Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 14

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

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

→

Reverting to NPOV version of Ahmad Raza Khan

This article has long-standing POV problems which neutral editors have worked to improve, but recently one editor, Thelonerex continues to come back to revert the article to a much longer and obviously POV version. He generally provides no Edit Summary or explanation in Discussion, other than to claim that his version is "justified" or "neutralized" and the NPOV version is "unjustified".

Link to diff: [1]
Link to Discussion: Talk:Ahmed_Raza_Khan_Barelvi

As a small sampling of the POV issues in Thelonerex's version (on the Discussion page I also list basic copyediting and composition problems as well):

"Ala Hazrat [an honorific] has been recognized as the great Mujaddid of the 19th century"
"A collection of fatwas by the title of Fatawa Ridawiyya, is his magna carta."
"his saintly guide His holiness Shah Aale- Rasool Marehravi"
"& his noble son Maulana Hamid Raza Khan"
"Main specialty of Kanzul Iman is Imam Ahmad Raza preserved the high status of Allah & his Messenger in the translation."
"The students of Arabic have considered the intellect of Imam Ahmad Raza Khan in this field. Applauding the ability of Imam Ahmad Raza Khan in the science of Hadith"
"An uncommon feature of Fatawa Ridawiyya is that it is hailed by among friends and foes alike."
"Antagonism towards modern day deviant sects"
"For a full exposé of deviant heretical sects and the verdicts against them according to traditional Sunni Islam, one can obtain English copies of Husam al Harmain from Raza Academy Ltd. based in Stockport in the United Kingdom, as well as many other works of Imam Ahmad Raza Khan."

If you look at Thelonerex's contribs, he has a distinct pattern of Pakistan POV-pushing, including removing mention of Chinese support for Pakistani weapons development, and promoting Pakistan's status as a military power. I'm not sure what to do about Thelonerex overall, but we definitely need to stop the reversions back to this ridiculously POV version of Ahmad Raza Khan. Stability Information East 2 (talk) 07:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no expertise on the content whatsoever, but it is obvious that Thelonerex's version pushes a non-NPOV, although I'm not sure if that doesn't apply to the other version also. Reviwing his edit history, it is obvious that he's an SPA. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree that the 10kB version isn't ideal or purely neutral. But it's basically the 23kB version with the blatant crap stripped out and the Criticism section restored, and most of the questionable stuff at least tagged. It's not great, but it at least removes the worst of the POV material. I honestly don't know enough about the subject to do a major fix, I just noted the huge shifts in file size in History, found a less-bad version, and tried to clean up that. I really appreciate your pitching in to keep the offender from reverting to the POV version. He still refuses to give any concrete examples of what's wrong with the 10kB version, except to say it's "unjustified" and "disrespectful." Pretty blatant POV offender in both that article and most others he edits. Stability Information East 2 (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Donald Friend

The article being discussed is Donald Friend. Here's a link with diffs, to the specific change: [2] There is an edit war between myself and User:PiCo about the section in this article relating to NPOV and undue bias. The section in question deals with public reaction to posthumously published diaries. PiCo keeps deleting the whole section, rather than editing. I believe I have addressed PiCo's previous concerns regarding NPOV words, and have added references from mainstream media sources. Please see talk page history of this long running dispute at talk page Talk:Donald Friend. Thank you.--Design (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

This is certainly controversial and merits inclusion if the sources are reliable. I see nothing POV about the language used. I'm having a hard time comprehending User:PiCo's objections. To say this is not a controversy or not notable seems myopic, at best. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

origin of Book of Jubilees

There's a long-standing conflict on Book of Jubilees and Tower of Babel about POV and the origins of the Book of Jubilees. I say that we should call it a 2nd-century work, one of the pseudepigrapha because that's what my reliable sources say. The editor Til E. says that this view represents merely the speculative view of some Christians, though they won't provide an RS to back this up. They have added an irrelevant reference to the Ethiopian Church on Tower of Babel, added a spurious POV tag on that page, and deleted a proper fact tag on Book of Jubilees, not to mention various related edits and reversions. For example, in this diff T.E. is deleting a bunch of cited information about Book of Jubilees because they disagree with it.

A little guidance on NPOV policy and the proper use of RSs would help us. Leadwind (talk) 01:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Antony Lerman

The article used to be anti-Lerman biased. Now it's an autobiography. Anyone else want to give a try at something neutral? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Australian Psychological Society

I think the Australian Psychological Society page needs some temporary protection. If you look at the recent edit history several editors have just been reverting each other without any real attempt to discuss on the talk page. It seems that at least one of the editors is promoting a newly formed breakaway association and is giving undue weight to recent controversies over professional standards for clinical psychologists and related legislation. This might point to a conflict of interest with members of the association or members of the competing organisation editing to promote their point of view rather than aiming for a neutral point of view. At the moment most of the article content in competing versions is concerned with the controversy when this should really just be a minor part of the article to give equal weight. Other areas could be expanded and the recent dispute could be handled in a neutral way. The editors have failed to properly discuss their reverts on the talk page and I think there needs to be some third party comment or administrator intervention to direct these editors to relevant policies so we can nip this in the bud. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 02:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Gaza flotilla raid, specific paragraph.

The talk page says that there is a 1-revert rule on this article from an ArbCom case, but these users don't accept any way I word this information, and I don't want to edit war over this. As of now the article mis-characterizes the Norwegian expert's statement, with one editor referencing "POV" as the reason for edits.

Both users are so far unresponsive to article talk page (Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Norwegian_military_expert) and user talk page contacts, and their edit summaries don't explain to me why they're chopping away one part of the expert's statement. Am I just confused about something here? I'm not necessarily requesting a ban, but can somebody get them to at least respond?

My first attempt to include the information: [3] Attempt to reword it to the other user's liking: [4] I stopped trying to put in the information because I don't want to break the revert rules.

ValenShephard's reverts: [5] [6]

Ai 00's revert: [7] (with confusing edit summary)

Earlier reverts by same users, other places in the article: [8] [9] --ReneJohnsen (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I put a revert rule warning on the users' talk page, so they're duly warned. I haven't actually reported them though. I'm waiting for somebody to weigh in on this first. --ReneJohnsen (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The reverting users stopped reverting, at least on this paragraph, and other editors who could read the foreign language article got involved. The issue is resolved in my view. --13:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Ebionites

As per the above referenced article's talk page, I believe that the current content of the article lays a great deal of stress on the opinions of two academics which seem to be perhaps at least a bit suspect, as per the cited reviews on the talk page, and contrary to the mainstream opinion as per the various encyclopedic and reference sources indicated. I would welcome any review of the situation by parties who have not been involved in the previous discussions. ArbCom has been forced to deal with matters regarding edit warring on this topic before, and I sincerely hope such extreme measures can be avoided this time. John Carter (talk) 18:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Nanking Massacre controversy and denial

This article.. well, has issues. After Alleged fabrication of the Nanking Massacre (a thinly-veiled page dedicated to denial arguments for the massacre) was deleted as POV, most of its content was transferred en masse to the former "Nanking Massacre controversy" page. It appears to have been a virtually unilateral decision, and created a 200k monster composed almost entirely of denial arguments.

Since this transformation, several editors (myself included) have opined that the page should be retitled to some variant of "Nanking Massacre denial arguments" for accuracy. The bulk of the material is open denial, and even the material which gives lip service to balance is suffused with permutations of 'But Higashinakano (supposedly) proved this was wrong by saying ABC XYZ.' (Higashinakano's name is mentioned no less than 55 times in the body text alone, most frequently in contrast to witness accounts.)

Making the article a pure POV page for the denial arguments would require deleting or transferring no more than 3-15% of the page contents. (The variability in how much should be cut stems from not knowing how much context to leave. As noted above, many of the denial arguments consist of attempting to discredit witnesses.) It wouldn't be nearly as difficult as some of the possible solutions, but I don't know whether it's the best thing to do here.

What is the appropriate course of action? Is it to take a rather large ax to the undue weight, to retitle the article, or something else? 76.22.25.102 (talk) 23:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that the article is completely unwieldy. You can probably use the articles on Holocaust and Holocaust denial as models for how to separate the history of what happened from the issue of the denial. (I haven't checked but they are watched by many people and should be in relatively good order.) One is a history article and the other is about an ideological current. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of regional languages from Iran article

Two users (primarily Mani but also Alefbe) have been tag-teaming to make counter-consensus changes that push a certain point of view on the Iran article [A glance at the history [10] reveals the edit warring over languages in the info-box]. A 'discussion' is taking place at [11]. Mani proposed the changes (and unilaterally engaged in an edit war) in the fall of 2008. However, not one person supported the changes. Please take a look at [12] and [13] where you will see that seven users supported the inclusion of regional languages in the info box and only Mani supported the removal of that info. Recently, Mani has been making the unilateral changes in the same fashion as the fall of 2008. One of the problems of Wikipedia, which the readers of this noticeboard are all too familiar with, is the lack of neutrality on some articles. On the Iran-related articles a balance of powers between POV pushers has achieved neutrality (albeit transient). With the (judicious) banning of user Babakxorramdin, Mani's foe ["Look Mani. It was you who challeneged me to come to the Hague Station and I suspect the suspicious person who came to my adress was you or was connected to you. It is shamefull how far you go for a disagreement in wikipedia. It is not healthy --Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)] the balance of powers has been disrupted, leaving Mani to rejoice in Babakexorramdin's banning ["User Babakxorramdin which is now banned because of rude behaviour and edit wars added that wrong section to it and messed up with the form which enjoyed concensus."-???? a.k.a. User:Mani1 (talk) 09:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)] and to resume the edit wars he once fought with Babakexorramdin. In the past I struggled to keep articles neutral (Persian Gulf, for instance, where the term Arabian Gulf is mentioned in the lead because of WP:LEAD and because of my tireless efforts and despite the fact that I personally reject the use of the term Arabian Gulf), and by helping to ban notorious POV pushers (Patchouli, for instance). However, I no longer have the energy or time to constantly fight against POV pushers. Do not feel a need to post a reply here, because I am not going to watch this page. In fact, I turn over the responsibility of restoring the consensus and neutral version of the Iran article (by reverting Mani and Alefbe's edits) to those who have administrator tools. Agha Nader (talk) 22:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a slightly tricky content dispute. The Iranian constitution does recognize regional languages, but it doesn't mention them by name. Are their any sources which indicate that the Iranian government has gone further and officially recognized these local languages? That would certainly support their inclusion in the infobox. ClovisPt (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The recognition in the constitution is important. But I don't think the importance of these languages in Iran is determined by their status (i.e. official vs. unofficial). Their role in society as well as their widespread use determines their importance. I found the following at a UCLA site [14] "In Iran, Azerbaijani is widely used as a lingua franca, although it has no official status in the country (Comrie 1981)." The same could be said, for instance, about Arabic, in certain regions of Iran. Persian is clearly the only official language of Iran. However, there a few regional languages (for instance Azeri, Arabic, and Kurdish) which are not only widely spoken, but taught in schools, and used in the press. As you note, the constitution (chapter ii, article v) states "the use of regional and tribal languages in the press and mass media, as well as for teaching of their literature in schools, is allowed in addition to Persian" [15]. This alone does not make the languages significant enough to be mentioned in the infobox. The tremendous evidence that these languages play an important role in social life in Iran, does however. Indeed the consensus opinion (7 to 1) was that these languages should be noted in the info box. Consider "The Role of the State in West Asia" by Annika Rabo, Bo Utas: "There is, in fact, a considerable publication (books, newspapers etc.) taking place in the two largest minority languages Azerbaijani and Kurdish" (p. 156). These publications play an important role as there are 17,000,000, 9,000,000 and 3,500,000, Azeri, Kurdish, and Arabic speakers, respectively, in Iran ("The State, Religion, and Ethnic Politics: Afghanistan, Iran, and Pakistan" by Ali Banuazizi, Myron Weiner, p. 178). According to the widely respect scholar Nikki Keddie in "Modern Iran: roots and results of revolution" : "The Islamic Republic has clearly broken with the Pahlavi practice of disallowing use of regional languages. One can purchase newspapers, books, music tapes, and videos in Azerbaijani Turkish and Kurdish, and there are radio and television stations in ethnic areas that broadcast news and entertainment programs in even more languages" (p. 313). This is not really a content issue per se. The facts are clear, and when the community discussed them in the fall of 2008 [16] [17] , a clear consensus (7 to 1) was achieved favoring their inclusion. The reason this is posted to the NPOV noticeboard is that this is a NPOV issue. Consider what Nikki Keddie says after the above mentioned quote "Nevertheless, in several Arab, Azerbaijani, Kurdish, and Baluchi cities, one frequently hears charges of 'Persian chauvinism' from members of ethnic minority groups. Many Persians do have stereotyped views not only of minorities who live in underdeveloped regions but even of Turks who do not" (ibid). Agha Nader (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Assistance required for user in violation of Wikipedia Neutral point of view policy

Hi everyone, i was recommended to come here. Be grateful if you could assist in the speedy resolution and removal of an image on the Alexander Graham Bell article, where there is the straighforward breach of two wikipedia policies by the user Gwillhickers over the use of a disproportionate commemorative image. Firstly it (two US stamps) is a repetitive commemoration...which is where i called for fair, balanced and proportional representation to avoid breach of WP:NPOV and national bias... (ie.a commerorative image each from Scotland, Canada and US). Secondly the commemorative stamp is relevant to the legacy/honors section (where one already is placed) which meets the image WP:MOS, and not where the recent extra one is placed. It is both a disproportionate national commemorative image, and also out of place. In talk the user Bzuk has mentioned this. Be grateful if you guys could bring this to a swift conclusion. Thanks.Gold coast surf (talk) 19:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that the user is in breach of policy, but really it doesn't matter for the article. From what I see on the article talk page, nobody will oppose you if you add Scottish and Canadian images. The purpose of illustrations in an article is to help articles to be informative and to make them attractive. We do also try to avoid systematic bias in favour of certain countries. But I think we should remember that we could have a situation where the most interesting and attractive photos could come from a totally different country. From my misspent youth of stamp collecting I remember that Rwanda, Taiwan and Equatorial Guinea had attractive stamps. If they had stamps commemorating Alexander Graham Bell and we could get fair-use images then they would be appropriate additions to the article. 20:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I know this seems like a big problem to the editors of that page, but a sense of proportion is called for here. I don't know how anybody reading the article would come away with a bias (of what, exactly?) because of the country whence the images originated. Bell is celebrated worldwide, not just in one country, and I daresay he probably would not sympathise with this type of provincialism. Add the Scottish banknote, and while you're at it move some of the images to the left, especially the U.S. stamp, whose image is looking off the page. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Interlace

1. Interlace

2. (first sentence)

Interlace is a technique of improving the picture quality of a video signal without consuming extra bandwidth.

3. (the problem perceived) (video)Interlace is a technique used on video material at creation, transport, display time etc... It has upsides and downsides. Saying it is "improving the picture quality" when there are many examples of worsening (a lot) of the picture quality is not a neutral POV.

4. There was discussion in the talks, but at parts it reaches fanatic levels and not much was accomplished.

--Xerces8 (talk) 15:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I posted a response here. Please post {{resolved}} at the top of this section if my response sufficiently addresses your concern. Blue Rasberry 17:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The response there was basically that the "interlace improves..." is a personal belief of Carewolf and Algr. No citation or source was offered. What is the procedure to follow in such cases? --Xerces8 (talk) 12:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello Bluerasberry. This is sort of a "half empty vrs. half full" issue. In order to say what interlace does, you have to compare two video signals; one with interlace, and one without. But video signals can be designed in a wide variety of ways, so there is no obvious choice as to which two signals to compare. For example, lets start with NTSC, with it's 480i interlaced signal. What does it mean to "remove interlace" from NTSC? The simplest thing you could do would be to very slightly reduce the horizontal refresh rate so that the two video fields land on top of each other instead of between each other. This turns 480i into 240p progressive. Old videogame systems do this, and NTSC TVs still work with such a progressive signal. A more complex thing you could do is double horizontal refresh rate so that all 480 lines are scanned in the 1/60th of a second it takes for NTSC to scan just 240. That signal would NOT work on NTSC TVs, and would need twice the analog bandwidth to achieve the same horizontal resolution. That is (roughly) what the original VGA is - 480p. A third thing you could do is cut the vertical refresh rate (almost) in half so that all 480 lines are scanned progressively, but only 30 times a second. This signal would use the same bandwidth as NTSC, (unlike VGA) but you'd need to modify the TV in order to display the signal and the result would have severe flicker unless you added some kind of digital frame store to redouble the scan rate. The first two signals I've described here are real, the third is not. Any of them could be called "NTSC without interlace", but they are radically different from each other.

So what does interlace "do"? Compared to the first example, 240/60p, it made the picture sharper, but added a bit of line flicker. Compared to VGA, it make the picture softer, but cut bandwidth use in half. Compared to 480/30p, it massively reduced flicker at the cost of a bit of detail. It is all a matter of what you compare it to, and various online sources imagine different signals, and thus tend to contradict each other concerning what exactly interlace does. I favor the first example, because it is something that exists and is still (almost) NTSC. The third signal has been preposed in the article, but it seems to me to be wrong to compare interlace to a pathological video signal that no one would ever use. (The DTV version of 480/30p automatically assumes a frame store, but that is a digital signal - interlace is about analog signals, and IMHO, should not be used in digital.) Algr (talk) 04:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I continued this talk on the Interlace discussion page. Thanks, Algr. Blue Rasberry 06:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Historical maps

Resolved

Preconditions

I have come along an issue of an editor-created historical map. The map was created by a non-professional with many mistakes, OR or/and SYNTH, no topological consideration or references [18]. I have risen the issue of it's accordance to Wiki rules and for being valid for use in an encyclopedia in a dispute.

There was also made an offer to change it in articles (that need only a map for location or territory) with a published map in the public domain by a reliable source (a historical atlas), which is made by professional topologists, historians etc [19].

In this case in the disputes 1 question arose - "the created map is easier to read". Even if so, the map is not academical and violates the above mentioned rules of Wikipedia. But for this issue there was quite a lot of work performed to bring it to a "more easy to read" condition [20].

Issues to be discussed and NPOV to be achieved

There are the following issues to be discussed i this regard:

Does the 1st user-created map [21] contradict to the rules?
Is the user-created 1st map [22] good for encyclopedic use when there is a reliable source professional map available [23]?
Is the 2nd user-created map [24] referenced to a reliable souce more preferable for Wiki use than the published map itself when it contains all the required information for the according content of the article or its chapter?

Thank you for participation! Aregakn (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion with final conclusions (please note the latter in BOLD)

Could you offer a link to some of the previous discussions about this? This seems like an interesting issue. My initial thought is that this is not a NPOV issue but rather a OR issue and better posted here, but I am curious about why you came here.

