archaeological Forgeries, Hoaxes in the United States, and 19th Century Hoaxes. Although archaeologists Robert Mainfort and Mary Kwas of U. Ark. and Hebraist P. Kyle McCarter of Johns Hopkins argue that it is a fraud, it was found and certified as genuine by the Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology's authoritative Mound Survey in 1889. This Mound Survey is still considered authoritative today by archaeologists such as Stephen Williams of Harvard and Kenneth Feder of Central CT State Univ. Furthermore, the Bat Creek inscription itself is accepted as genuine by the late Cyrus Gordon of Brandeis and NYU, by Prof Emer. (Archaeology) Robert Stieglitz of Rutgers, and by U. Iowa archaeologist Marshall McKusick. I have also supported its authenticity in two articles in Tennessee Anthropologist and Biblical Archaeology Review.

According to wp:Neutral Point of View, "Articles mustn't take sides." Furthermore, wp:Categories states that "Categories must maintain a NPOV". By including this article in these categories, Wikipedia's voice is used to endorse the position that this controversial artifact is a hoax. I had proposed on Talk:Bat Creek Inscription (at "Hoax Categories vs. NPOV") to remove the article from these three categories, but Wikipedia administrator Dougweller, who often posts there, believes it is a hoax and can presumably override me.

A further issue is that none of these three hoax categories explains the criteria for inclusion, as required at wp:Categories. A category like "Artifacts of disputed authenticity" would be fine, since indeed some authorities argue it is a fraud. Other artifacts, such as the AVM Runestone, Cardiff Giant, and Piltdown Man are clearcut hoaxes, so there is no need to eliminate these hoax categories altogether, provided they explained their criteria.

So should I go ahead and remove the article from these three categories, or wait for some kind of decision here? I've never done this before. (I'm not sure how to notify Dougweller with the provided template, since the user to be notified is not one of the fields, so I'll just let him know over on the Bat Creek Talk page.) HuMcCulloch (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I think this is already being discussed over at the fringe theories noticeboard. bobrayner (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I prefer to get a ruling on this here, on purely NPOV grounds. "Fringe Theories" is already a loaded term that prejudges the outcome. See WP:Label. HuMcCulloch (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
In this instance, there is significant coverage of the POV that it is a hoax. While that may not be universally accepted, there is enough of it where the categorization serves as an appropriate navigational aid. One consideration is to place a hat or text within category pages like this to indicate that the pages listed have significant acceptance as hoaxes or forgeries. Location (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Wouldn't that be equivalent to placing it in a category, "Artifacts of disputed authenticity," but without the appearance of implying "Artifact of proven inauthenticity"? HuMcCulloch (talk) 02:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I have no objections to creating Category:Artifacts of disputed authenticity if there are enough articles to tag with it. Still, Category:Archaeological forgeries and Category:Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact, even though they seem to be mutually exclusive in this context, are both equally acceptable as navigational aids to people looking for information on those things. Are you in favor of removing one and keeping the other? Location (talk) 03:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I am asking to remove Archaeological forgeries (along with the 2 other fraud categories), while retaining Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact (and most others). If you or Dougweller or someone else wants to create "Artifacts of disputed authenticity" and include the page in question, I would have no objection. HuMcCulloch (talk) 03:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I understand which three you wish to remove, but that is not my question. If the factual reference to Category:Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact is subject to similar dispute, why would you wish to retain that? Location (talk) 03:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
The shortcut WP:Label, relevant to "Fringe Theories" doesn't really go to the point it is supposed to. Scroll up 2 screens to "Contentious label". HuMcCulloch (talk) 03:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The presentation here and the discussions at the article talk page don't make much of a case for removal of the category. Seems like editors are having difficulty understanding NPOV and the other relevant policies/guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 00:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