It is an OR problem to the extent that it is not sourced. A user-created map that copies a published source entirely or in part (such as keeping political lines but omitting topography) is legitimate.
In the example you gave, I personally prefer the user map to the published one because the user map is, in fact, much more readable to me. Depending on the context, the loss of information from the original map may not matter to me, and anyway the other map can be discussed on the file page for the user map so serious scholars can find it.
There is no policy preferring one map or the other; in the case of user-created vs published when both are verifiable and have equivalent content, either is acceptable all things being equal. If more than one map was being considered, then I think consensus could be found on a talk board.

What does someone else think? Blue Rasberry 19:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Note. I thought it was about a concrete case so you could comment it too :). BTW, when you use "created" I'd like to ask to define if it is about the very examples and which "created" you mean.

The reason I came to NPOV board is that it has been impossible to reach a consensus on these issues during the previous discussions and I was advised by an admin to bring this issues. The curiosity can be satisfied by reading these :) : "A third view" [25], and an "ages-lasting" mediation of Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Historical map of the Roman Empire in the article "History of Georgia (country)". Thanks for your notes!Aregakn (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I read through the WP:3O and the WP:MEDIATE talks which already exist, and I see the issue. In addition to what you have written here, there is also an issue about the "created map" being NPOV, but you are right that the NPOV issue is rather complicated and the question you posted here, as you suggest, ought to be more concrete and easier to answer. I agree that you have given all the information necessary to answer the question you asked here, but thanks for providing the background.

You asked for my definition of "created content." I would say that anything that is a restatement rather than verbatim copying of the content of any reliable source is created content. Almost all of Wikipedia is created content, because users almost always are restating content from a published source. A good and common example of created content with regard to maps is election results. Elections are heavily covered throughout Wikipedia, and often district results are published in statistic tables but no published maps exist. Users often "create" maps by applying known statistics to a blank map, thus creating a new map. Here is an example from the recent election in England. This kind of application is not considered to be WP:synthesis or any other kind of original research. In the same way, if the user who created the map you are asking about has a source to verify the content contained inside it, then it also would be acceptable so long as there were no other problems.

Any more thoughts? Blue Rasberry 04:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Great example!! Hmm, a good info as well (on the map). Now I can see some facts I didn't know and was curious about. Yes, really a good example of a good created map. I think it is very easy to verify the info in it.

In the case of historical maps it's a bit more complicated, don't you think? In my opinion an NPOV here doesn't exist in 1 map because even the published maps of the same period might differ a bit. Likewise the info might differ in several RSs. In this case, IF contradiction exists, either the map has to prject all the "POV"s or there have to be several maps, I think.

But what about if 1 created map is not and the other is a copy of a pulished RS (referenced)? which one is an NPOV there? Aregakn (talk) 06:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Historical maps are more complicated in the sense that with historical issues it is more difficult to verify the WP:TRUTH, but fortunately truth is not an inclusion criteria for Wikipedia while verifiability is.

In the case of a contradiction between two reliable sources, all reliable sources are considered to be POV. There is never a situation when one reliable source can be NPOV and the other is POV; if one is POV, all are.

POV is not a bad thing, but it is something that is supposed to be resolved. As you say, some ways of resolving it in this case would be projecting all POVs on a single map or just having several maps that give different versions of the same data. Usually this is not done, though, because adding data to an already existing map is difficult and having multiple maps on a page usually does not look good. The more common solution would be to choose a single map then make notes somewhere about the shortcomings of the map, probably by including links to other versions of the map.

So to answer your question, a published map meets the verifiability criteria of a reliable source, and a user-created map is only reliable if it is referenced. If they both are reliable, and they are in conflict, then they both are POV and neither is necessarily better than the other.

There is also a reliable sources noticeboard here. More questions? Is there something else I could clarify? Blue Rasberry 00:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope! Thanks a lot! I think for this one specific case I mentioned above the next step is the OR noticeboard, isn't it? Aregakn (talk) 00:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

If the map in question is made from any published material, then probably the issue is whether it references a reliable source. If the map is not thoroughly referenced, then it is a question of whether it is based on original research. From what you said, yes, posting this to the OR noticeboard seems correct. I am going to put a resolved tag on this thread for now, because I think the NPOV issue with this is done. If you need something else from me then please post on my page; this is an interesting issue that I would enjoy following. Blue Rasberry 03:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yijin Jing

I’m in a dispute with another editor over how much weight should be given to a popular oral legend in comparison to scholarly historical research regarding the Yijin Jing. The Yinjin Jing is a qigong manual attributed to the Buddhist saint Bodhidharma (c. 6th cent. CE). Popular oral tradition states Bodhidharma wrote two manuals (one of which was the Yijin Jing) that were later found by the monks of the Shaolin Monastery after his death. The contents of the manuals became known as the ancestor of Shaolin kung fu.

As far as scholars are concerned, the manual is a forgery written in 1624, roughly a thousand years after Bodhidharma lived. Ever since it was first proposed the attribution of the manual was fake some 90 odd years ago, every single scholar who has written on the subject up though today agrees on its erroneous nature. And it’s not just one group of people either. These scholars are from China, Japan, and the west. There has never been any academic who has tried to counter argue this position because the evidence provided—which comes from a detailed analysis of stelae and pre-modern documentation—is irrefutable. Therefore, it is an established fact.

The problem is that there are many non-scholars in the martial arts community who disagree with the scholarly material because it is contrary to what they have grown up hearing. The editor that I am discussing the matter with does not agree with the evidence provided by scholars and insists “that most of these academics are rushing to conclusions about something they don't know all that much about.” My problem with this statement is that the scholars are credentialed experts with access to the original documents that spawned the oral legend, while the average objector can’t even read Chinese. In fact, when this person made their initial edits to the page, they literally erased 99% of the material referring to the scholarly research, leaving only a single sentence. They did this because they felt that the popular oral legend should have more weight. (I will admit that the page, at the time, was in a horrible state. A previous editor had basically cut-and-paste huge sections from various papers to the article.) I reverted this and reminded them of the NPOV policy and suggested that there should be a section for the oral legend and any variation from it and a section on the scholarly research.

Right now, the editor is treating both as too different possibilities. They added the following sentence to the beginning of the history section: “The origins of this text are unclear.” My question is should we not refer to the authority of historians when it comes to describing the ultimate nature of the Yijin Jing? To me, it seems NPOV enough to list both the popular oral tradition itself and then the reasons why scholars think it is a forgery. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm the other editor -- it's generally considered good form to let someone know if you're going to complain about them on a noticeboard, BTW.

This seems to be a mostly a complaint about what I'm saying on the talk page as opposed to any content -- the substance of the edits I've made to the actual article so far has been:

A BRD edit removing large sections of text (I would also describe those sections as putting the article in a "horrible state") (diff), which was reverted
A new section explaining the legend in addition to the modern scholarship (diff)
A removal of part of the modern scholarship that neither me nor Ghostexorcist could make any sense of (diff)

Subverdor (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You are reading too much into my comments. The instructions say to give a description of the dispute. I was simply asking for an answer to my question, not "complaining" about you. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 02:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Wilson's syndrome article

Here are typical diffs on this matter (diffs have gone back and forth a couple of times, hence the dispute): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wilson%27s_syndrome&oldid=364127040 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wilson%27s_syndrome&oldid=364013154

The Problem perceived with the text in question is stated in the "Representing majority and significant-minority views fairly" area of the article's Talk page.

For more background, there are also NPOV issues discussed in the "Recent issues" area of the article's Talk page.

We have already tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page but have not yet found agreement. We have asked for a third opinion but that hasn't moved forward. Specifically, do you feel the usage of the St. Pete Times reference helps make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia, from a NPOV and context standpoint?MedBoard2 (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

To clarify (as an editor involved in the dispute): the St. Petersburg Times discusses Wilson's syndrome here. As far as I am aware, the Times is a major, reputable newspaper and generally a reliable independent secondary source. The Times also quotes the Florida State Medical Board's opinion of Wilson's syndrome, which is perhaps of interest to someone seeking reliable information on the topic. MedBoard2 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly removed this source from the article (e.g. [26], [27], etc etc).

I admit I'm not totally understanding the reason why this apparently reliable secondary source should be removed - in fact, it seems to be among the few independent, reliable secondary sources available that deal directly with Wilson's syndrome. I suppose I could mention that MedBoard2 (talk · contribs) is thus far a single-purpose account whose edits promote Wilson's syndrome, but I think this one is pretty clear simply on grounds of content and sourcing policies. MastCell ^Talk 21:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI, here are a few more reliable sources for this; this very long (and useful) article from the Orlando Sentinel has a prominent endocrinologist call the syndrome "hogwash";this newspaper article has the medical board describing Wilson as "scamming" the public; this other Orlando Sentinel article that they "severely reprimanded" him and according to this book he had to paid 250K in an out of court settlement to the dead woman's family. It seems to me that the present version of the article is fairly mild, actually, but there's plenty of scope for expansion based on these sources. --Slp1 (talk) 01:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Thanks. Not sure how I missed those when I was searching for sources, but I appreciate the legwork on your part. MastCell ^Talk 04:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you MastCell, as I understand the purpose of a noticeboard, it may not be the best place for the editors involved in the dispute to carry over their dispute from the article's talk page to the noticeboard; leaving rather, the editors on the noticeboard to assess the clearly stated positions on the article's talk page for themselves. The question posed for the noticeboard here, is "Do you feel the usage of the St. Pete Times reference helps make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia, from a NPOV and context standpoint?" The question with the Times reference or an Orlando Sentinel reference is not about "Reliable Source" it's about NPOV since the Times ref represents neither the current majority point of view or the minority point of view and appears, therefore, being used 18 years out of context.MedBoard2 (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless we have more recent articles that contradict the St. Petersburg Times yes I think this source should be used. Often when we are dealing with a non medical idea claiming to be medicine the press / medical community take a passing interest and then dismiss it. Thus we are only left with old sources representing the mainstream position.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Organic Farming

Read it, it's awful. Totally one sided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.117.47.253 (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Be Bold and fix it. Please come back if you have specific questions while you are doing so. Blue Rasberry 03:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

British Isles and British Isles naming dispute

Pehaps some uninvolved editors could examine these articles. In the case of British Isles I feel there is undue weight given to a perceived dispute about the use of the words 'British Isles'. The apparent controversy is highlighted in the lead section and many refrences are used to promote the ani-British Isles viewpoint.

I belive that British Isles naming dispute could be a complete fabrication. I have found little or no evidence of a dispute in the real world. Some people, mainly from Ireland, don't like the term, and some people and organsiations don't use it, but that does not constitute a dispute. It seems the article is being used as a vehicle to promote the POV that 'British Isles' should not be used. MidnightBlue (Talk) 16:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I've not checked the history, but this could be a fork. I would support a merge with a section on the Irish (and any other) dislike for the term. I've not come across a 'dispute' about this, it is a historical term, which I believes goes back to when the main Island was inhabited by Britons, before the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons etc. There should be capacity within a main article to deal with any controversy, and no matter how hard people push, Ireland's location is a geographic and historic fact, and that is irrespective of any political disagreements about sovereignty (which concerns the United Kingdom). Mish (talk) 01:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Apple iPad suicide controversy

Despite reports in UK's Independent, Telegraph, Observer, Daily Mail, Financial Times, Morning Star, which link the manufacture of Apple's iPad to a spate of suicides at the Foxconn plant, editors have failed to work neutrally and sought to censor this material featured in WP:RS from the article - and in the process removing multiple references to these sources, and text based on those reports. I have no COI in this matter, as I do not work in the IT or communications (or newspaper) industry, and approached this as a neutal editor who has not edited in this area (technology) before.

In order to avoid perpetuating the edit war that was being engaged in to keep the material out of the article, I have tagged the article, and put a proposed revision to replace the deleted text at the end of the discussion thread here: Talk:IPad#Section on Foxconn. Part of the problem is that other editors see this as being an issue about Foxconn, while the newspapers concerned are reporting this as an issue about iPad's manufacture (in conjunction with the UK launch).Mish (talk) 01:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party movement

The [Tea Party movement] article has been the focus of strong POV for some time, and it does not appear to be getting any better. The subsection dealing with Inappropriate Behavior is very problematic to say the least. Additionally, there are some sections which appear to be clear violations of WP:COAT and potentially WP:BLP.

Tea Party Express leader Mark Williams referred to the Muslim god as a "Monkey God". Williams' comments elicited strong rebukes from New York City Mayor Bloomberg, NY State Senators and Muslim leaders. In a subsequent blog posting, Williams said, “I owe an apology,” he wrote on his blog, “to millions of Hindus who worship Lord Hanuman, an actual Monkey God. Hanuman is worshiped as a symbol of perseverance, strength, and devotion ... Those are hardly the traits of whatever the Hell (literally) it is that terrorists worship.”[160]

This is an obvious coatrack. A minor person wrote something objectional on his blog which was criticized, however this has absolutely nothing to do with the movement, and it follows almost exactly the type of content that WP:COAT discusses. "X" is part of this movement, "X" did these things that are bad, but unrelated to the topic of the article. Comments? Arzel (talk) 04:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed-- this seems to be a cheap way to conflate all Tea Party goers as having this opinion just because this one guy has it. Note: we would not mention in the Democratic Party article something racist that one democratic leader has said. I would support removing this from the article. Ink Falls 17:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It's disingenuous or dishonest to characterize Williams as 'minor' here. One of the references [28] for the incident calls him a Tea Party leader, the other [29] calls him "the group's spokesman -- the star of many of its TV ads" -PrBeacon (talk) 02:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Judaism: Orthodox and Conservative Legal Opinions Being Presented Equally in Sections on Practical Law

The following question has arisen at the article Niddah, and raised also somewhat at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism, but without any real move toward consensus and little interest. Additionally, I think that it is important to have this issue discussed by people without any particular stake in Judaism -- even, and perhaps especially, that that comes merely from being an adherent. I believe that the following are the relevant facts and are undisputed (if anyone involved does dispute them, please say so). During the Enlightenment and the emancipation of Jews in Europe, some traditionalist Jews, while rejecting the view of the new secularists and the Reform movement that the traditional corpus and process of Jewish law could be discarded, nevertheless favoured historical-critical academic study of Judaism, founding institutions called the Jewish Theological Seminary in Breslau and America. Other traditionalist Jews believed even this to be incompatible with traditional Judaism and condemned them as illegitimate. The former group, centered around the JTSes, became known as Positive-Historical, Conservative, or Masorti, while the latter group became known as Orthodox. While both maintained that the traditional corpus and process of Jewish law was obligatory, the Conservatives, because of their commitment to modern scholarship, believed that their opponents in Orthodoxy had an ossified view of its development and status, and eventually accepted academic criticism of even the Pentateuch. This has led to many Conservative authorities in Jewish law propounding opinions condemned by Orthodox ones as outside of legitimate legal discourse. Orthodox authorities generally view Conservatives as having an heretical view of the origin of the Pentateuch and an inadequate and improper grasp and application of Jewish legal material and procedure. Additionally, while very many Jews self-identify with the Conservative movement or belong to affiliated synagogues, very few care about or observe Jewish law as such, especially in areas like Niddah, despite the assertion of religious authorities that they are mandatory. In the practical law section of the Niddah article, I added legal opinions from Conservative authorities differing from those maintained by the general consensus of Orthodox authorities: diffs: [30] [31] These were moved to a separate section. Those who favour removing these opinions from the "Practical Law" section favour it for two reasons: 1) Orthodox Judaism is normative, traditional Judaism, while Conservative Judaism is both distinct and new. Thus, as an instance of the standing practice of placing older material first, Conservative material should be segregated from main "Practical Law" material. (This is maintained by Debresser.) 2) Since actual adherence to these laws is rare among self-identified or affiliated adherents of the Conservative movement, to place the opinions of Conservative authorities in with those of Orthodox ones would be to give them undue weight. (This is maintained by Lisa.) For these reasons, "Practical [Jewish] Law" without qualification, and "observance" thereof, must be taken on Wikipedia to mean "as interpreted by Orthodox authorities". I believe both of these to be highly blatant violations of WP:NPOV, and thus, beyond the reach of consensus. This is so transparent with me with regard to the first objection to the material I added that I honestly have great difficulty thinking of anything more to say about it. With regard to the second, the encyclopedic standard for normative religious views and practices is that they are recorded as articulated by the duly recognised authorities of that group, and the notability of the group is not determined by the actual level of adherence to norms articulated by its authorities. For example, official views of the Roman Catholic Church about proper Christian belief or practice are recorded as notable Christian ones on par with those of other Christian groups, regardless of the level of observance of them among actual Catholics, or of other Christian groups considering them inauthentic with true Christianity for whatever reason. The standards proposed by Debresser and Lisa above, therefore, appear to me to be blatant double-standards for Conservative Judaism, and thus in blatant violation of WP:NPOV. Please do see the Talk page for the discussion. Savant1984 (talk) 19:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Would it be possible for you to restate the issue outside of all context in one or two short sentences? Would it be fair for me to say that the NPOV issue is a claim of WP:UNDUE attention given to a fringe group? Blue Rasberry 21:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Stephen Appiah's Page

Reads like it was written by his agent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Appiah

"Pele was recently quoted saying "Appiah is one of the most gifted footballers of all time, and it is a pity that he has been hampered by injury throughout his career". He believes Appiah will make a comeback at 2010 World Cup and become a living legend." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.132.37 (talk) 12:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. I put a {{fansite}} tag on the article and made this post at the talk page. The problem would not be too difficult to fix; I encourage you to be bold and make the appropriate changes to make it right. Blue Rasberry 14:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Gaza flotilla raid

I have requested for a third opinion on the talk page of Gaza flotilla raid. The issue is about the blockade of Gaza and how to describe it in the context of the article. This might be relavant to some other articles related to the Gaza blockade as well. Any inputs are welcome at that section. Walky-talky (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Stereotypes of white people

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stereotypes_of_white_people&action=historysubmit&diff=365560546&oldid=365555768

There are multiple problems with this version of article. First and foremost, much of it does not relate to the articles subject, which is stereotypes about white people. The revisions re-inserted in the diff above relate mostly to stereotypes held by white people; all the other articles in the series concern stereotypes against black people, jews, gypsies, etc. If is necessary to have an article about how evil and racist white people are, I suggest that it should not be this one.