You don't think "Category:Suspected hoaxes" would be less overtly biased? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
One problem associated with implementing Category:Suspected hoaxes is that it still requires Wikipedians to evaluate the available information and determine whether something is a hoax or "merely" a suspected hoax. If there are two opposing views, does an article get labeled with both? Category:Artifacts of disputed authenticity might work better if there is substantial debate between substantial numbers of academics, but (as Dougweller has pointed out below) that categorization can be troubling with subjects - and I'm not saying that this one of them - that have fringe adherents. Location (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
The problem with a category such as "Artifacts of disputed authenticity" is that virtually all archaeological hoaxes have some adherents, as exemplified by the original poster here who has a major COI as an author of several articles on this subject. Another point mentioned at WP:Fringe is that categories are navigational aids. : "The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to all Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics." A defining characteristic of this topic is that mainstream opinion is that this is a hoax. How would removing the category aid the purpose of categories? Dougweller (talk) 06:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Further to this, mainstream archaeological opinion is that there were no Egyptians, Jews, Romans, Celts, Phoenicians, etc in the Americas before the Vikings or Columbus. Most archaeologists don't see any point in commenting on any specific examples of hoaxes purporting to be evidence for such visits, so the vast majority of the material available is from fringe supporters. If these categories are to be removed from this article then the next step will be to virtually depopulate the 3 categories. I've just added the forgeries category to an obvious hoax, the Tucson artifacts. Are we going to remove it from that, from Ica stones which show men flying dinosaurs, from Newark Holy Stones, etc? These are all held to be genuine by some people, but I don't think that's a reason for removing a category. Dougweller (talk) 09:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be two different issues going on here. First, I don't see the problem with having an unequivocal "hoaxes" category. As several others have said, there are always going to be those who either don't get the message or who are unwilling to concede. And there are cases within the various fields where there is genuine and persistent disagreement among those whose opinion is worth something (see for instance the Secret Gospel of Mark, where there is ongoing conflict over whether it was a fabrication of Morton Smith or not). Perhaps those cases need to be categorized separately.

But second, the real dispute seems to be over the status of this artifact. I cannot see taking a report from 1889 as some sort of archaeological dogma, no matter what the repute of the reporter. All modern archaeological analysis, if I follow the article correctly, asserts that the stone is a fraud; if there is any remaining dispute, it is over exactly what the fraud was accomplishing. So I don't see any reason not to label this object as a definite hoax. Mangoe (talk) 13:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

"Those whose opinion is worth something"... Geez, biased much? And this is the "NPOV" board! It seems you have a litmus test and the entire school of thought from authors willing to consider this artifact, has been written off by you as "unworthy" by that circular argument. That's not the same thing as honestly admitting to our readership that there really are other points of view out there that conflict with yours, that you don't seem willing to mention or perhaps afraid to mention. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
If you are new to Wikipedia, WP:WEIGHT is part of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Neutrality does not mean accepting every view as being equally valid. Mangoe was likely working off the assumption that everyone here was aware of that. Location (talk) 14:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I am not new. The point is, there ARE sources that consider these artifacts seriously, but some editors want the article to pretend as if they don't exist because they have concluded that those sources on the subject "don't count". What makes this a suspected hoax is that they have not PROVED it is a hoax, the entire argument that it is a hoax rests entirely on an "appeal to authority" of selected sources that meet the circular litmus test of agreeing it is a hoax. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
OK. I'll pose the same question to you: If we have sources supporting Category:Archaeological forgeries-tag and other sources supporting Category:Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact-tag, why should one be removed and not the other? Location (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Til's not new - first edit under the Til account is 26 April 2007, under the (still active) Codex Sinaiticus (talk · contribs) this editor has been editing since 24 April 2005. I'm not convinced she is happy with our NPOV policy. Dougweller (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I am a male! I have been online since 1990 but I first saw you in usenet right after Barry Fell passed away talking about that, and you have always been the internet's fiercest opponent of any consideration of the idea anyone could have crossed the oceans in boats before Christopher Columbus, except maybe Leif Ericson. So you're not new, either. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Seriously, I could go to just about any public library in the US and find umpteen of the books that tell people there are reasons to think other crossings may have occurred, so the opinion is not all that hard to find - even for people with no internet access. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Til has been defending this fringey material from criticism for a long time. Maybe there is "serious" belief that the Bat Creek stuff isn't a forgery, but if it is coming from the archaeological equivalent of Charles Berlitz, the only need we have of mentioning is to point it out as a widely believed error. Likewise, the legend passed around among Catholics that George Washington was baptized on his deathbed can be dismissed with litter or no comment, and cannot justify reclassifying him as even a possible Catholic. You, Til, are not the standard of proof for Bat Creek; the archaeologists are. There's no circularity here because we aren't selecting sources on the basis of whether they agree with the hoax evaluation, but on whether they have credentials which suggest that their opinion has weight. Indeed, the manifest problem is that the credentials of those who accept the object as claimed are being played up in order to fend off a negative evaluation and thus present a false appearance of substantive disagreement. Mangoe (talk) 15:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I still have yet to see any proof other than the usual "appeal to authority" of authors saying it is a hoax without demonstrating convincingly why it is one. Ridiculing the studies published that have given it actual attention, and coming up with endless ludicrous arguments by analogy seems to be the best you've got. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Til, if I turn off my "neutraliity" and start analyzing the arguments, I find that the case presented for a forgery is extremely strong. Away from Wikipedia, I am quite willing to stand on my own authority to interpret the works of the experts and dissenters. If you come up with a different interpretation, then in that office I think it reflects on you, not on them. McCulloch is, when all is said and done, an aficionado of crypto-archaeology, and he sits at the junction of notions that do not intersect other than their anti-establishment commitment to evidence of pre-Columbian Eurasian contact. My impression of all this evidence is that, if it makes a picture, it doesn't present the image of multiple glimpses of a single picture. But I also see that McCulloch tries to write as a technical person within the field, as many writers on fringe topics presume to do; for example, he goes on at length about the disputable "paleo-Hebrew" inscription. I'm not an expert on that, but the lay comparison afforded by the article leads me to accept that the craved characters can be readily explained as an erroneous imitation of the printed text also shown there. But more to the point, somewhere along the line I am going to be forced to rely someone's expertise, and having seen similar arguments made in areas where my personal expertise is stronger, I'm going to have to defer to archaeologists over an economist. And yes, obviously that's an appeal to authority, but then, so is using McCulloch. Versions of our article that use his work do, by the nature of the thing, appeal to his authority as an interpreter of the material. And just clicking to the main page of his website makes me reluctant to accept that appeal. Mangoe (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