Moreover, the article repeatedly cites non-RS sources. I wrote the following in the last round of reversions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stereotypes_of_white_people#neutrality

I respectfully request that no-one tells me to take it up on the talk page, because I have done this multiple times before. Despite objections from at least two other editors, documented on the talk page, nothing has been done. Moreover, I brought up the issue on multiple wikiprojects,[[32]] [[33]] and again nothing was done. It is my opinion that these additions are in very clear violation of NPOV, NOR, RS and possibly other WP policies. These violations are what I seek comment on, this is therefore not simply a "content dispute". BillMasen (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Terrible terrible article, I'll spend some time stripping out the sources. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: related thread on WP:RSN. For what it's worth, I agree with Blueboar's comment there that these "Stereotypes of..." pages should be consistent (and use high quality sourcing) across the board. PrBeacon (talk) 16:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Elections in Ethiopia

Given the recent election, Elections in Ethiopia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has seen an increase in editing activity. I have noticed a pattern of edits that change the tone of the article so as to favor the ruling EPRDF coalition. I believe the current version (link) is sufficiently neutral in that it presents the views of the government/ruling party, EU observers, AU observers, HRW and the opposition in a balanced manner. Various users (and it's generally a new account each time) have, I believe, been tilting this toward the EPRDF, for example:

March 26 (removed criticism; added details that did not appear in the existing cited sources)
March 27 (added a YouTube link as a reference for AU's findings; I replaced this source with actual news reports, and made copyedits, but these were undone)
May 29 (restored March 26 edits; removed sources)

May 29 (same editor; if the previous days' edits were questionably PoV, these edits most clearly show a pro-government and/or anti-opposition bias. Also deleted text from a direct quote.)

June 2 (restored May 29 edits)

I had already suspected that sockpuppetry may be involved; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GchDenver. I think I should have reported this here first, but it wasn't such an obvious NPOV issue until the 2nd series of edits on May 29. (The ironic thing here is that in the past (really most of the 6 years I've been on Wikipedia), I'm the one who has been accused of supporting the EPRDF. FWIW.) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, Gyrofrog, if you can get people inside Ethiopia to answer your email then you're more of a tool of the EPRDF than I ever will be.</sarcasm> Seriously, the ruling party in Ethiopia badly wants this election to prove they are the legitimate power in Ethiopia, so they're going to try to control the content of this & related articles by any means they can, ethical or otherwise. But since Wikipedia can only report what various observers have said about a subject, any article about it can't help but express the wide-spread suspicion that the elections were rigged which is stated in the reliable sources. Note that I said "suspicion" -- not a statement that this is actually what happened; the critics may be wrong & millions of Ethiopians wanted the EPRDF to carry this election. But it does seem odd that so many areas which elected opposition candidates five years ago elected EPRDF candidates this time around, & unless the EPRDF publishes their own interpretation of this election, this suspicion will, by default, become the only analysis of what happened in this election, & this interpretation will be reinforced by these clumsy efforts to alter the content of these articles. -- llywrch (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I've just reverted again. In the absence of any meaningful discussion, or at least an edit summary, I will point to my earlier posting here as justification for any revert(s). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

An anonymous IP user (most likely unrelated to the other editors), 71.191.58.166 (talk), added referenced information about the AU's election guidelines. However, s/he used the existing Afrique source to draw conclusions that the existing source does not specifically indicate. So I have reverted these as well. I think this information (assuming it could be properly re-written and attributed) is a level of detail that is better suited for Ethiopian general election, 2010. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I don't know whether to consider the NPOV issue resolved, but the related SPI has been completed: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CUDz. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Margaret Bourke-White - Neutrality tag by Panyd, disputed by Blondtraillite

Resolved

Neutrality tag was added on 28 September 2008 citing "just look at the 'Early Life' Section."

I personally disagree with the tagging: while the article has many issues, I believe they are best described as inappropriate tone and a lack of citation (okay, and coherent focus, but that's subjective writing skill). However, I rewrote the "Early Life" section in hopes that it would both improve the opening of the article and satisfy Panyd. In its current state, I believe the Neutrality tag should now be removed; other, more appropriate, tags may be warranted and added. As the issue is rather subjective, I do not wish to be the only person involved in this decision.--Blondtraillite (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not know if this will make a difference, but I do plan to continue revising the article section-by-section.--Blondtraillite (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't look very controversial at the moment, so you could remove the tag and see what happens. Some books in the reference list, although the details are incomplete, appear to be full-length biographies, so if you can get access to them and make sure the article sticks to what they say there should be no problems. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy that the tag can be removed - so I've done it. CyrilThePig4 (talk) 09:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Jacobsen v. Katzer

Referring here from WP:COI/N. This article could use more eyes to keep it NPOV. This was a recently settled court case and there sure appear to be involved parties from both sides editing and making use of the semantics of the court documents to prove and refute each other's claims. A fork by one of the "sides" in the article appears at Robert_Jacobsen v. KAM Detailed Patent Issues, currently at AfD. Arakunem^Talk 15:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a complicated issue and I would not know how to get involved without making a major time investment to study the article's subject. Would it be possible for you to point to a specific area with a NPOV problem, preferably by providing a WP:DIFF and a link to some discussion on the talk page that describes the nature of the controversy? It is a lot easier to resolve particular NPOV problems than it is to do a NPOV check over the entirety of an article about a well-documented complicated legal case. Blue Rasberry 17:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Please don't tell me that what I just wrote was deleted.

Resolved

I just wrote a long and interesting editorial. I had just finished it. Then I hit the Backspace bar and was sent back to the last page I was at before I got to Neutral Point Of View. I tried to proceed to my editorial(if it can indeed be called an editorial), and got sent here. Being very new at this(this being my second day after creating this log in account), the thought of doing all that writing for nothing is distresting. I am now going to try to go back and fill in my email address where my User Name and password are. I did not do so yesterday when I filled out my account. If you can tell me what I did wrong, I would very much appreciate it. If you can tell me that my original article(editorial?)made it to you, I will be in seventh heaven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimrush2007 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It isn't clear whether something you wrote was deleted, or you hit backspace and your web browser went back a page and lost what you had typed. I don't see that any of your contributions were deleted. Your only other contribution (that was saved, anyway) besides this page is on your user page, User:Kimrush2007 - is that what you're looking for? In any case, an editorial (other than perhaps on your user page) would be subject to the deletion process based on what Wikipedia is not (specifically, see WP:NOTOPINION). I hope this is of some help. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 02:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Kimrush2007. Gyrofrog has answered your question, but I suggest that you read the Wikipedia:Tutorial, it has a lot of really good information about how to edit on Wikipedia, without getting too bogged down in the details. Welcome, and have fun. — Mudwater^(Talk) 03:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

If there is any further problem please re-raise the issue. I am tagging this as resolved. Blue Rasberry 17:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism

Resolved

I rasied this question here Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Anti-Americanism but was told this might be a more appropriate board.

A doubt has been raised over whether or not Anti-Americanism#The_degeneracy_thesis is a fringe theory. The main point being is that this is supported by only two historians [[34]] or that other historians are just repeating the claims of the two historians [[35]], and as such do not support notability, (if I understand the objection correctly). Now it seems to me that whilst this is a bit of a silly theory (that Europeans hated the USA before it even existed in essance) it also seems to have recived some attention that takes it beyond the fringe (whilst still being a minority view).Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I have copied the question.Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I followed up on the original board at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Anti-Americanism asking for a more explicit statement of the problem and proposed fix. Blue Rasberry 17:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Eh, that is pretty thin, and it's certainly getting too much space in the article as it stands. I don't think I'd put it as actual Fringe, though. It seems like a fairly sober academic claim that just doesn't have a lot of meat to it. However, I haven't read the full theory in context. If this is one of those "This is why everyone hates us" kind of arguments then calling it fringe seems more reasonable, but if this is just a couple of scholars exploring an off-beat idea then calling it fringe would be excessive. --Ludwigs2 17:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The theory discussed was one in the 18th century that held the environment of the Americas would lead to humans, animals and plants being less developed and smaller. But since those views were held by some people at the time - and leading American statesmen like Benjamin Franklin felt it necessary to write refuting this theory, has led modern scholars of anti-Americanism to write about it as part of the history of anti-Americanism. TFD (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that, but (a) it is a thin argument from a scholarly perspective (which, of course, we can't judge on) and (b) it apparently has very little current support or acceptance in the discipline. The reason why it's a weak argument from a scholarly perspective is that it's not really an anti-American argument to begin with so much as an anti-colonial one (America was not yet a nation at that point). one would have to demonstrate that this opinion about the Americas as a colonial region (a) was prevalent and accepted enough in the 18th century to constitute a distinct prejudice, (b) was transferred from the colonial Americas to the United states specifically after the revolution, and (c) somehow managed to persist in popular or scholarly imaginations across 100 years of scientific advancement (which put early evolutionary theories of that nature to rest), shifting political alliances (US ties with European nations - particularly France and England - grew and changed dramatically over that time period), and the US's isolationist stance through most of that period. I can imagine a scholar making such an intricate argument, but it would involve painstaking analysis of archival material from the early 18th to late 19th centuries (or at least some efforts in that direction). If, on the other hand, the authors simply glossed over that protracted period from 1776 to 1900 or so in order to make a blanket claim that anti-Americanism has always existed, well... that's a bit like claiming that Lincoln went to state dinners in periwig and breeches, because that's the way that Washington dressed. That would be fringey. --Ludwigs2 20:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This [[36] seems to discuse it in some depth.Slatersteven (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

(EC) My understanding is that it is not even remotely a current fringe theory but an anachronistic and disproven one. The argument that plants and animals could not and never had been large or strong in the Americas was disproven by the bison, if not the redwoods and fossils of mammoths and dinosaurs. However, the fact that it is anachronistic and disproven doesn't mean it should not be in the article as historic insight into the general attitude. The purpose of an Anti-Americanism article is not to build a compelling case against America, but to present a complete picture of the sorts of views that were given serious scholarly credence over the years whether they were true or not, as Anti-Americanism is not simply the deficiencies and limitations of America(ns) but also those aspects, prejudices and misperceptions for example, of overseas observers. It seems not necessary, then, to prove that this view of the continent in colonial times transferred to the new United States (which, after all, was being established even as the theory was published and propounded) as it does to show a predisposition to degrade the "otherness" of a place, wherever it may be. At the time, the U.S. was little more or less wild and uncivilized as Africa or Australia, which Europeans also held in semi-fascinated contempt as uncivilized and outside the realm of the holy. The sun, after all, did not merely revolve around the earth, it revolved around Eurasia and the holy lands.

Comte de Buffon notes (though troublingly without a citation) that the man who conceived of the theory ultimately admitted he was wrong, allegedly after being shown up by Thomas Jefferson. Obviously denouncing one's own work is the sort of exceptional statement (though I believe true) that we need a cite for, but my take here is that this should by all means remain in the article, though more clearly represented as an historical and disproven aspect of the sentiment. Abrazame (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The most explicit statement of the original problem was the question of whether this topic was WP:FRINGE. I think the comments above are sufficient opposition to classifying it as such. I am tagging this talk as resolved; if there is still a problem with the content, please re-raise the issue. Blue Rasberry 16:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Gun laws in the United States (by state)

There is a disagreement about NPOV at Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state) over the inclusion of this map. One group of editors has repeatedly removed the map, saying that it violates WP:NPOV, but they will not point out what part of the policy it violates. While I think the map is not particularly POV, I have also pointed out to them that NPOV says "material should not be removed solely on the grounds that it is 'POV'."

This has gone on for several months. The controversy was posted here on March 16, and one editor (Stephan Schulz) responded on the talk page, saying "I don't understand the NPOV concern." But that does not seem to have helped much - one editor said "it's just another editor's opinion."

I would appreciate it if some people would take another look and give their opinions. Thanks in advance.

— JPMcGrath (talk) 07:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Giving this a bump. I appreciate that editors around here are busy, but a bunch of us over at that article really could benefit from hearing opinions of neutral editors about this disagreement. Thanks in advance for helping. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 16:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Though I don't agree with the pro-gun editors, I can see how the title of the map in question, "Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence" can be seen as POV-pushing since it's so prominent. Would changing that first title part help? Or is there a neutral source for the same/similar map? I also don't see why there needs to be so many maps, at a certain point (say, after 2 or 3) they become information overload -- and certainly all together like that. -PrBeacon (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

How is the title POPV if thats what the campign is called then thats its name.Slatersteven (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Veer Surendra Sai

Resolved

The POV of the article was disputed in July 2008. I have attempted to bring a NPOV by removing several 'glorifying' parts. I need an 3rd opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenfyre (talk • contribs) 11:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

What you did looks great; you made huge changes and the article needed it because writing about rebellion in a war is an area that often gets biased reporting. I do not think that anything you did is debatable; it all needed to be done. Please post a specific question if you are looking for other input. Blue Rasberry 15:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

White Skin Privilege article still has unacceptable POV problems

User:MarieParadox continues to remove relevant POV-contestation tags despite the valid POV dispute I outline here and in numerous other examples of discussion-talk on this article page. I again implore various editors to come around to the page and assess objectively whether the article would qualify for deletion.

Further, it is one thing to refuse to delete the article and quite another thing to keep deleting the POV tags in order to ensure that the article appears to not be under dispute. It is indeed under dispute, and no single editor or group of editors has the right to make things appear otherwise. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The reason I reverted the edits is that Kikodawgzzz has been using drive-by tagging. Ze has been adding tags that presuppose that there are claims in the article that aren't supported by reliable, independently verifiable sources, but ze has yet to give a single example of this. Ze has also been adding tags that presuppose that the article is biased, presumably because it does not include the view ze favors, but ze has not been able to provide a single reliable, independently verifiable source to support hir viewpoint. (See Becritical's comment on the NPOV notice board and note that Kikodawgzzz could not even cite one reference that ze would use to support the viewpoint ze wants to include.)

I have on various occasions notified the other editors of my intent to remove tags (and then only after attempts have been made to address the criticisms other editors have made) and given them the opportunity to reach consensus on whether they should remain. [37][38][39] On some of these occasions no one has responded. (On one occasion Kikodawgzzz had an 18-day window of opportunity during which ze could have tried to engage me in finding consensus; ze only complained after the change had been made.[40] When I asked hir why ze did this[41], ze never gave an answer.) On other occasions Kikodawgzzz has been the only person to respond, but ze does not cite specific examples of failure to back a claim with a reliable, independently verifiable source. Instead ze makes vague or sweeping accusations about the entry. Recently when I asked for specific examples, ze did not give any and instead spammed the talk page with a word-for-word copy of vague, sweeping accusations that ze had already made before substantial edits had been made to the article.[42]

I think part of the problem here is that Kikodawgzzz has been making good faith edits to make the article conform to a neutral point of view without having an understanding of what NPOV means on Wikipedia. (Note, for example, that ze once used an analogy that presupposes that it would be okay to argue on Wikipedia that God exists, even if there were no reliable, independently verifiable sources that contained the arguments.[43]) Mind you, I'm not really sure why Kikodawgzzz does not yet understand this, because it has been explained to hir on various occasions that this is not how Wikipedia works.[44][45][46]

I and another editor have explained to Kikodawgzzz on many occasions that we would be happy to allow hir to include the arguments ze likes if only ze would provide reliable, independently verifiable sources.[47][48][49] Instead of putting us to the test and inserting sourced claims Kikodawgzzz resorted to accusing me and another editor of being "absolutely determined to control the article to the point where contestation of the slant of the article is written off as ridiculous".[50] Kikodawgzzz was once banned for abusive behavior; afterward Beeblebrox warned hir not to focus hir arguments on "the editors involved".[51]. Even so, ze has since returned to this behavior.[52][53]

In summary, it has been infuriatingly difficult to reach consensus on what must take place before tags can be removed, because rather than seeking consensus Kikodawgzzz has been making what appear to me to be passive-aggressive edits to the article and the talk page. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Dignity

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

This article is currently under discussion at Wikipedia:ANI#Dignity, which is where I encountered it. I bring it here not for behavioral concerns, but to address the core content debate.

The basic question, in looking at this version: is it an issue under WP:UNDUE to focus much of an article on a broad topic on the opinions of one scholar (John Romney Aldergrove)? More conversation about the question is visible at the talk page (including the viewpoint of the contributor who believes that it is not). I would greatly appreciate additional opinions there rather than here, so that the conversation does not further fragment. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Help with a NPOV on Armenian Genocide reparations article

Please help in the discussion on the talk:Armenian_Genocide_reparations#NPOV, as an editor claimed the article violating the NPOV but fails to bring other published POVs by WP:RSs and, by that, possibly violates the tag. Thanks Aregakn (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Hiya Aregakn I have used an edit first, talk later approach. If you have any concerns feel free to voice the here, my talk page or at article talk. CyrilThePig4 (talk) 23:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

LGBT rights in Brazil POV

I'm not active in Wikipedia politics or what goes on in the dispute-zone, so my apologies if I am posting this in the wrong place.

The article LGBT rights in Brazil has extensive POV.

Statements such as, "Shortly after electing Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva as that nation's president, to the dismay of Brazil's right-wing zealots, various states are now taking serious measures ensuring that no one will be discriminated against because of his or her sexual orientation" are found throughout the article.

Since I don't know much about Brazil, or especially LGBT issues in Brazil, I put a POV notice at the top of the article and put a not on the article's discussion page. The POV notice was quickly removed. I reverted that edit, and put a note not to remove the POV tag without discussing the issue on the article's discussion page. The POV tag has been removed again with no discussion on the discussion page. I do not want to start a revert war, but I have no idea what to do... HELP! --68.40.223.225 (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No, they're not allowed to remove the POV template until the dispute's been resolved. Further, these are living people we're talking about, so WP:BLP applies. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Should the Global warming article cover more than just the science?

As it is an encyclopedic article, Global warming is an umbrella issue covering the science of GW and the politics of GW as well as public perception etc. Judging from recent edits (like [54], [55] and [56]) and talkpage discussion (as in POV Tag and Recent removal.., it seems like editors there want to scrub it clean of non-science issues and/or offload the info to subarticles (like Global warming controversy and Politics of global warming and then pretend those are not a part of the overall issue -- perhaps froma sense of turf/ownership like keeping the science pure. One easy solution may be to create a new subarticle science of Global Warming. -PrBeacon (talk) 06:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not really what I would see as encyclopedic. I would expect something with the title "Global warming" to be nearly all about the science, with short sections towards the end linking to the relevant articles discussing the implications, policy considerations etc. I think you can find many parallels such as Sun, Iron, where the priority is to present the science but there are also a number of cultural aspects. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I support what Itsmejudith is saying because I also see the same precedent. I do not support the creation of a subarticle for the science of global warming because the scientific viewpoint is primary. You have my good wishes; I am putting a resolved tag on this because no question or problem has been stated. If you need help please return and state what you want. Blue Rasberry 16:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The question was in the title (previously, without mark). Though it may not appear to be a POV issue, I still think that the problem of editor ownership factors into it which is why I'm asking here for outside opinions. If there is a better place to start an outside discussion please feel free to recommend it. All due respect, user:Itsmejudith has already stated her opinion on the article's talkpage. And I don't think the comparisons to other articles like Sun and Iron are appropriate here, since those don't have similar public policy components. -PrBeacon (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

How about evolution or Oil spill? Both of these articles focus on science, with the former having a single section about cultural issues, and the latter saying nothing about political or cultural implications. Or otherwise, can you give an example of a science article which has significant coverage of non-science issues?

Even if you are unable to find an example of what you want, it does not mean that now is not the time to make the kind of changes you are proposing, and if you have something to say then I will help you to get comment. Right now I think this board is a good place to get opinions, and it is hard for me to say where you could get more comment, but the talk pages of other science articles which have social sections would be where I would look.

You gave some diffs and I read them, but I am not sure how you are relating those to your question. I see that people have tried to add things and other people have removed them. It seems to me there is already a repository of this kind of information in the extant subarticles which you mentioned. Without further explanation, I would not support the addition of only the info in the diffs you gave; there are lots of social effects, but the diffs you gave only focus on the reactions of oil-refining companies, and it is not clear to me why that POV should take precedence over the many other views which could be described. If I were to support any plan for adding info, it would be a summary of many social views and not just the isolated views of a particular industry largely based in a particular class of countries. It is not clear to me why the subarticles are not meeting your needs or why you feel the main articles are being scrubbed of non-science content when the social issues have sections with links to subarticles.

Could I ask that you summarize your plan for changing the article, or better, write a draft of a new "views" section in a sandbox so that it would be easier to understand what it is you want to do? Also, do you feel that I am understanding you? How much content are you wanting to add? Blue Rasberry 20:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism 2

There is (strangely) a dispute over whether there is a dispute over the neutrality of Anti-Americanism. I am not being allowed to put a "Neutrality is disputed" tag on the article. There is also a basic dispute over whether it is encyclopedic to call anything anti-American. I think it is obviously a political interpretation, a statement of opinion not fact. Others think it is obvious that (for example) if a country declares war on the US, it is factual to call that country "anti-American." That, if Charles Dickens says "The heaviest blow ever dealt at liberty will be dealt by this country [America], in the failure of its example to the earth." then it is factual for us to present that as anti-Americanism. I don't agree. Discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-Americanism#Anti-Americanism Noloop (talk) 04:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

From your link you state Calling the Nazis evil is also a violation of neutrality, even though we will all agree it is true. True ...but it does not follow that the wiki-article "Evil" should be POV tagged. CyrilThePig4 (talk) 11:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It would if it stated or implied that the Nazis, communists, and Benedict Arnold were evil. It could provided (referenced) documentation those are widespread or significant perceptions. But to essentially call something evil because the editors think so is a POV violation, no matter how obvious it may be. The same is trued of anti-Americanism, but the AA article suggests all sorts of people are anti-American, because the editors thinks it is "obvious." Also, because an AP article used such a label in passing, or a number of reliable sources you could count on one hand published a theory about it. Noloop (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

...if it stated ~~or implied~~ that the Nazis, communists, and Benedict Arnold were evil I would add a {{cite}} tag to that sentence. This approach provides more information to the reader. It directs her to where exactly the problem is. CyrilThePig4 (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Cite tags are for factual claims: that is not the issue. As I said, the article suggest all sorts of people are anti-American. That's the point of posting here, to get some feedback on whether calling something anti-American is a statement of fact or opinion. I'm not sure where you got the idea that the only case in the entire article concerns Nazis. Please don't edge the article into an edit war by reverting people's edits, particularly when you don't understand what's going on. The tag says the neutrality of the article is in generally in dispute because the neutrality of the article is generally in dispute. It is in dispute because of due weight problems, as well as editors' thinking that claims of anti-Americanism are statements of fact. Noloop (talk) 03:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Citing sources explicitly covers statements of opinion in addition to facts. I will not be editing the article again but my view is that the article is editorially neutral and you have not obtained consensus to tag the article. CyrilThePig4 (talk) 12:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You don't need consensus to tag an article as being is dispute. That would make no sense. The whole point is to flag it as lacking consensus. You don't add cite tags to statements of opinion. The relevant factual claim, in this context, would be that someone has expressed a certain opinion. Noloop (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Its true that if an edds thinks something is 'A' then he is wrong to put it in an articel. But if he can find sources that something is 'A' then he can include it. Now given the nature of the subject (something that is used as effectivlt an acusation or slander) then it is best if such things are attributed ('X' thinks 'H' is 'A'). The articel is not about what is anti-American but what has been percived as anti-American, anmd whilst I agree that some of it seems a bit iffy much of what you have objected to is sourced (and it does not matter how many RS you use, it just has to be multiple as I understand it, especialy as only online sources have been used in many sections). Problom is that much of it has citations, the cites material is being objected to as well as uncited (it seem to be a general (and long standing) objection to the page in general).Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

This is flatly wrong: "But if he can find sources that something is 'A' then he can include it." The policy on due weight says the view has to belong to a significant part of the community of experts. Most of the interpretations in that article have a number of sources you can count on one hand. And in some cases (like the nazis) there is no source at all--it is just an "obvious" opinion. Noloop (talk) 03:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Point one 'number of sources on one hand' refers to on line sources only, and then from one search criteria. A lack of sources on a google search hit does not imply a lack of sources (by the way how many books have been published on anti-americanism?). Pont two the Nazi section does not use just one source (though one of the sources ws removed by anotehr edd). If some more source for Nazi Anti-Americanism I can provide them.Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

A lack of sources in the article implies a lack of sources in the article. The fact is, most of the interpretations of AA given in the article have a number of sources that can be counted on one hand. Are you suggesting that our ability to imagine that there could be lots of off-line sources for a theory is grounds for including the theory? What are you saying? As for the section on fascism, the last time I checked, it had zero sources that made a significant connection between anti-Americanism and the Nazis. Noloop (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Without knowing what you are refering to its difficult to prove you are wrong, your response is too general. If however you are saying that becasue there are only half a donzen sources supproting the inclusion of material have you produced one that supports its removal by not covering the marerial. Have you in fact demonstrated that any of the material goes against accademic consensus by the porduction of source that ignore or dismiss this materail?

Sources for Nazi anti-Americanism.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Jq4FMb47AnEC&pg=PA167&dq=anti+americanism+%2B+nazis&hl=en&ei=3W4XTK_eD9TgsAat2czqCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=anti%20americanism%20%2B%20nazis&f=false

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=JcbLSEQQY04C&pg=PA111&dq=anti+americanism+%2B+nazis&hl=en&ei=YG8XTJSmA56ksQaoto3qCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFQQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=anti%20americanism%20%2B%20nazis&f=false

http://aei.pitt.edu/9130/01/Markovits.pdf

Will three do or do you want more? I would also add that as this is a page about what is in many resepcts (like holocasut denile and the moon landgigns being faked) a fringe theory, as such its a page about the theory, not one about America.Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Question on opinion in a biography?

Resolved

Curious if this line, unattributed and sourced, belongs in a biography? If not, how do I flag that sort of thing, or is it appropriate to just take the offending text out?

The text in question:

"Ever since finishing his run on The Maxx, Sam Kieth has become increasingly lazy with detail in his artwork. His take on Batman, Spider-Man, and even Ojo look as though he scribbled it up and had someone ink blotch it. Fans have taken notice and his fanbase has been declining."

The article (it's short):

Sam Kieth

Thanks for any advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldbenway (talk • contribs) 08:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - no advice. I have removed as unreferenced opinion. CyrilThePig4 (talk) 11:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Please re-raise the issue if you have further questions. I am tagging this as resolved. Blue Rasberry 01:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

WVWV (Wikipedia:Victim of Wahabi View)

On wikipedia,many Islamic article eg.Milad,are written with wahabi ]Point of View.Which have been sourced by non-neutral wahabi sites.many wahabis consider sunni muslims as kuffar/mushrikeen.Actually which is wise versa.

_Contribs Muslim Editor ^Talk 08:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Copied from Requests for Feedback, as it seems to belong better here. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Roundup (herbicide)

Roundup (herbicide) I feel that the edit represented by this diff clearly attempts to poison the well committing the argumentum ad hominem logical fallacy.

By 2000, a review published in a Monsanto sponsored journal conducted by Ian C. Munro (a member of the Cantox scientific and regulatory consulting firm whose role is defined as to "protect client interests while helping our clients achieve milestones and bring products to market" concluded that "under present and expected conditions of new use, there is no potential for Roundup herbicide to pose a health risk to humans".

I believe we can just state what the conclusion of the 2000 review finds. And then we can follow up with any criticisms of the content of the review published in reliable sources. We do not attack the man. We present criticims of the arguments put forward by the man.

Attempts to resolve this on the talk page Talk:Roundup_(herbicide)#WP:SPU have failed. Ttguy (talk) 11:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment Having an interest in Destroying Thistles and, having had a quick look at the article page I note that another study notes toxic effects are found on ... human ... cells in vitro ref. I do not know where these researchers got their funding from but it may well be relevant. Point is human health issues should trump wikilaws - we need to know who Ian C. Munro's paymaster is. CyrilThePig4 (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

If a company hires someone to prepare a report about their product then this should be mentioned. However, if a report is accepted by a peer reviewed journal then we may expect the peer review process to check for accuracy and we can determine the degree of acceptance of the report by reading subsequent articles that reference it. Since it appears that the report was peer-reviewed we should limit criticism of the report to subsequent peer-reviewed reports. Is there any reason to question the independence of the publisher? TFD (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I can see no reference to support that it is a "Monsanto sponsored journal". However, Dr Munro's job is to "protect client interests" - not to provide independent research and his COI should be noted. CyrilThePig4 (talk) 22:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The diff the OP provides shows there had been a reference supporting "Monsanto sponsored journal" but it, erm, died somehow. We all know about the revolving door concept. If Monsanto sponsored the journal, and/or Munro is a member of a scientific team tasked with protecting client interests, it's enough of a mitigating, consider-the-source kind of aspect to bear mention, though of course we need cites for those assertions. We don't, however, consider dead links to be like mere weeds that justify pulling out the entire connected structure of roots, the whole sentence or concept they once allegedly referenced. We put a cite ref tag on an exceptional statement that once had a ref that has gone dead, and allow it to remain for a reasonable length of time, so that interested editors may take notice and update the ref. Incidentally, it would be helpful if editors, OPs in particular, signed their posts so we know whom we're addressing. Abrazame (talk) 23:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of the dead link. I just used the way back machine to find out that Monsanto did NOT sponsor the journal in 2000- the year in which the disputed article was published [57]. It also did not sponsor it between 2001 [58] - 2006 [59] But it did sponsor it in 2007 [60] - the last year the Wayback machine has data for. So is is an article to be discounted because several years later a company sponsors the journal is is published in? I don't think that is fair. Ttguy (talk) 11:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Industry Sponsored? CyrilThePig4 (talk) 07:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm unclear on the bona fides of the journal (which apparently isn't being named in the text—do we have an article on them?), and the degree of peer review claimed or implied by publication therein.

I get that the author of the piece published in the journal worked for Cantox, a scientific-study factory committed to favorable outcomes for its corporate clients. (Reminds me of the financial industry ratings agencies.) Mitigating point against his raison d'etre, one realizes he's spinning his report in a way it will be most favorable to his client, Monsanto, and would not have sought to publish on a study approached from or headed in any direction that raised any concern about his client's product, so important to note that profound conflict of interest in the article.

The journal is less clear to me. Is this journal a typical venue for rubber-stamping their peer review seal of approval to by-design interest-conflicted softball studies? Or is this really a case in which a gold-standard respected journal peer-reviewed the Cantox study, which was then misused as supportive of this Roundup product of which this was only part of the ingredients? (As the allegation further down in that paragraph is that subsequent investigations found that Cantox had not been testing the combination formula actually used in the product the report was spun by Monsanto as approving, if I've got that right.) One might expect that a journal that wasn't normally manipulated (we'd call it mis-cited) in that fashion would somehow communicate, be it by letter to Monsanto or by printing a caveat in a subsequent issue of their journal, that the report they published should not be used as an A-OK on this combination product once the subsequent studies that exposed that detail came to their attention. (Not unlike one would expect the ratings agencies to downgrade an investment vehicle once they, ahem, "learn" that it isn't actually comprised of entirely AAA securities.)

So my problem with removing the "Monsanto-sponsored" qualifier from the journal would be, it's not a stretch to imagine that by the time these subsequent studies came to light, any unaffiliated journal worth its purported reputation may have been considering some ombudsman mea culpa on the study, when Monsanto steps in, apparently supplanting several other sponsors in the journal. (Going purely by your links above, I see a pattern of a dozen or more sponsors broken suddenly in half the year Monsanto comes in: 2001—12 sponsors; 2006—13 sponsors; 2007—5 sponsors plus Monsanto. Something is suddenly very different there that year.) The allegation is that they're still using the 2000 journal-published and ostensibly peer-reviewed study of this one ingredient as an endorsement of the whole product, even though it is apparently not a study of that whole product, or of the "normal and expected use" the Cantox man's language in the journal-published study actually states [meaning the conclusion he's drawn from the study was erroneous and overstated], and so Monsanto could be construed, in effect, to be sponsoring the lack of a retraction, even if not the original publication.

Full disclosure, I don't have a clue about the science, I haven't read the whole article, and don't know a thing about the latest weed killers as landscapers take care of my lawn, but am I notably off-base on my understanding of the way that looks? I'll grant you that the phrasing is not the clearest. It probably came about because Monsanto sponsored the journal at the time the editor added the point, and that editor probably had no idea about the 13 down to 5 plus Monsanto thing, but it's fair to note that their sponsorship came, again, six or seven years after the journal published the study they were still relying upon those six or seven years later yet which had recently been called into question.

The clincher? I go back just now to re-read the part about the subsequent studies calling this journal-published Cantox piece into question. The year they were published? 2007. The very year Monsanto moves in to supplant eight other sponsors of the journal. Dude, this is a movie script. Poison the well indeed. Abrazame (talk) 09:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not a study. It is a review of some 200 or so other studies. If the review was suspect then it should be quite easy for some one else who is knowledgable about the field to point out where the review is biased and faulty. But no one has. Save for a Greenpeace funded scientist complaining that some of the studies reviewed did not test glyphosate plus adjuvant. Usual tactic for people with no valid argument - attack the man. Ttguy (talk) 14:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting me, I didn't catch that it wasn't one study that omitted the entire formula to focus only on one ingredient, but one review of most of two hundred studies that did so. Do I have that right now? The text reads "mostly experiments where glyphosate and POEA were used alone, not as a mixture as in Roundup". So to paraphrase you regarding my parenthetical comparison, 'If the mortgage-backed security was subprime-heavy then it should be quite easy for some one else who is knowledgeable about the field to point out which investments were created to fail. But no one did. Until the entire world's economy was swirling the drain.' There are reasons for this, as I'd guess you know. I'm not going to suggest you are employing a tactic in doing so, but I would point out that here you call a Greenpeace-funded scientist "no one". From whom (and from how many) would one have expected the collateralized debt obligation whistle to sound? I'm partial to St. Jude, but Greenpeace, aren't they the tree-hugging no-ones who'd been shouting about how potentially dangerous for the environment deep-sea oil drilling is?

You're the doctor in plant molecular biology; I don't know if this adds up to meaning that Roundup is any worse than the next thing that kills stuff, but given that your question was basically, oughtn't we remove the factoid that Monsanto sponsored the journal, since it was seven years later (the very year the question arose about the studies and the way this company was using them to support claims that were not so—surely one doesn't pour their Roundup into a centrifuge and separate its ingredients), I'm just saying, peeling back the layers you presented, the way the details add up here for Monsanto the story is looking worse than that section was making it sound. I note that the current version of the article omits the "Monsanto-sponsored" qualifier from the first sentence. I agree that was clumsy and that a reader would likely have erroneously inferred sponsorship the year of publication, rather than the year the accusations against the journal's published study came out; I support the omission there at the beginning if later in the section we mention the fact that Monsanto began sponsoring the journal (which published the review by the Cantox man they paid who reviewed studies of mostly insufficient data of individual ingredients instead of the whole shebang, to conclude that a different formula was safe under expected conditions) the very year that criticism of that journal's publication first came to light. Surely you would admit that this, we'll call it coincidence, has an appearance of a direct conflict of interest far beyond the generic "close ties with the industry" as currently noted in that section, and more questionably timed than if they'd been sponsoring the journal since 1956. I say conflict presuming the interest of the journal is to have a good reputation for publishing neutral studies that aren't biased toward corporate clients (something you didn't answer in my previous comments but which "close ties with the industry" suggests may not have been so even before Monsanto replaced half their other benefactors). In 2007 Monsanto's industry rivals are suddenly gone as sponsors, but a "health sciences risk management" company and a "safety assessment and regulatory compliance" firm, as well as an "international scientific and regulatory consulting firm that helps companies protect their product at every stage of its life" remain.

I'll admit to being wrong about another guess. So 200 studies, reported on in the year 2000. "Mostly" not studies of the ingredient combination actually in the product. So assuming good faith, I thought, well, they must have been coming to market with, or getting FDA or what-have-you approval for, a new product that year or thereabouts, so who would have known to test for the actual combination in this particular product, maybe it was a groundbreaking idea to mix them. Then I catch in the article's second paragraph that the product was introduced in the year 1973. 200 studies, "mostly" not of the combination actually in the product, reviewed in a piece published twenty-seven years after the product was first marketed, but used to attest to its safety, written by the people most qualified to know their product's formula was not that which was tested in the studies they reviewed.

But that's not the kicker. The kicker is that the current version of the article (up till this post I had been focusing on your diff) states that the review in question was "written with the help of Monsanto scientists". I thought it was bad enough that it was written by this Cantox guy. C'mon, seriously? You gotta tell me you didn't know some of these details before you queried the qualifier. Abrazame (talk) 11:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

was "written with the help of Monsanto scientists". Since the article reviews unpublished data on the saftey of Glyphosate that were performed by the company they did have to have the help of Monsanto scientists. Again I ask - where is the substantial critisim of the actuall review. There are studies done on roundup formulations.