From WP:CATEGORIES: "Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view. Categorizations appear on article pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate." Given that the article maintains a balance on this particular Smithsonian artifact and does not use Wikipedia's voice to pigeonhole it as a hoax, it strikes me as inappropriate for the categorization system to perform this back-door pigeonholing. (I don't know what a list article is, but this could be an option for those who want to classify it as a hoax.) HuMcCulloch (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

There are references to support the addition. As I asked you previously, if we have sources supporting Category:Archaeological forgeries-tag and other sources supporting Category:Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact-tag, why should one be removed under the guise of neutrality and not the other? Location (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
If someone wants to challenge the Trans-oceanic contact category, that should be a separately considered question. I think tying the two together involves some kind of a leap in logic somewhere. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
There is no "leap in logic". The two tags are mutually exclusive and this Rfc is asking us to pick one side over the other as an accurate reflection of the "truth". Location (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
A category for 'suspected hoaxes' ie those that are not conclusively proven as hoaxes, would not be mutually exclusive with the other category and should work fine, be more neutral and accurate. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Already addressed this point above. This would require Wikipedians to make a judgement on what is "conclusively proven". Location (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
If there were a tag, "Conclusive proof of Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact", I would agree that that would be equally inappropriate for this controversial artifact. But "Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact" is just an umbrella that includes all discussion of whether there was or wasn't such contact. This is a straw-man. HuMcCulloch (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
You're asserting that Category:Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact is "just an umbrella" category for discussion about that subject, but that Category:Archaeological forgeries, Category:Hoaxes in the United States, etc. are not umbrella categories for discussions about those subjects. Is that correct? Location (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't see that inclusion in "Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact" is judgmental about whether included items are valid or invalid, whereas inclusion in "Hoaxes in the US" etc. is, so there's quite a difference. The "Pre-Columbian trans-atlantic contact" category is not itself a venue for discussing this subject, but just a list of pages that report such discussion. HuMcCulloch (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Not sure what to say that hasn't already been said. I see the various "hoax" categories as navigational aids for those seeking more information about articles that discuss related subjects. If you posted here wanting additional opinions on whether those categories are appropriate, then my opinion is that they are appropriate. I'm happy to sit back and see what other uninvolved editors have to say. Location (talk) 03:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm with Location on this. The comparison between the two categories is dead-on. "Pre-Columbian trans-atlantic contact" implies that there was a contact, and this is used as a category for the page even though the scholarly consensus overwhelmingly favors that the 'artifact' in question provides no evidence for such 'contact' (due to it being a hoax), but it is being used because it serves as an umbrella category, valuable to assist in finding claims of such contact. If an expression of an extreme minority interpretation can still serve as a useful category, then it can hardly be POV to use a category that represents the majority opinion of qualified scholars. Agricolae (talk) 02:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