At least 58 studies Including

Aquatic Micro organisms - 4 species tested
Aquatic Macroophytes - 5 species tested
Aquatic invertebrates 12 species tested
Chronic toxicity to freshwater invertebrates - 2 species tested
Accute toxicity to fish - 16 species tested
Chronic toxicity to fish - 1 species tested
Amphibians - 10 species tested
Terrestrial micorganisms - effect on Nitrification, dehyhdrognease, urea hydrolysis and nitrogen fixation measured
Terrestrial and soil invertebrates - 2 species tested
Birds - 3 species tested
Terrestrial mammals - 5 species tested

I fail to see how the fact that there are more studies done on the actuall toxin in isolation makes the studies that found very low toxicity of the roundup formulation itself null and void. Which is what the Séralini criticism (and Abrazame's) amounts to. Ttguy (talk) 05:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Charles Darwin biography - English Language Page, first sentence, first phrase.

The first sentence on the aforementioned page is no longer neutral. There has been an enormous amount of debate on the talk pages, both in the archives and on the current one, but none of it has helped. It has in fact resulted in an even more biased wording.

A cursory comparison of the sentence in question with those in other languages clearly shows the bias of the English language one. Whereas the German, Spanish, and Latin pages generally show that Darwin proposed a theory, the English page claims he established facts.

I'm not trying to open yet another debate on the theory of evolution vs. creation. I think everyone on Earth can attest to the fact that this is still a hotly contested topic, so it's not going to get resolved here. I'm just asking people - especially those fluent in a foreign language - to compare the offending English sentence to those in other languages to see what the worldwide consensus on this phrase actually is. I've added three foreign languages I'm relatively fluent in as a start, in an attempt to show just how biased the English sentence is. Please add more with an English translation underneath. I'd ask that you please not manipulate the foreign language pages to reflect your own bias - just copy what currently stands and cite it with the "(ref)(\ref)" function.

English- "Charles Robert Darwin FRS (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was an English naturalist who established that all species of life have descended over time from common ancestors, and proposed the scientific theory that this branching pattern of evolution resulted from a process that he called natural selection."^[1]

This formerly had the word showed in place of established - also somewhat biased - however the most recent wording is even more so.

German- "Bereits 1838 entwarf Darwin seine Theorie der Anpassung an den Lebensraum durch Variation und natürliche Selektion und erklärte so die evolutive Entwicklung aller Organismen und ihre Aufspaltung in verschiedene Arten."^[2]

Translation- In 1838 Darwin had already drafted his theory of the adaptation of the biotope through variation and natural selection and thereby explained the evolutionary development of all organisms and their branching out into various kinds.

Spanish- "Charles Robert Darwin (12 de febrero de 1809 – 19 de abril de 1882) fue un naturalista inglés que postuló que todas las especies de seres vivos han evolucionado con el tiempo a partir de un antepasado común mediante un proceso denominado selección natural."^[3]

Translation- "Charles Robert Darwin (Feb. 12th 1809 - April 19th 1882) was an English naturalist who postulated that all species of living beings have evolved through time from a common ancestor by means of a processes called natural selection."

Latin- "Carolus Robertus Darwin (Anglice: Charles Robert Darwin ; Salopiae die 12 Februarii 1809–Cantii 19 Aprilis 1882) biologus, palaeontologus, et zoologus Anglicus, theorias hodiernas evolutionis et descensus communis via selectione naturale proposuit."^[4]

Translation- "Carolus Robertus Darwin (English: Charles Robert Darwin; born on the 12th of February 1809 - died on the 19th of April 1882), an English biologist, palaeontologist, and zoologist, proposed the modern theory of evolution and common descent via natural selection."

Tdbostick (talk) 10:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no policy or guideline that this encyclopedia needs to follow wording used in other encyclopedias; what counts is reliable sources. At Talk:Charles Darwin, Tdbostick has proposed using the word "theorized" as in "Darwin ... theorized that all species of life have descended over time from common ancestors". However, no reliable source using similar language has been produced. Darwin worked continuously for well over twenty years before publishing his "theorizing", and the scientific community quickly embraced Darwin's ideas (mostly within several years). The word "theorized" is just not suitable English to describe this situation; theorizing is something one might do one afternoon. Johnuniq (talk) 11:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is a reliable source from 2008 - Evidence and Evolution: The Logic behind the Science by Elliott Sober, 2008.^[5] According to Google Scholar this book has been cited 50 times, and according to many reviews it has been well received.

According to one review of the aforementioned book by John S. Wilkins, which appeared in the journal Systematic Biology in August 2009^[6]:

"Under the rubric of Modus Darwin, Sober discusses how similarity implies a common cause, but he is not so naive as to argue that all similarity will imply that or rather that all similarity implies a common ancestor. Instead, he discusses how natural selection of various kinds can cause similar outcomes in, say, genomes, which does not imply common ancestry but rather a common selective environmental "force." "

The previous two references call into question the theory of common ancestry. They are from respected, peer-reviewed sources, and they weren't even that difficult to find. "Theorised" is only one suggestion I have put forth in an attempt to make the sentence less biased. "Proposed," "posited," "drafted," "explained," etc. would also work, as can be attested in the three sister pages in German, Spanish, and Latin. "Established," as it currently stands, or "showed" as was in the previous edit are a little too strong, given the detailed critique in Sober's 2008 book and the good reception from peers it has received.Tdbostick (talk) 15:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

For some reason the references I've provided don't hyperlink correctly on this page. If you open the edit box, however, and then look for the text within the "ref" commands, you can clearly see where I got this stuff from. I'm still kinda new to editing Wikipedia pages beyond simple proofreading changes, so pardon my mistakes.Tdbostick (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not the place to debate evolution, but I will point out that your quote above states the obvious: just because things looks similar, does not mean they came from the same place (see convergent evolution for interesting examples of this). The quote does not disprove or even deny the truth of the sentence under discussion. See evidence of common descent for some very interesting background to how science knows that all life has a common ancestor. It's conceivable that some new form of life will be found, perhaps at a black smoker – life that started independently – but so far, even the molecules found in the cells of all the living creatures that have been studied confirm a common ancestor (see here).

Re references: On a talk page, it is best to remove the "<ref>" tags and the extraneous details of a reference, leaving just a simple plain-text reference. Something like {{Reflist}} is needed to make properly formatted references appear, and that does not work well on a talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

A computer programmer once compared genetic code to computer code on a very interesting website: http://ds9a.nl/amazing-dna/ , and even endorses Richard Dawkins' books on evolutionary theory, having used them for his source info. However by even making such a comparison - comparing the vastly more complex genetic code to something as obviously intelligently designed as computer programming, pokes a gaping hole in the assumption that "the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design" (R. Dawkins). There are plenty of books and articles out there that also question Dawkins' assumption, but the writers and holders of those views are marginalized and discredited for their 'religious' beliefs. However, since both Dawkin's claim that there is no designer and the opposing claim that there is a designer are essentially religious in nature, people will continue to passionately debate them, and the opposing viewpoints will affect how someone interprets the evidence presented by the life sciences.

I'm not trying to debate evolution either, but the evidence provided by the life sciences for commonality, be it in design or descent, can be interpreted in many different ways. I've read a lot of the pages people have referred me to and haven't yet seen anything that can only be interpreted one way. It simply requires having an open mind. The offending sentence mentioned many many paragraphs back, should reflect that instead of dogmatically assuming only one view - common descent due to a lack of a designer. Until then, people who don't hold the same philosophical/religious viewpoint as those who have insisted on the biased reading will no longer find that particular page to be very credible and will turn to sources other than Wikipedia for their information. As a final parting shot, what's wrong with replacing established with explained in the offending sentence? Come on, throw me an olive branch here.Tdbostick (talk) 11:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Stephen Ambrose

Stephen Ambrose is a prominent author of many books, among them "Band of Brothers." Recently he has been a subject of articles, most recently in the New Yorker, pointing out plagiarism and lies about the number of meetings he had with Eisenhower. These are serious things and there is no question that it has cast a dark cloud over his reputation. Obviously this has to be reported in Wikipedia, and it has. My problem is that it now consumes over half the space devoted to his biography. The largest section of the article is a three-part section called "criticism." Yesterday I raised the issue on the article talk page but not really gotten anywhere. Most recently I was told that the article must stay this way, grossly unbalanced, until the rest of the article fleshes out (if that ever happens), and of course if I want to flesh out the rest of his bio I would be welcome, but meanwhile the article must be in its present state, devoted primarily to describing the criticism of the man. I'd appreciate it if other editors could take a look at this article. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 14:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I have a similar concern regarding Doris Kearns Goodwin, where a similar situation exists. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 14:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I checked out both Stephen Ambrose and Doris Kearns Goodwin. You are correct in that the criticism sections are large and that they take up a percentage of space in the article that is not proportional to their relative importance. I agree with you that the articles ought not be this way, and that this kind of weight is somewhat a NPOV issue, and that this is a bad thing.

The solution to the problem would probably involve both condensing the criticism and expanding the rest of the article. I read some of the discussions which have already taken place, and if I understand correctly other editors have said as much, and above you also seem to be saying the same thing.

Until this happens, what is the problem with the article remaining in its present state? Is this not inherent to the nature of Wikipedia? What would you like to happen, or what do you think would be the best fix to this? Blue Rasberry 17:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The best fix is to fix the NPOV issues in both articles immediately. That would seem to me as being especially incumbent in the Goodwin article, as she is a living person covered by the Wikipedia Policy on Biographies of Living Persons. Both articles are dominated by editors who have little interest in Ambrose and Goodwin except to add negative content, so I see no other practical resolution in either the long or short term. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I also am of the opinion that the articles' current editors have little history of adding any content other than negative content. I agree that the articles are NPOV and violate BLP because the articles have too much weight on negative content. A fast solution to the NPOV or BLP problems would be to delete the negative content; however, the negative content is well-sourced and seems to belong in the article, just with less weight. I feel that it would be more wrong to delete this content than leave it, and I do not support that kind of fix. The better solution would be for some editor interested in the articles to spend a few hours balancing the criticism by adding good things the the subjects of the articles have done. I encourage any volunteer to add positive content to these articles. Is there something more that I can say or do? Is the NPOV issue resolved now? What kind of help were you looking for here? Blue Rasberry 21:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Obviously the NPOV issue has not been resolved because the imbalance remains. I agree with you that there needs to be a significant mention of the scandals, but at a proportionate weight. I hesitated to leap in to do the requisite cutting given the attitude of the editors on the page currently, and I was hoping that this notice would result in some positive intervention on the page by uninvolved editors. Yes, obviously fleshing out the biography is the best solution, but that is not happening, as evidently no one is quite that interested in Ambrose's life to do that work. So obviously the solution then is to engage in trimming of what is there now. If other outsiders are unavailable for that task then I imagine I shall have to pitch in myself, though I was hoping a more experienced user, and perhaps a site administrator, might be able to do that now that this problem has been brought out here. I make the same request concerning the Godwin article, though I think perhaps the living person's noticeboard might be the appropos venue for that. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

An inexperienced editor with interest in the topic is more valuable than an experienced editor who is not already interested. Please do not be shy. Be bold and edit the articles as you like, and then if you have a problem return to this or some other noticeboard. While you are free to post here or in many other places to ask for actual content writing, boards such as these are more commonly used to resolve issues related to specific niche questions, and unless you already know the board has an interest in your article and without you already being involved in editing the article it is unlikely you will attract a volunteer willing to commit the hours needed to make your project work. The article content does need to be expanded and the criticism does need to be trimmed, but if you trim, take care not to remove any sourced content without getting consensus on the discussion board. Based on what has already been discussed on the board, I think you would have an easier time making your point if you spent a few hours adding content to the articles before you started removing other content that has the precedent of community support.

As for you wanting an administrator's attention, you may want to check out this page to review what admins do and do not do. It is not clear to me that you have stated a problem that is likely to be resolved with an administrators help.

If you feel new to Wikipedia and want to start editing, you are welcome to ask me any questions on my talk page or if you want another sponsor then check out the WP:ADOPT section. Blue Rasberry 17:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea whether an administrator's attention is warranted by the imbalance of the page. In reviewing Wikipedia policies I believe there are two issues. One is that this article is a borderline "attack page," intended to disparage its subject, and the other is WP:OWN, in that policies are ignored by a small core of talk page editors. All I know is that there is an imbalance, as you acknowledge, and that the established editors of this page adamantly refuse to trim the disproportionately large Criticism section. The most active editor in that page just posted a comment saying, inter alia, "There is no agreement or consensus to make any cuts to the article whatsoever." See comments at bottom of[61]. The word "any" is italicized in the original. This is typical of the adamant refusal I've encountered to make this article neutral. As for adding positive material: I am not a Stephen Ambrose aficionado or I would be adding neutral material that the established editors have no interest in adding. I am simply raising this issue in what I believe is the correct forum, and if Wikipedia is powerless to addess a patently imbalanced article then this is Wikipedia's problem, not mine. I am not a relative of the late Mr. Ambrose, and if I was I would be very upset. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed this comment. It’s clear to me that you are well intended and a personally decent fellow. But it seems that you’re persistently going around to multiple articles where the subject of the article was found to have committed authorial/journalistic misconduct (Michael A. Bellesiles, Stephen Ambrose, Gerald Posner, Doris Kearns Goodwin, etc.), aggressively arguing that well-sourced negative material must be removed for the sake of “balance” (and that wording must be changed in a way that sometimes makes the article less accurate, again for the sake of “balance”). In general, I don’t see you adequately and thoughtfully listening/considering/responding to arguments and factual information given by other editors. I’ve made no edits to the Stephen Ambrose article myself. When I was asked by another editor (75.2.209.226) to review the article, I did so. Initially, the criticism in the article seemed slightly harsh to me (and I commented to this effect on the article’s talk page). But when I began intensively researching Ambrose, I realized that the article was actually a good reflection of the current consensus of historians (and of the media as well). Neutrality does not mean “equal weight to all positions”. Given how much energy you bring to this, it seems that it would be very productive for you to research the subject of the article and add information. Again, I want to emphasize that what I’ve just said is not badly intended – your personal decency is very clear to me. Best regards Eurytemora (talk) 10:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I went back to the history page of the Ambrose article and discovered that I actually did make one edit (that I'd forgotten about)correcting a typo on the page (i.e. May 27, changing the word "characterizing" to "characterized"). Eurytemora (talk) 11:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

In response to your inappropriate (WP:NPA: "comment on content, not on the contributor") remarks above: you have an acknowledged conflict of interest in the Posner article, in that you were involved in a crusade on the Internet to expose what you believe to be inappropriate conduct by Posner. As a result of that conflict of interest, at the request of another editor you voluntarily recused from editing the article itself and confined yourself to the Posner talk page. Your edits from the beginning, which have mainly been confined to the Posner article, have been problematic under WP:BLP, in that they have been confined to adding negative and controversial material to living people, initially from a blog [62]. It is precisely that sort of situation which led me to examine the balance of other articles, especially Ambrose. I'm always grateful for advice from experienced editors on policy, however, that does not apply to you. Please be mindful of WP:BATTLE as well as WP:STALK. I don't want to see you following me around with this kind of inappropriate commenting. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 14:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

We appear to have had an edit conflict. So I'll first reinsert the edit I was initially trying to make, then respond to your latest comment. :::::::P.P.S. Personally, I don’t think that the editors of the Ambrose article are even acting out of a motivation to “disparage” a “scoundrel”, as you essentially assert (here and on the article talk page). Rather, I think they believe it’s important to accurately record what is now known of Ambrose’s work – in part to rectify the historical record in light of his errors and apparent fabrication (especially given his vast influence as a popular historian). Some of Ambrose’s “inaccuracies” unfairly impacted the reputations of others. Personally, I don’t even view Jayson Blair as a scoundrel – but think it’s important in such cases for the problems to be noted, the record corrected, and that this information be publicly available (e.g. in Wikipedia, reflecting reliable sources). Eurytemora (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The kind of text in the lead that I corrected here, which was unsupported by any sourcing, is indicative to me of a lack of fair-mindedness. I haven't edited the article beyond that, because I have been told explicitly by the editor controlling that article not to make "any" cut in the oversized criticism section. While I see a WP:OWN issue here, I don't have the time or stamina to deal with this kind of situation. As I said previously, if Ambrose's heirs feel differently, I hope they do so. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 15:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I’m not following you around. I saw the Ambrose posting here a while ago, and decided to comment now (I hadn’t earlier). Before doing so, I checked your contribs. A comment of mine was apparently what first drew the Ambrose article to your attention. Most of my postings have indeed been on the Posner article and talk page, but other aspects of your characterization are rather misleading. I’ll not respond further here (de-escalation is what is required). Eurytemora (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct that a comment from you brought Ambrose and I believer the Goodwin article to my attention. I do not object to your commenting in this section. What is needed, however, is comment on the matter at hand, which is the NPOV of this article, and perhaps also the behavior of the established editors of that article. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 15:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

There are some personal comments about who is involved with what article above; I am going to leave all those aside and return to CheeseStakeholder's statement of two problems he sees. I agree that the article is an "attack page" in the sense that it is an unfinished article with more bad content than good, but this is the nature of Wikipedia. I do not believe that WP:OWN is happening, because I see no evidence to support the idea that anyone is preventing good content from being added about this person. I am going to simplify the case then check to see if we are in agreement.

Suppose some notable person lives and dies and then someone makes a Wikipedia article for them. This person has done good and bad things. Now suppose some editor makes a Wikipedia article about this person by going to reliable sources, collecting only bad things about the person, and creating a Wikipedia article with information about bad things. Everything in the article is supported by references to reliable sources. The result is that the article is an acceptable Wikipedia article, the article is POV, none of the information about bad things in the article should be removed, and people who want to include well-sourced information about good things would be encouraged to do so.

My opinion is that this is the nature of Wikipedia; there is no problem here except of the perpetual lack of volunteer action. The short-term fix to the problem is a POV tag at the top of the article alerting readers of a problem and calling for help, and the long-term solution is to add information about good things. When all sides have contributed to an article and one side oppresses the other, then WP:UNDUE applies and this noticeboard is a good place to sort the problem. When some sides simply have not attracted an editor to enunciate the position, then WP:DEMOLISH takes precedent.

To what extent do you disagree with my opinion? Does my example not encapsulate what is happening in this specific case? How do you justify your proposal to remove sourced content? Blue Rasberry 16:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid your analogy is flawed for several reasons. Ambrose has been dead since 2002, and this article has been around for a number of years without significant change in its imbalance. It has been in its current, unbalanced state for years, not days, weeks or even months. I went back and checked, and found that it had an inappropriately large criticism section going back to at least the beginning of 2008[63] and was not significantly better at the beginning of 2007.[64]. So it is simply not factually correct to imply that this article is in any way in a state of transition, and it is wildly unrealistic to expect that editors will be by any day now to edit positive or neutral biographical details.

You are also assuming that this article warrants a length that would put this immense criticism section in proportion. Clearly, based on the history of this article, there is no evidence that Ambrose is even important enough to deserve a larger article. I am not clear that there is even any sourcing for suc an expansion. He has not been subjec of a biography. I don't know if he has been written about that much.

Since that is the case, I see no alternative but cutting back substantially on the size of the criticism section. I don't think that a permanent NPOV tag is the solution, given the supposed centrality of neutrality at Wikpedia. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You have made me recognize the problems that my analogy has. I suspect that no amount of removing criticism will make the article completely NPOV because of the deficiency of positive content, but you raise valid points so I support your decision to explore making it more NPOV than it currently is by trimming or removing criticism. Feel free to ask for help here if you run into difficulty of any kind for any reason. I sincerely appreciate the thought you are putting into this and your willingness to talk things out. Blue Rasberry 01:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I’m going to add a comment here (though doing so is somewhat against my own better judgment – i.e. that I’ll get bitten).

>” I don't know if he has been written about that much.”

Take a look at Google. A search on Stephen Ambrose brings up “About 683,000 results”. Some of these are duplicates, but that is still a lot of articles. A search of Newsbank shows 12,133 news articles. LexisNexis also brings up a vast number of articles. And that doesn’t even count books in which he is featured. Stephen Ambrose has been one of the most prominent popular historians in recent decades.

It’s also worth taking a look at the content of the articles. [65] A large fraction of reliable sources are discussing negative material, though there are also plenty of positive articles, and articles with neutral information. That’s what I discovered when editor 75.2.209.226 asked me to review the WP article, and I began researching. Digging through the reliable sources changed my impression – from initially thinking that the WP article was somewhat unbalanced/somewhat too harsh, to concluding that it actually largely did reflect the balance of material now found in reliable sources. And my own impression (though I am still a novice editor) is that Wikipedia is supposed to reflect views roughly in proportion to their prevalence in reliable source material. Over the last decade, as more and more inaccuracies/fabrication/plagiarism has been discovered in his work, views of Ambrose have continued to shift. Here’s a somewhat typical current perspective piece. [66] Eurytemora (talk) 06:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Bluerasberry, thanks very much for your flexibility on this. I certainly erred in not more quickly pointing out the long-term nature of this problem. As far as requesting assistance if needed, that time has arrived. The article is completed dominated and "owned" by editors who do not want the criticism section trimmed, and their obstinancy and inflexibility can be seen by the stricture laid down by the primary article editor in his commandment here [67] that there is not to be "any" (italicized) material removed from this article. If anything, the position of those editors has hardened and become less flexible. The need for outside intervention in Stephen Ambrose is immediate and, in fact, years overdue. This article is an embarassment to Wikipedia. It is, as has been acknowledged, an "attack page." CheeseStakeholder (talk) 14:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Eurytemora, you are correct in that the proportion of extant negative material on the article's subject is larger than the proportion of positive material, and that the current state of the Wikipedia article probably matches that proportion. Measuring the ratios of extant reliable sources, like you did by using the document search engines, is a great way to determine whether an idea is worth including at all, but often applying these kinds of numbers as length guides for sections which everyone agrees ought to be prominently included may not support clarity or conciseness in an article. If what Cheesestakeholder wants to do removes bulk and makes the article more readable, then I would support maintaining a difference in the focus of extant reliable sources and the focus of the Wikipedia article. If what he wants to do seems to be removing critical information, then I would want to think more about the fractions.

Cheesestakeholder, I just looked through the history and it is not easy for me to see exactly what you have done in the past that was controversial. Generally in these situations, a workable protocol is that you make all the edits you want to make to the current version of the page, then you immediately revert the page to a previous version, and then you post a link to the WP:DIFF on the talkpage and ask for comments. I am watching the Ambrose talk page and will make sure that WP:OWN does not happen. If this plan works for you, let's do it and see what happens. Blue Rasberry 15:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I did as you suggest, though I think that it is futile. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell of the other editors approving of my proposed edit. They have the numbers so they can get away with it. They "own" the article and they are not going to let a trifle like WP:NPOV stand in their way. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 19:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:AGF and stick to talking about the content and not the editors. Let's go to the talk board there... Blue Rasberry 20:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Cheesestakeholder, I'm annoyed to find your comment here (19:41), having expressed support for the proposed edit on the article talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Your comment was an hour after my comment, and I was pleased to see it. Previously I had faced opposition to reducing the size of the criticism section, with no support and much against from every other editor on the page, which was why I came here. Other editors have yet to be heard from, including the editor most vociferously opposed, but hopefully this issue will be resolved. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Sir or madame, it would have been helpful to a full and above board discussion of this issue in this forum if you had at least had the courtesy to advise the editors that were already discussing it in the subsection you had started on the same matter on the Ambrose Talk page at the behest of the disruptive anonymous Wikistalking editor User:75.2.209.226 (who has now disappeared under that IP until he/she reappears with a "clean slate" under another anonymous IP), a discussion in which you acknowledge above that you were getting no support. (I will attribute this breach of etiquette on how the Wikipedia project works to your apparent lack of experience as a very new editor.) Today, through pure happenstance, is the first time I have become aware of this ancillary parallel discussion. For consistency, I have posted my reply on this issue on the Ambrose Talk page.

One thing I might point out here, however. Just because one or more editors who have have worked on an article for a long time and thus have very definite views on how it is constructed which they express vociferously does not mean that they are claiming "ownership" of an article. It is much more likely that they just probably know a lot more about the particular subject then you do and are familiar with how -- and why -- the article has developed over time. It certianly does not mean, however, that just because a new editor that lights on the article disagrees in one way or another and is rebuffed by those editors that the article then requires an "immediate outside intervention" to save it from itself. Centpacrr (talk) 04:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

This article is grossly inbalanced, and does require immediate outside intervention. I came to this noticeboard because this article has a substantial and I think undeniable NPOV issue, which is a criticism section that comprises over one-half of the text of the article, and because the article is dominated by editors who have refused to consider a reduction in the size of that section to ameliorate the NPOV concern. I think that this is "ownership" by any reasonable definition, particularly when expressed in terms of talk page posts that contain instructions not to make "any" reductions in the size of the section. I did not come here to find a new venue of discussion by the same editors, but to find "fresh" viewpoints. I was disappointed that only one outside editor expressed interest, but he is of the belief that my proposed edit is correct, and he also previously stated at the outset that the criticism section is too large. He initially felt that that problem would be rectified by normal procedures, by expanding the rest of the article, but I then pointed out that the article is stable and that there is no interest in expanding the noncritical parts of the article.

In bringing this to the NPOV board, I had no knowledge of any personal involvement of any of the Ambrose page editors in the subject matter, of the kind that you disclosed today on the Ambrose talk page. I don't know if what you disclosed, which is that your works were quoted in one of his books, rises to the level of conflict of interest, but I'm not happy with it, even though you aver that it was a positive experience with Ambrose. I don't believe that people personally involved in the subject should edit articles or prominently assert positions in article talk pages, whether their experience was positive or, as was the case with involved editor in the Posner article, negative.

On the talk page of the Ambrose article today you rejected my proposed edit, stating: "what has been called into question is not only the essence of his credibility as an academic historian, but also as one of the best known, commercially successful, and most widely read purveyors of American history to the general public, they require a far more detailed exposition and accounting to be both understood by, and credible to, the reader." That is your personal opinion, but I believe that reliable sources are needed to make such a sweeping determination, and I do not see any. I just noticed today that Douglas Brinkley, who is a noted historian, does not feel that the criticism negates his record as a historian [68].CheeseStakeholder (talk) 15:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

As Dr. Ambrose's decade long protégé and by far his closet professional colleague in the 1990s at both the University of New Orleans and Tulane University, Ambrose's handpicked successor as director of the Eisenhower Center, and his most frequent co-author (The Rise to Globalism: American Foreign Policy Since 1938 (1997), Witness to History (1999), and The Mississippi and the Making of a Nation: From the Louisiana Purchase to Today (2002)), Douglas Brinkley is hardly an objective or "disinterested party" when it comes to evaluating his mentor's work. I note with interest, however, that even Dr. Brinkley acknowledges that "As The New Yorker accurately notes, his work had flaws -- some very serious" but then implies that these should be overlooked because Ambrose was such a great "storyteller" by noting "I still consider Ambrose -- even with the recent revelations of ethical lapses -- an American treasure, our best campfire storyteller." The question is, however, are those "stories" historically accurate or embellished for dramatic effect? The latter may indeed be acceptable for a "storyteller" but certainly not for a professional historian.

As for the fallacies in the proponent's straw man argument for which he/she still seems to have generated little objective support, I have previously pointed thse out in detail on the Ambrose "Talk" page and so will not repeat them again here. Centpacrr (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

CheeseStakeholder - I just saw this: "I don't believe that people personally involved in the subject should edit articles or prominently assert positions in article talk pages, whether their experience was positive or, as was the case with involved editor in the Posner article, negative."

So now you're saying that anyone involved with a subject even tangentially, in a fashion that doesn't even violate WP:COI (i.e. doesn't personally know the subject, has never been harmed by the subject, gains no profit from edits, etc.) shouldn't even assert opinions on a talk page? And you're effectively trying to completely sideline a very knowledgeable contributor you disagree with (Centpacrr)?

Please try to build consensus and community. Seeking a larger perspective, constantly questioning the “rightness” of one’s own positions, trying to be inclusive of others, and looking for creative solutions, can, I think, facilitate that process.

As far as reliable sources that concur with the statement that "the essence of his credibility" has been called into question for Ambrose - there are many. I posted a link to one such source above, and I'll repost it here.[69]Eurytemora (talk) 05:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

* * *
To avoid duplication, please continue any and all further discussion of this issue here.
Centpacrr (talk) 02:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

This article is still in need of outside editors, to provide balance and neutrality to this article. We definitely have a great deal of fragmentary sourcing on complaints of a whole litany of things concerning Ambrose. The question is whether this article should treat Ambrose almost like Jayson Blair, as it currently does, without independent sourcing - not the impassioned arguments of Wiki editors - providing the basis for devoting the lion's share of this article to criticism/plagiarism. I agree with the above notice, and this is a request for outside editors, not duplicative argument here. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

This is misleading. I don't think any of the treatment of plagiarism/inaccuracies/etc. is lacking in independent sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

CheeseStakeholder, what exactly is it that you consider to be unreliable about the many sources already cited in the article? (Please be specific.) The "expounding" (as you have described it) by Wiki editors (including yourself) is all in threads which you started in this and the Ambrose article talk pages where it is appropriate for editors to express and defend their personal views in discussions on the topic.

At your request, Eurytemora and I have been searching assiduously for more sources that would support your contentions, but the more sources found in these attempts, the more Ambrosian "confabulisms" we find instead. (It appears he couldn't even keep the "campfire stories" about himself consistent.) As a published writer of history myself (and that does not mean my views violate WP:COI), I had always been a great admirer of Steve Ambrose. Now, I'm afraid, all I feel is royally duped. I really don't know what else to say except that over the past month I have become even more convinced than ever that this article not only does not violate the precepts of WP:NPOV, it in fact reinforces them. (NPOV does not mean it is appropriate to "whitewash" or "pablumize" the facts.) Ambrose was what he was. Unfortunately he was also very "good" at it so it took a very long time for the truth about his professional misdeeds to surface widely --and much damage was done in the intertim. As Eurytemora has done twice before, I invite you to look at "Bad history's impact corrodes public understanding" by James Palmer or any of the other sources that Eurytemora has posted above over the past few days. As an old broadcasting partner of mine once observed, "You can't polish a turd -- at least not forever."
As for your comparison with Jayson Blair, what the mounting evidence shows of many of Ambrose's practices over decades was far worse in my view. Blair's writings were temporal and could be used to "wrap fish" the day after they were published. Forty plus years of Ambrose's, however, persist in bookstores and the libraries of millions of Americans and others around the world were they will potentially continue to do damage to the understanding of the real story of America for generations to come. I'm sure that much of what Ambrose produced was correct and valuable, but so much more has now been demonstrated to be unreliable that all of it must be considered as suspect because there is virtually no practical way to tell the difference without meticulously fact checking it one's self. Centpacrr (talk) 07:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to insufficient sourcing about the impact of the plagiarizing on Ambrose's reputation, as was pointed out to you on the article talk page by another editor. I only see one source on that. Are there others? That's what we need, not the opinions of Wiki editors as to whether he is a Jayson Blair or not. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 13:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

See, for instance the following: [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], just to name a few, all of which contain one or more references to damage to Ambrose's reputation owing to his professional misdeeds. (There are also many more such sources, but I thought a Baker's Dozen was a good start.) Centpacrr (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:TaxonIds

Template:TaxonIds is problematic because: 1) against policies, especially [83]; 2) its application was discussed at inapropriate place Template talk:Taxobox#NCBI Taxonomy IDs. 3) Template would affect over 100.000 articles, so its all issues and also formal have to be solved prior to its application if any. For something such important will be necaessary at least Wikipedia:Requests for comment or Wikipedia:Mediation. --Snek01 (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, yes, I would also appreciate comments and feedback from the folks here. As Snek01 linked above, the discussion primarily occurred at Template talk:Taxobox#NCBI Taxonomy IDs, since the original proposal was to modify that template. Since then, the proposal has evolved to create a new template ({{TaxonIds}}), and this proposal seems to have broad support verging on consensus. The current plan is to find an interested bot programmer and to propose a trial with WP:BAG. Personally I don't think there is any NPOV issue in the proposal, but if others disagree then we certainly welcome the discussion. Cheers, AndrewGNF (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

This template can not be started to be broadly used, if it has policy issues, incompatibilities with guidelines, if it is duplicite with other template(s). I would expect the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of life. There is necessary to ask questions why the template is better thank other ones, how it should look like, how and in what extent this should be used, and so on. And especially it is NECESSARY to inform about starting of discussion at least all descendant wikiprojects. Not only inform about results of controversial quick work of less than 10 people about something which can affect over 100.000 articles. --Snek01 (talk) 10:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you're jumping the gun a little here. {{TaxonIds}} is currently mentioned (not even used) on a total of 32 pages, most of which are examples or discussions. Nobody is suggesting slapping this template on a thousand pages, let alone a hundred thousand. We're being bold and trying out different ways of linking to taxonomic databases. As the template appears on more pages, the more editors will be exposed to it and will either find it useful and beneficial (promoting its use) or dislike and bring up policy issues to kill it (and it will go extinct). We're not newbies here; we're not going to rush into something and get ourselves into a situation we can't fix. Wikipedia:Old dogs and new tricks suggests that if you think we're messing up here, you should try giving us enough rope to hang ourselves.

Now then, the issues raised. If there are problems with the template itself (design issues, policy issues, guideline incompatibilities, duplication), I think it would be best to discuss them on the template's own talk page. If you'd like to take the discussion to WP:TOL, sure, be bold and go ahead: we'd like all the feedback we can get for {{TaxonIds}}. I'm not sure why NPOV comes into this - and why, therefore, we're discussing this here. From our previous discussions, I got the impression that the NPOV issue revolved around us choosing a subset of all possible databases to link to, therefore biasing which databases Wikipedia readers are likely to access. But WP:NPOV (as I read it) relates to subjectivity in the language and the relative weights given to ideas inside articles. Every time a reference is added to an article, the editor chooses one news article, book chapter or research paper to cite - he or she doesn't cite every news article written on the subject. In the same way, we're providing the article editors with the tools to reference as many and whichever databases the editor sees as relevant to the article. If they don't think an article requires as link to biodiversity databases, they're free to remove the template from that page entirely.

Does that address your NPOV concerns? -- Gaurav (talk) 15:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

While I appreciate the desire to get input from as broad a range of editors (or ideally, readers) as possible, I cannot see any aspects of this proposal that affect the neutral point of view. Could you please explain how the template damages the NPOV that Wikipedia strives for? As an example, I recently wrote Hepatus epheliticus, which includes {{TaxonIds}}; what non-neutral point of view have I unwittingly adopted by adding the template? I don't understand how that article conflicts with the statement that "all Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". --Stemonitis (talk) 07:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, so I have started discussion. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life#Templates for external links. --Snek01 (talk) 17:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Keiser University

The article Keiser University shows a clear violation of WP:NPOV. The text seems to be written by the university itself and I was surprised to find that there was no subsection on the controversies of the university as there are on the article for University of Phoenix. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 01:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

We'll handle it in WP:WikiProject Universities. I'll post there if I get a minute or in the meantime you could. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It does not violate neutrality. It is just a thumbnail sketch of the school and criticism sections are discouraged: favorable and unfavorable information should be included in the relevant sections. For example, if the residences are outstanding or substandard, it should be included under the residences section. Also, when you bring an article to this noticeboard you should place a notice in the article's discussion. What the article needs is greater detail and more referencing, but this is not the correct noticeboard for that. TFD (talk) 04:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no harm done bringing it here. Like many university articles it was written up from the university's own sources. It's much better now that User:Nomoskedasticity has worked through it thoroughly and taken out the peacock terms. I don't see the point in lecturing the OP. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Dating the Book of Daniel

The article under discussion is the Book of Daniel.

The text under discussion is this one: [84]

composed, according to modern scholarship, in the second half of the 160s BC.

According to some users, this text reflects the position of consensus among current academical scholarship. According to other users, the "traditional" dating, supported by some scholars, should receive the same evidence, and the dating of the book should be presented as "controversial".

The dispute resolution process has been followed:
- discussion in the talk page Talk:Book of Daniel#Date of composition in introduction
- third opinion request
- request for opinion in the three projects related to the article.

--TakenakaN (talk) 15:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Human Rights

An editor who has not previously edited the article on human rights has asserted that the article "looks at the topic with rose colored glasses" could an uninvolved editor look at this article and determine whether there is any substance to this claim that I have missed? in particular whether there are substantive changes that could / should be made to avoid any appearance of lacking neutrality, thanks! Ajbpearce (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The objections are too vague and sarcastic to be useful, and seem to be complaints that particular cases that editor cares about aren't included (so why doesn't he include them?). I've only read the lead, skimmed, and looked at the Talk page. It is true that the lead is concerned almost exclusively with the West. Also, this is unsupported and, I think, false: "Human rights are thus conceived in a universalist and egalitarian fashion." Individualists, of which there are many, tend to have an anti-egalitarian approach to rights. Egalitarianism >> wealth redistribution (socialist). So that's too controversial to be presented as fact. Noloop (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Saffron Terror

There is a massive edit-war brewing there, with unsourced POV violations by (now indefbanned) sockpuppet SuchiBhasin and meatpuppets Akilash and DawnoftheBlood. Their edits [85] conflict with NPOV. Furthermore, the agenda of the editors ca be revealed here [86][87]. It is clear that they are not interested in wikipedia policy of WP:TRUTH and WP:Verifiability.117.194.198.217 (talk) 07:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not anybody's puppet, I have got nothing to do with any of the editors mentioned above. My proud contributions history can be compared with rest of the world.--DawnOfTheBlood (talk) 08:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
My IP can be compared with rest of the world as well--DawnOfTheBlood (talk) 08:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
This is the first time when I am editing this article. To be frank (I read some but) I couldn't even read all the contents, I simply noticed deletions by this anon and decided to intervene.--DawnOfTheBlood (talk) 08:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I simply respect wikipedia policies and I believe referenced text should not be deleted from any of the articles without reaching wp:consensus. And in regards to this article, I found it a little strange that this anon - 117.194.198.217 is ruthlessly deleting (please see..1, 2, 3) text + references for no reason.--DawnOfTheBlood (talk) 08:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I have already warned this anon against deleting referenced text and I hope wiki administrators/editors will be able to help him understand wiki policies as well.--DawnOfTheBlood (talk) 08:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Israeli settlements

An RFC has been started here to try and garner a consensus on naming conventions for the localities Israel has established in the Israeli-occupied territories. Outside input would be much appreciated. nableezy - 00:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read the whole page before committing yourself to a view as there are several competing proposals. Stellarkid (talk) 00:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

New Testament Christian Churches of America, Inc.