It looks like this discussion is bogging down. I don't have any experience with WP disputes, but I gather from WP:Disputes that before requesting mediation, I should request a less formal third opinion from a disinterested volunteer editor. I'll wait a couple of days to see if anything else develops before proceding. HuMcCulloch (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

More than two editors are involved so you can't use 3O. Try posting an "official" Rfc on the article's talk page before mediation. Location (talk) 14:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I regard this as a dispute between myself and Dougweller. I indicated an intention to remove the Bat Creek inscription page from the three hoax/fraud categories unless there was an objection, and Doug, who had often contributed to the page in the past, objected. Then there was discussion on the Bat Creek talk page, and then further discussion here that involved additional parties, but the dispute is still just between myself and Doug Weller. (FYI, Doug and I have been going back and forth on this topic since the 1980s, on the Usenet sci.arch group!) HuMcCulloch (talk) 15:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, then, I object too. Now the dispute isn't just between you two. Agricolae (talk) 02:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
According to WP:Request for Comments,discussion on the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard is an alternative to RfC, as it officially requests comments from users interested in NPOV issues. HuMcCulloch (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, you regard this as a dispute between the you and Dougweller. That's a breach of WP:DR and WP:BATTLE, and ignores the purpose of this noticeboard, and might violate WP:CANVAS as well if all you're doing is trying to find support for your profession opinion with which you have a conflict of interest. --Ronz (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Though I haven't edited the article in question, as far as conflict is concerned here I'm going to have to consider myself involved given the degree of my WP:FT/N involvement in this. I should have noticed the COI before, but there's really no way, HuMcCulloch, that you should be involved in directly editing an article to use your self-published works and letters as references. I just don't see how, when put to the test, there's going to be a consensus to use you as a reliable source. Mangoe (talk) 17:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not really convinced that this is an NPOV issue (or that editors involved in fringe issues automatically have a COI. Hu does have some published articles (although as I pointed out elsewhere Biblical Archeology isn't necessarily a reliable source, for any articles in that journal I'd look to see if the author was a RS). On the other hand, he still has a COI in that he is adding his own material. But that's not the main issue here, the issue is about categories, and I don't think that Hu is right about this. As has been said, categories are for navigational purposes, and people looking for anything considered to be an archeological forgery should be able to find it through that category, ditto the hoax categories. It's the articles themselves that need to meet NPOV, including WP:UNDUE. So long as they meet our policy there, the reader can determine for themselves whether they think it's a hoax, and I don't think that the fact that they found it through a category, or saw the category on the bottom of the page, is going to sway their opinion. Dougweller (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Since Doug and Hu neither have a neutral point of view, would it not be easier to remove both of them from editing the article? Hu is widely considered an expert on the subject, and his material needs to remain, but since it could be easily influenced by him, he should be removed. However, I believe Doug has a website on the matter as well, so he cannot be neutral. If Doug ever provides any published material that is of his own work that contributes, then it would be added just as equally to Hu's material that was published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dewaynebrock (talk • contribs) 19:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Given that this recommendations is your first and only edit, I doubt we will take it up. Mangoe (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Understandable Mangoe. Rude way to put it, but completely understandable. What is your suggestion to fix the COI?Dewaynebrock (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Hu is widely considered an expert is he? Golly. I nothing about Doug's webside, but expressing opinions on it would not be a COI in itself, any more than expressing opinions here would be. I think it's inappropriate to go for dispute resolution, sinbce this is really a general not a specific issue. It does not apply to only this article. There are several possible resolutions. One would be the rename that has been suggested. The problem with that is that would be endless disputes about which works should be deemed to be "suspected" forgeries/fakes/frauds/hoaxes. Very few items are accepted by everyone to be fakes. Those that are are generally non-notable because of it, precisely because no-one cares about them. On the whole, I think people get far too worked up over categories. They are as has repeatedly been pointed out, navigational tools. They are not official declarations about the status of something. Many articles have several contradictory categories, which is perfectly fine. Their purpose is to group articles on a topic. The same is true of Wikprojects and some infoboxes. I've experienced many disputes about all sorts of related issues. Should Hitler be in the category "vegetarians", since some veggie activists have tried to deny it? Should peson X be included in a the "Category:LGBT history", since it's disputed whether he/she was anything but dead straight. In my experience the answer is almost always "yes". It doesn't matter if I think, say, Shakepseare was 100% stright. If an article on him discusses disputed sexuality then it should be in the category, because their whole function is to help people find articles on specific topics. Nothing more. They absolutely do not mean that the Wikpedian community have determined that something or someone is fake, gay, mentally ill or whatever. Paul B (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Editors are allowed to have POVs, in fact it is very hard not to have one. It isn't editors that are meant to have a neutral point of views, it is articles and the way in which editors edit. We don't disqualify Christians from editing articles on Christianity, nor do we disqualify atheists. As for my website, it's a collection of articles at [42] and I haven't touched it for sometime. The site expresses my opinion and interests. I don't think it disqualifies me from working on fringe archaeology articles. I have however seen editors say that archaeologists who write books on fringe archeology are too biased to be used as sources, which is a sort of Catch 22. Dougweller (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
The persistent problem I have every time I revisit this is that I cannot find anything that shows to me that McCulloch's position is given any degree of respect whatsoever within the archaeological community or indeed any scholarly community outside economics, where he's well-published. When I search, I keep getting presented with the same few letters to the editor and his self-published work, and the one BR reference. And Herschel Shanks has a history of entertaining amateur input in his journals to where I wouldn't automatically assume that appearance in their pages constituted notability. I therefore can't get past the problem that McCulloch's editing here is essentially self-promoting, because it's his work that he wants to use as a source. If we could find evidence that people in the field even thing of it as an interesting but ultimately wrong idea, I could give it more prominence, but I don't see that. And thus I cannot see letting his views stand in the way of identifying this as a hoax in the category structure, nor of making similarly strong statements in the article. Mangoe (talk) 15:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Gunfight at the 3O Corral? On further reading of WP:DISPUTES, WP:MEDIATION doesn't look helpful, since it doesn't actually arbitrate the issue at hand. WP:ARBITRATION only applies to conduct issues. So, Doug, I propose that we resolve the issue between the two of us with a gentleman's agreement that we will solicit a Third Opinion and abide by whatever opinion is given. Mangoe and Agricolae may agree to go along, or may raise the issue again should I win and delete the categories, but that doesn't stop us from resolving our own dispute in this manner.