This page was deleted per an AfD. It has now been supplemented with additional sources and restored by User:Becritical. Concerns have been raised that the newly restored draft may be inconsistent with WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOR, WP:FRINGE, and possibly WP:BLP. Opinions are solicited.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

There is whitewashing of this article. The article as restored [88] accurately reflects the RS which we have, and the recent edits are whitewashing. The article had been deleted, but I restored it because these sources became available. The article as I wrote it is actually less negative toward the church than the articles. Please help restore this article to its proper balance. Becritical (talk) 20:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Are any of the sources RS?Slatersteven (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe so. I based the WP article on articles in the Dispatch. Their reporter did a series [89] on the church. That's why the article is here now instead of staying deleted. Becritical (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Help with Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell

I have been told about this page by Mysdaao he says that I should ask here for some help with the page titled 'Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell' as it is a total hatchet job it looks like it has been penned by either Alfred Donovan or his son John from the anti Shell site royaldutchshellplc.com.

I have removed some stuff but would like some help in fixing this.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajmeton (talk • contribs) 16:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The article is Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell and the COI editor is User:Johnadonovan. This article was brought up at the conflict of interest noticeboard, where part of the issue is being addressed. The article itself is almost totally written Donovan, so I believe we need a neutral third party to review the article and see if further cleanup is required. Netalarm^talk 18:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Having said that quite a few of the sections on old contraversies you have removed come from 100 years in Oil which was the official company history. I posted my copy to User:William M. Connolley a while back. He did tidy it up a year or so ago. --BozMo talk 10:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Ipuwer Papyrus

I've just tagged this article as it seems impossible to resolve a dispute I'm having with an IP (who thinks I'm a spook, a thug and a criminal, which doesn't help). There's considerable discussion on the talk page, but most of it is about this edit [90] where the IP involved in this dispute has reverted my edit. The last two large sections of the talk page at Talk:Ipuwer Papyrus really need to be read to understand this debate which might be unfair for me to summarise here at the moment. Dougweller (talk) 06:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

American bias in Special education article

I would be grateful for a neutral point of view on the article on Special education. The original article was written by American editors. UK editors are now querying the format and terminology used in the article which to UK eyes describe the situation from the American point of view and not from a global standpoint. The two sections in particular which are in dispute are "Settings" and "Criticism". These sections have been moved backwards and forwards between the US section of the article and the general introduction. There are many words and phrases used which are specific to the US (eg, mainstreaming, resource room, response to intervention, push in). The US also seems to have a complicated system of "regular", "partial" and "full" inclusion, which is difficult to translate to other countries, and especially Third World countries. It also makes it very difficult for anyone from outside the US to understand the article. The vast majority of references are also from US publications. The lack of global focus has been discussed extensively at Talk:Special education but no consensus has been reached on how to proceed. We need to reach agreement on establishing a neutral globally understood terminology and the use of suitable references to describe special education in a global context rather than from the American point of view. I have tried adding a globalise tag which has already been reverted once. Does anyone have any suggestions? I've also asked for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Education and WP:Schools but so far no one has responded. Dahliarose (talk) 11:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I have some sympathy with you, and I don't think the article currently meets the needs of UK readers, but I can also understand the perspective of the American editors. If you understand the education system in one country it's very difficult to get your head around the system in another country. Not only the terminology is different but also the concepts and the issues. I think the globalise tag should stay on and in the meantime there is just a lot of source research and writing to be done. You suggested on the talk page using UNESCO sources, and that sounds like a great idea. Gradually, you need to make this article into the general one, and take anything that is specific to national education systems into the dedicated pages. A "criticism" section sounds odd, in itself, to my UK ears. In the UK, no-one criticises the idea of special education. They might well criticise separate education in special schools, or they might criticise integration into mainstream schools. They don't criticise both at the same time, to my knowledge. I'd go back to WikiProject Education. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, the "criticisms" section doesn't say anything against "the idea of special education"; it reports exactly the type of concerns you name here (criticisms about implementation, primarily). If you haven't actually read it, then perhaps you should. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Dahliarose has repeatedly claimed that UK people do not use terms like "full inclusion". This is an unverifiable statement apparently based solely on her personal experience.

In fact, this claim is not only unverifiable, but is actually verifiably incorrect: Look at how many official UK government websites use the exact, quoted phrase "full inclusion"[91]. Am I supposed to believe that all of these UK government web pages were written by Americans? Don't you think that hundreds and hundreds of instances of the exact phrase might indicate that -- even if this fact is unknown to an individual Wikipedia editor -- people in the UK are actually using this term?

We've provided Dahlia with multiple examples of (for example) British professors of education, at British universities, in British academic journals, published in London, using these terms. But no matter how many examples we give, it doesn't seem to matter. Twenty years ago, Dahlia's argument was probably accurate, but these terms have since spread around the world -- as evidenced by sources we've already named on the talk page that show them being used in south Asia, Central America, and parts of Africa. Oh, and United Nations websites, too, if you want an "international" standard.

If there is evidence that English-speaking reliable sources are primarily or preferentially using some other term, then I'd love to get a list of those sources -- but so far, what I hear is "One Wikipedia editor personally hadn't remembered hearing this term before reading the Wikipedia article", and that isn't exactly proof that the term is American-only jargon. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I have not repeatedly claimed that the term inclusion is not used in the UK. I have no problem with the use of the word inclusion. My only quibble is with the multi-layered approach to inclusion (regular, partial, full, mainstreaming) which is currently used in the article which is impossible to relate to the UK situation let alone to that of Third World countries, where children with special needs are lucky even to attend school at all, let alone have any special provision provided for them by whatever name you want to call it. . This article is in any case not about special education in the UK or the US the but about special education worldwide. Dahliarose (talk) 00:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a shame this notice is even posted, because certainly there are many other pages where NPOV needs to be evaluated and this one doesn't fit the criteria. I say it's a shame because the person who posted this hasn't read the article nor evaluated the sources. How do I know this? Well, there's this [92], which was mentioned before (on the talk apge), without comment by Dhalia rose, that in fact shows that "inclusion" is used in different contexts, such as full, partial, etc. That these terms are not U.S.-specific. That they are used by publications and institutions in in U.K. Yet, this does not seem to sway her. She states it's "impossibe to relate to the U.K. situation..." If that is the case, I suggest you brush up on your research regarding special education in the U.K. That is why there is this [93]. I have noticed via the page history you haven't made one edit there. Hmm.You might want to start here [94] Indeed, professor Lindsay is responsible for some good research regarding special education services in the U.K. But, as with any educated, compassionate scholar, he realizes the concerns of a special educator are universal, and does not expend needless energy on semantics. Lastly, the U.S. system of special education is not confusing. I have no idea what you mean by "multi-layering". Certainly, if you have questions about each type of inclusion, read the article. Read the sources.

You say above "I have repeatedly said that terms like mainstreaming and resource room are not used in the UK, and that it is inappropriate to use such US-specific terms to represent the global situation." Wrong again. Please see [95] because there are over 61,000 reasons you are wrong there. Quite a lot of districts seem to differ from your reckless statements. And resource room? See [96] Again, take the time to read, research and then think about the issues before making statements like that. People have invested time and energy creating this article, using sources from all over the world, and it is not in good faith to assume U.S. editors come to the article with an agenda. Jim Steele (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Dahlia, if the UK really doesn't use "the multi-layered approach to inclusion (regular, partial, full, mainstreaming)", then why do those precise terms appear hundreds and even thousands of times on the UK's own government websites? Personally, I don't believe that it is possible for the UK to simultaneously not use these terms, and to use these terms hundreds of times in official documents. Do you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

As I have repeatedly stated this article is about special education worldwide. It is not about special education in the UK and it is not about special education in the US. The US and the UK are just two countries in a very diverse world. There are around 200 countries in the world. As local editors are only familiar with the education system in their own countries I have suggested that for the basis of the general section of the article we use sources which have looked at special education from a worldwide perspective rather than using sources focusing on one country in particular. I have provided a whole host of sources from respected international organisations which one US editor has dismissed out of hand and the other has ignored and refused to comment on. These sources can be found here. http://www.unesco.org/en/inclusive-education, http://www.unicef.org/RI_Review_2007_Dec_web.pdf, http://www.unicef.org/girlseducation/files/QualityEducation.PDF, http://www.unesco.org/en/inclusive-education/10-questions-on-inclusive-quality-education, http://www.eenet.org.uk/resources/docs/IE%20few%20resources%202008.pdf.

The "sources" you turned up which you expected me to review are merely Google searches not specific sources. In fact if you take the trouble to look at the sources you will get a very different picture. If the word "mainstreaming" appears in the search results it is often because this word appears in a list of references rather than in the main article. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have their own systems. Scotland in particular uses very different terminology from England, and they have a completely different education system. Some of the US terminology (eg high school) actually originated in Scotland. I'm not familiar with the Scottish education system but it appears that the term mainstreaming is indeed used in Scotland. If you look at a Scottish report such as this one http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/01/05142243/0 you will however see that the "presumption of mainstreaming" in Scotland simply means that all pupils in Scotland are expected to be educated in mainstream schools. This is completely different from the US concept of mainstreaming and just illustrates the difficulties of writing an article which can be understood by a global readership when the terminology is so different and different words are used in different countries with completely different meanings. If you are interested in the education system in England there are a number of OFSTED reports which provide a good overview which you can find here http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/Publications-and-research/Browse-all-by/Education/Inclusion/Special-educational-needs. The problem still remains that no source from a global reference has yet been found to back up the descriptions of settings used in the special education article to verify that these settings apply equally in the USA, China, India, South Africa, Russia, France, Germany, North Korea and any other country you care to think of. This is why I've suggested it is best to have settings described in the individual country articles. You have not explained why you are so against this idea. Dahliarose (talk) 09:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the differences by country section only have around three other countries. Including England, mind you, which you stated was not represented above. Your admission that mainstreaming is used in other countries like Scotland (which is, as you know, part of the U.K.) contradicts you're original point of contention on this board and reveals that you just can't admit when you're wrong. I'm not against the idea of descriptions of other settings Dhaliarose, if you'd take the time to look at my diffs through the history you'd see that was one of my primary focuses while editing. But you obviously don't take the time to do this.

I'll tell you what--you create sections for the one hundred and ninety seven other countries if you' re so determined for a "global view." What's that? It's a lot harder to create articles with sources then to criticize them, isn't it? And to ignore evidence when presented to you like it was on the talk page, huh?Jim Steele (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Dahlia, I completely agree that mainstreaming is not a term generally used in England to describe minimal integration of students with special educational needs into the mainstream school. But you're not complaining here solely about the link to Mainstreaming (education): You're specifically complaining about terms like full inclusion, which appear on hundreds of UK government webpages and in long lists of scholarly publications written, published, and read by and for UK professionals.

Here's my frustration: I say, "The term full inclusion is used by UK professionals, as evidenced by ISBN 9781853469374, which was written by an educational psychologist in the UK, published by a London-based publisher, and is crammed full of UK-specific jargon and almost entirely devoid of any references to the USA. Therefore, the term full inclusion is used by reliable sources originating in the UK."

Your reply is "'Tisn't either, because it's outside of my personal experience, and some reliable sources in the UK don't use that precise term (for example, when talking about things other than full inclusion), and besides, we need 'international' sources."

Fine: Here's a UNESCO report that uses the precise term full inclusion: "Full inclusion is what we all would like to see, but the way forward is not straight, clear or easy." That precise term appears "full+inclusion" more than 100 times on UNESCO's website, including definitions, descriptions, and approving statements. It also appears in statements from international partners of the UN, like II's "The United Nation Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) promotes the goal of full inclusion and guarantees the right of every child to attend the regular school with the supports they require."

I look at these international sources and conclude, "The term full inclusion is used by reliable sources like international agencies such as UNESCO."

You apparently look at UNESCO's website and conclude "The term full inclusion is never used by international sources."

I've given you more than a dozen example of the term full inclusion being used by reliable sources in Europe, North America, Central America, Asia, and Africa. Your response is basically that these sources don't exist, or that they somehow don't count because you have already decided that full inclusion is purely American jargon. How do I keep this from degenerating (further) into a tis/tisn't spat? Do we need an outside editor to say, "It sure looks to me like those direct quotations are from non-USA sources and that they contain the letters f-u-l-l i-n-c-l-u-s-i-o-n"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

As I keep saying over and over again this article is not about the USA or the UK but special education worldwide. You've completely misunderstood and misrepresented what I said. I did not say that I did not recognise the terms full inclusion and inclusion, and I've not said that these terms are American jargon. All I was trying to say was the structure of the settings on the special education article as it currently stands is not representative of a worldwide view, and the same applies to much of the rest of the article. The article does not simply talk about inclusion or full inclusion. It talks about inclusion which is then divided into regular inclusion, partial inclusion and full inclusion. Then mainstreaming is another concept altogether. You claim that this whole section represents special education settings in schools worldwide. Two other UK editors have already said that they don't recognise this even as a description of the UK system so it's just not me. How is this description supposed to relate to schools in Africa where children either go to school or they don't? Is going to school "inclusion", "full inclusion" "regular inclusion" or "mainstreaming"? I spent some time searching for references and have asked you to find references to back up your views but no one has been able to find anything to show that all countries in the world adopt a four-tier inclusion system as in America. In view of the difficulties in finding common ground what is the problem with having different sections on the settings for each country which seems to me to be the only sensible way of approaching this article? The idea of approaching the NPOV board was to ask for outside input not to have the same editors repeatedly going over the same old ground. These misunderstandings would be better discussed on the article's talk page. Dahliarose (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It's quote easy for whatamidoing to misinterpret what you say, because it's certain you aren't sure what you are saying. I don't think you even have a clear mission here. Straight from the talk page, your words "Inclusion, mainstreaming, full inclusion. These terms are not explained and I’m struggling to understand the relevant linked Wikipedia articles. From what I can understand it is only the US which seems to have these different levels of inclusion. If I’ve understood correctly in the US you have full inclusion and partial inclusion (also known as mainstreaming). Other countries don't have these distinctions. Hmmm. Since then a lot of research has been posted showing that other countries use the terms, but it hasn't sunk in with you. As I said before, you want to describe special education in Africa, go ahead and create that section. Still don't see that yet, though. It's a lot harder to write then to criticize haphazardly others work, huh? And you want to move this back to to the talk page... have you looked (or, more importantly, read) at the talk page?! You were the one who posted this in the first place! Really, we are sitting here in awe at how out of your depth you are. It would be amusing if not for the fact it reminds us how informed, serious editors are needed on the education articles and how they unfortunately attract the wrong people.Jim Steele (talk) 00:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you have repeatedly complained about your belief that 'full inclusion' is an American-only term. But to look at the bigger picture, there really are only a few options for educating students with special needs:

What actually happens to the student	Term experts are currently using around the world	Outdated UK jargon (can be sourced 1970s and 1980s)
Student with special educational needs is educated primarily (or entirely) with non-SEN kids/in the ordinary classroom that the child would attend if he didn't have any special needs	Full inclusion	Integration
Student with special educational needs is educated mostly with non-SEN kids, but partly with only other SEN kids	Inclusion (sometimes called "regular" inclusion or "partial" inclusion, if necessary to indicate "inclusion, but not 'full' inclusion")	Integration
Student with special educational needs is educated mostly with other SEN kids, but with some exposure to a non-SEN students	Mainstreaming (education) (primarily US) or inclusion	Integration
Student with special educational needs is completely isolated from non-SEN kids in a separate special school/unit/program	Segregation (except in US, where no general term for this apparently exists, and segregation means racial segregation)	Segregation
Student with special educational needs doesn't attend school at all, or is educated outside of schools (ranging from private tutoring to no education at all)	Exclusion	Exclusion

The lines between these things are fuzzy, and some countries draw the lines between categories in slightly different places; we're talking about a gradient, not a discrete system, and the first three options are about (substantial) differences of degree rather than type. However, every modern source that describes options that line up with this. It's true that some countries don't provide every single option on the list (Barbados, for example, is pushing the first two of the five, although they also have special schools), but no source I've ever seen describes more steps in the gradient than what the article lists, and no editor has ever proposed a sixth option, so I think we've got a complete list.