I'm not sure how the mechanics work. The 3O appears to be a volunteer drawn from some sort of pool. I suggest we request that the 3O not be anyone who has posted on the Bat Creek page or on the discussion here or on talk:Bat Creek, but I guess there is no way to exclude lurkers who have been following the discussion but not participating. Have you ever done one before? Can we get it inserted into this section so that everyone interested can follow whatever the procedings are? The 3O would of course be referred to the discussion here and on the Bat Creek talk page, which pretty much covers all the issues already. HuMcCulloch (talk) 15:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

You still don't get the point that I am arguing that this is not a NPOV issue but a categories issue, and if we remove navigational categories in this way we make them useless. It isn't an issue that applies only to this specific article. It has been called a hoax and a forgery (and a fraud) by clearly reliable sources and I'm sure you agree that's the case. Removing categories that lead people to articles that are believed to be hoaxes/forgeries by mainstream specialists would be wrong. And maybe, ironically, violating NPOV by denigrating the mainstream view. Dougweller (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Let the record show that Dougweller has declined my offer to arbitrate the dispute between the two of us using Wikipedia's WP:Third Opinion process. It would be unseemly to enter into an endless edit war on the Bat Creek inscription page itself, so I'll just declare a moral victory and leave the matter with that. HuMcCulloch (talk) 16:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
As I pointed out previously, 3O wouldn't apply anyway as that there are certainly more than two editors involved in this dispute now. Location (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I think for NPOV we should note that the other side declares a moral victory too! Paul B (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_38&oldid=1136450005"