And, importantly, experts around the world have changed their language during the last two decades. I believe they found it important to be able to easily differentiate between the kind of 'integration' that means "This child is allowed to eat lunch with non-SEN kids, but otherwise never sees non-SEN kids" from the kind of 'integration' that means "This child attends and participates in every activity of the class that he would attend if he had no SENs." The reliable sources make these distinctions (especially in outcomes-related research), so I see no particular reason to revert to a 1970s-style undifferentiated lump in which the options were "SEN student's school has the same street address as his non-SEN neighbor" and "SEN student's school does not have the same street address as his non-SEN neighbor" -- which is all you can tell from the very broad classification of 'integration'. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a great pity that this has become a war, with long explanations on both sides. I've had a look through the main SEN policy pages for England and I can't find any use of this taxonomy. It makes sense to have such a taxonomy, and perhaps it is about to catch on, but I don't think it has in the UK yet. In the table above, the first three categories are definitely present in England. They would translate to: attendance in a mainstream school, attendance in a special needs unit attached to a mainstream school, attendance at a special school (which would be expected to provide linkage of some kind with a mainstream school or schools). I was surprised to see "mainstreaming" relating to the third category. I would have thought it was a more general term. But you don't see it much in the UK anyway, because we are awash with "mainstreaming" of another kind, bringing practices from one-off or pilot projects into the "mainstream" practices of the welfare state. When we had difficulties making grammar school appropriate for an international audience I posted at WP:WikiProject Ireland and a knowledgeable editor turned up within hours. Paging any Australian educationists.... Itsmejudith (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Judith for your helpful comments. I agree it is a pity that this has descended into a war of words. It's a pity that the Education project is so inactive. It would be particularly helpful to have more feedback and especially from editors who are familiar with special education in Third World countries. I will investigate the country and regional projects as you suggest. As you say, the taxonomy that WhatAmIDoing outlines seems reasonably logical. The point however is that the articles should not reflect our own views but should instead reflect what the sources say. Unless a reliable source can be found which describes the taxonomy in this way and confirms that it applies on a global basis then it becomes original research. I did previously spend some time looking for sources to support or disprove this taxonomy (or rather the version used in the special education article). The problem is that the available sources nearly all describe special education in specific countries without giving a global overview. The vast majority of sources also relate to special education in developed countries, and particularly the USA and the UK. Sources can of course be found to prove that words or phrases are used in specific ways, but just because a word is used with one meaning in one source does not mean that it is not used in a different source in a different country with a completely different meaning, as we’ve already seen with the differences in the use of the word mainstreaming in Scotland and the USA. The few sources I found (eg, Unicef, Unesco) that did make an attempt to give an overall picture were the ones I've listed above. Inclusion is another word which has multiple meanings depend on which source you look at. The sources from the UK and the US use the word inclusion to describe the education of special needs children in mainstream schools as opposed to special schools. The sources referring to Third World countries use the word inclusion to mean that such children receive some form of education as opposed to receiving none at all. As an example, this source http://www.eenet.org.uk/resources/docs/IE%20few%20resources%202008.pdf, where the author has been spent time reviewing education in a variety of countries, defines inclusive education in the following terms: "Inclusive education refers to a wide range of strategies, activities and processes that seek to make a reality of the universal right to quality, relevant and appropriate education." She goes on to say: "Many opinions exist as to the meaning of inclusive education and how it can be applied in practice." This all rather suggests to me that it will be impossible to reach a consensus. The settings section is also just one of the many problems with the article as it currently stands! Dahliarose (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope there'll be some more comments here on this board, which might introduce a perspective none of us have thought of yet. In the meantime, I'll follow the discussion back to the talk page of the article, because this is an issue I have a bit of interest in and I hope to be able to engage with the sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I've now added requests for input on the respective Wiki projects for Africa and Australia. Let's hope someone responds, and provides a different perspective. Dahliarose (talk)

I think it's a good idea to get some perspectives on this article. Hopefully, these people will take the time to read what others have posted. By the way, there is no "edit war" going on here. In fact, I think this long thread is an example of how important it is to have informed editors working on this article. I keep requesting you make sections (like there are for the U.K.) on the special education article. But you keep making excuses why you can't. You say "inclusion" is "American jargon." Then, presented with facts to the contrary you backpeddle. Now, you say "resource room" is American jargon, a term used only in the U.S. Despite [97] Yawn. Lastly, I really can't keep a dialogue with someone who says:"Sources can of course be found to prove that words or phrases are used in specific ways, but just because a word is used with one meaning in one source does not mean that it is not used in a different source in a different country with a completely different meaning." Yeah, you said that. And I have no idea what it means. Hopefully, you do. But I'm surmising it has something to do with your circular reasoning. Who knows. You still don't understand the purpose of Wikipedia, do you?(you seemed to ignore--it's O.K. we're used to it by now--when whatamidoing said Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a terminology guide.

The purpose of this article is to tell readers "what happens to school-age children with disabilities", not "what jargon is used by professionals in each country to describe what happens to these children". Jim Steele (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Jim, If you actually take the trouble to read the results of your Google searches you will see that resource room in the UK means something completely different to the way that you use it in the US. It is a room where teaching resources are stored (ie, paperwork, equipment, etc) as is made clear in this reference:

http://www.northlanarkshire.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=5753 which specifically states. The reception is bright and airy with a large administration office, head teacher's room and medical room located nearby. There is a separate resource room where all the teaching materials are located." Words and phrases in American English and British English can often have very different meanings. Dahliarose (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Um, I didn't mean every result Dhalia. Let me break this down for you as you seem to still be figuring out things here on Wikipedia. This [98] taken from the trouble of reading sources on Google, shows what I'm talking about. It's from a school outside of the U.S. They are using resource room in the same way it is used in the U.S.So, how's your research going? Because all we've seen from you is an obscure document from UNESCO that pertains to human rights more than education, and nothing, nothing proving your claim that resource room (previously inclusion) is "U.S. specific jargon." You're all talk, and it's frustrating because we need people who can back up claims with research and sources. I'm going to repeat what was said to your earlier, because I'm sure if you read it enough you'll understand: Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a terminology guide.

The purpose of this article is to tell readers "what happens to school-age children with disabilities", not "what jargon is used by professionals in each country to describe what happens to these children'Jim Steele (talk) 01:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you are taking that policy a bit too seriously. If a rule prevents an article from being described in a global perspective, then the ignore all rules applies. Seriously, stop repeating the same reasons over and over. It's not helpful to improving the article. 198.38.10.1 (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's possible to take a rule that's so important too seriously. I guess that is a matter of opinion, but the policy stands. I think is is a good policyone that is applicable to this debate: Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a terminology guide. And the rule actually doesn't prevent the artilce from being described in a gloabl perspective, it actually encourages it. Take a read through the thread, diffs and history, inform yourself then get back to me on improving the article. Because as with all others it is a work in progress.Jim Steele (talk) 00:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Since this was raised I've been engaging in the article, but I haven't been able to move it forward much. It could do with some more non-involved eyes on it. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Since two other editors have already expressed that the article is not in a neutral point of view, can we just close this? I don't think more bickering on this section is needed. I would suggest following the other steps in the dispute resolution process. 198.38.10.1 (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, article is making progress now, thanks in particular to User:WhatamIdoing. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Labor unions in the United States NPOV edit war

This concerns the article Labor unions in the United States. Differences can be seen here. This article has existing NOPV and verifiability issues already. LrdSothe is a user whose sole contributions to Wikipedia thus far consist of editing this article, and reverting edits to this article. LrdSothe's edits are largely, I believe, in clear violation of NPOV and verifiability guidelines. Two other editors agree (including one who has never edited this article), and have reverted LrdSothe's edits. LrdSothe has been alerted to these problems, but has engaged in edit warring and violated the three-revert rule. A discussion of LrdSothe's edits, and how LrdSothe could contribute constructively under Wikipedia guidelines can be found on the article's Talk page here. LrdSothe appears to wish to make arguments in the edit summaries on the article's History page rather than discuss the issue. LrdSothe impugns the motives of other editors (see comments on my Talk page regarding this issue), and clearly wishes to push a single, NPOV viewpoint which LrdSothe considers "not lies". (There is a possibility of sockpuppetry as well. Note that two Anonymous IP reversions, both from the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, area, have reverted edits in the same manner as LrdSothe.) The article must be improved; unfortunately, LrdSothe's way is not the way to go about doing so. Input on the article Talk page is encouraged, to help guide all editors in avoiding NPOV in this article. Thank you!! - Tim1965 (talk) 02:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is one of the edits made by LrdSothe: "Rather than working hard, going to school, and gaining a skill that was marketable and in demand, all one needed to do was enter a union...."[99] That is clearly biased editing, and is not properly sourced. While the IP is probably the same person (probably from work and home) you need to show that it was used to evade a block or to violate 3RR, which does not appear to be the case. The best approach is probably to get other editors to pay attention to watch the article, either through a noticeboard or RfC and this editor will either tire or get blocked. TFD (talk) 05:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Walam Olum

The article on the Walam Olum asserts that Joe Napora recanted, even though Joe Napora stated: "I never recanted anything."

One Editor continues to block and delete content that does not square with his personal views.

The Walam Olum article does not acknowledge the personal opinions presented are opinions. The NPOV policy states in Bold : Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves.

As such, the article should acknowledge Oestricher's opinion as opinion, not assert his opinion as a fact.

The evidence of trying to resolve this dispute is shown here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWalam_Olum&action=historysubmit&diff=355008936&oldid=355007574

       Some more of the recent and relevant sources to add a Neutral point of view include:
       1. American Literature History, Andrew Newman, 2010

           "In what is probably the capstone of the Walam Olum’s publication history as an authentic
           document—postdating Oestreicher’s debunking—it appears
           as the longest selection of the Multilingual Anthology of American
           Literature: A Reader of Original Texts with English Translations
           (2000), edited by Marc Shell and Werner Sollors

               Dennis Tedlock ... comparing it to apparently related forms such as
               the Ojibwa Midewin Birchbark scrolls

       2. The multilingual Anthology of American Literature by Shell and Sollors, 2000
       3. McCutchen's The Red Record, 1993
       4. CA Weslager's The Delaware Indians, 1972  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.36.249 (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Copying an earlier discussion from the talk page:

Newman's article is explicitly an examination of a literary hoax that was accepted for a long time: after discussing briefly the publication in "several prestigious literary journals" of some poetry that should have been recognisd easily as a hoax, he writes "In this essay, also with the benefit of hindsight, I use the longstanding acceptance of an earlier work of apocrypha as a similar occasion for critique." He uses the 'capstone' publication [ie the Walam Olumas a major example, the culmination/capstone of almost 2 centuries of acceptance of this hoax. Dougweller (talk) 05:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

As someone who was once taken in by the Walam Olum and cited it in print, I have to agree with Doug's comment on it and on his understanding of Newman's article. Nowhere does Newman imply the Walam Olum was an authentic document; Newman is commenting on Shell and Sollors' presentation of it as if it were an authentic document. Since User:71.81.36.249 has now removed this misleading passage from the article, I won't continue the discussion any further. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC), revised 20:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is what I and another editor have reverted recently: [100]. The article makes clear that there has been controversy, and the lead should, as my edit summary says, reflect the article. This is a disgruntled pov editor with a long history of being reverted by various editors when posting as an IP and before that with an account as Marburg72. The talk page was archived but I have de-archived it. Note also that the article does not say that Napora recounted (this was also discussed on the talk page). Dougweller (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

As another participant in the debate, I'd have to agree that the replacement of "evidence" by "opinion" misses the point. Oestreicher found evidence, in Rafinesque's original manuscripts and elsewhere, and made deductions from that evidence, with which others reading his work have tended to agree. David Trochos (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The current lede is good in that it points out how controversial the document has been (that's inarguable), and evenhandedly mentions that it could be based on tribal oral history. It doesn't say that the document is assuredly, without any doubt by anyone, a hoax; although the majority of readers see it as such. -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

As Newman pointed out, Rafinesque was clear about how he translated the original document.

"My process is similar to

that of Cuvier and the modern Paleontologists, who restore

extinct animals by the fragments of their bones. I do the

same with extinct languages by fragments of their words and

elements, discovered and put together. (28)"

Thus Rafinesque may have imagined that the scientific community

owed him appreciation for his reconstruction of a lost masterpiece."

And Boewe did not agree with Oestreicher's opinion.

"Moreover, while Boewe feels that Rafinesque is too humorless

to have produced a hoax, the Walam Olum bespeaks a seriousness

of purpose that goes beyond the personal and pecuniary

ambitions to which Oestreicher and Warren persuasively attribute

it (Warren 154; Oestreicher, “Unmasking” 16–21; “Tale” 7–9)."

Also, Squier stated that the document is not Apocryphal in his traditions of the Algonquians.

Newman continued "The reception of the Walam Olum among the Delawares

themselves is one of the most poignant and still conflictive aspects

to its reception history. The susceptibility of some was indeed an

indication of the faltering transmission of their cultural heritage,

caused by territorial dispossession and the associated pressures to

adapt to the majority culture. Richard Calmit Adams, a Delaware

who tirelessly served his people as a legal advocate during the

period of the Dawes Act (1887–1934), also attempted to restore

their history by recording oral histories and mining Euro-American

ethnographic sources. In A Brief History of the Delaware Indians

(1906) he clearly articulated the relation between his two endeavors:

“my effort is only to produce a brief and accurate sketch of

the history of my people, at the time when the last bond uniting

them in tribal relations is being severed by the action of the

General Government in segregating their lands, allotting them in

severalty, and thereby rendering them in all respects citizens of the

United States” (2).

In relating the Delaware’s “legendary period,” Adams

excerpts long passages from Rafinesque’s principle source for the

Walam Olum narrative, John Heckewelder’s History, Manners and

Customs of the Indian Nations who Formerly Inhabited

Pennsylvania and the Neighboring States (1819) (Adams 2–4).

Perhaps cautiously, he relegates his discussion of the Walam Olum

itself to a long footnote in his appendix, where he pronounces it “a

most interesting and instructive legend of the Lenni Lenapi.” He

refers readers to Brinton, and expresses gratitude to Rafinesque for

“the preservation and first translation of a document that presents

the traditions of the Delawares in regard to the Creation and

Ontogeny, of the Deluge, of the passage to America, arrival in

America, settlement in Ohio, from Ohio to the Altantic States, and

back to Missouri.” In other words, to the native historian as well

as the non-Indian ethnohistorian, the Walam Olum is a tantalizing

representation of cultural continuity. Adams gestures subtly at an

authenticity controversy, declaring that “[w]hatever its origin, the

Walam Olum is a most ingenious work, consistent with itself, and

its principal statements supported from other sources” (54–55)."

FoxNews - lead barely mentions controversy

I believe that the current lead at Fox News Channel inadequately summarizes notable controversies and criticisms. From the second paragraph:

Many observers have asserted that both Fox's news reporting and its political commentary promote conservative political positions. ^{[101] [102] [103] [104]} Fox News Channel denies any bias in its news reporting and maintains that its political commentary and news reporting operate independently of each other. ^{[105] [106] [107]}

My take on that: one sentence merely uses the term 'conservative' then the next counters alleged bias, even though the first sentence barely suggests bias. The following appears to be past consensus at the talkpage FAQ:

per WP:Lead - Appropriate to overview the controversies / allegations of bias.
in re "Many observers" - Critics are sufficiently numerous that elevating a single critic or source gives it undue weight and is in compliance with the accepted exceptions to WP:WEASEL.
The lead should only briefly summarize the notable controversies. See the FAQ for more info, in particular on alleged bias.

Previous discussions: See archives 21, 19, 18, 17, 16 (Includes RfC) and 15. -also 23 & 25

I opened a discussion about this at Talk:FNC-Intro.. butsome others there disagree, apparently ignoring past consensus. One says the lead is the result of past compromise, even though it does not reflect the FAQ points.
Based on text that was already in the Criticism and controversies section, I made the following change [108]:

Many observers have asserted that both Fox's news reporting and its political commentary promote conservative political positions at the expense of neutrality.

but it was quickly reverted by 2 editors [109] [110] (the first revert was a failed attempt, using a different edit). PrBeacon (talk) 05:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It's clear from the body of the article that there have been a lot of voices saying that this news channel represents a conservative viewpoint. The current administration of the USA, no less. The lead para does not have to go into any detail on it and does not need to be referenced because the main body text should be fully referenced. For the lead, I would say that something like "many commentators have said that the station represents a conservative viewpoint". It should probably come higher up before some of the other detail. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I've done a lot of leads, and they should be thorough as well as interesting. There's room to add at least one detail to back up the vague comment about accusations of conservative bias. Leadwind (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

And what would you add? How are you going to pick between the many things that people on the left have a problem with? Are you suggesting leaving the existing phrase and adding a "for example" or "such as" type wording? Because such an approach will result in examples in the lead that provide the FNC point of view that they are balanced resulting in a bloated POV description. Furthermore, you do realize that this will, by extension, open up CNN, MSNBC, and so forth for the same kind of pov of view introduction. FNC does not exist in a vacumn, and to treat FNC differently than the others, regardless of WP:OTHERCRAP will result in a battleground. Arzel (talk) 03:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

". . . as exemplified in its promotion of the Tea Party movement and its subsequent coverage of it"? Tom Reedy (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

That is not a strictly conservative movement, it is more of a libertarian movement (ie small government). And is really more of a reflection of the left's hatred of the Tea Party Movement. What diferentiates this from the left's belief that FNC supported the Iraq War? Or the left's belief that FNC supported Bush 43, or the many other things for which the left dislikes FNC.....To which the corresponding response from FNC would be that other news media portrayed the Tea Party (or whatever) with a strong bias against and that FNC is the only station to provide coverage to the other side. Regardless of what you choose, you will have issues of recentism. Certainly the left is currently up in arms about the Tea Party or perhaps about perception of the treatment of Obama (compared to perception of fawning by the rest). But during the Bush years the left was absolutely enraged by the perception that FNC was promoting the war in Iraq. All of that aside, if you include specific issues, then you will have to clarify just who was critical. Arzel (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not the place to proselytize, and using such charged language does you no service on a POV noticeboard. What is undeniable is that the Tea Party began and was promoted on the Fox news channel. Any article about a contemporary television network will have problems with recentism. You might want to check around for neutral sources such as factcheck.org/ or pewresearch.org/Tom Reedy (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The Tea Party began on Fox News? Really? Now who is proselytizing? As for your second point. Articles are to be written from a historical context, not what is currently driving partisan conjecture. Arzel (talk) 00:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks that way to me, but I'm no authority. I was merely suggesting an example. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem with this article is that it overly relies on questionable sources for allegations of bias by Fox, notably from its competitors, rather than using high quality reliable sources, such as articles in peer-reviewed journals about the media. The first sentence for example is sourced to a movie review of Outfoxed, a news story about the OJ Simpson book, a broken link to Politico, and an article in Slate. It is wrong to back up a claim that "Many observers have asserted...." by providing many sources. You need a source that says "many observers" and even then must be cautious per WP:Weasel. TFD (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Critics don't have to be neutral to be reliable, but I agree that the lead could be better sourced. There is more criticism at the FNC controversies article which might be satisfactory: Report on American Journalism and conservative Jonah Goldberg writing for the LA times, to name just two. -PrBeacon (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Once again Arzel uses the faulty tactic of putting words into others' mouths then arguing against those words. The lead can be improved with further detail about FNC's bias without using specific examples. PrBeacon (talk) 01:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you ever considered that they just report the news? They are normal people, not pompous, bloated liberals who think that everyone's too stupid to make their own decisions. The reason that it seems to have some kind of bias against left wing politics is because (and this is FACT) whenever these ideals are picked apart for details and facts, there are no valid points. Left-wing politics appeals to emotion, not logic. They use every dirty trick in the book to discredit anyone who opposes them, and will use any kind of activism to get what they want. Feminism, the majority of environmentalism,"Change",and even the minority rights movements today, I'm sorry to say this, but the left DOES NOT CARE about any of these movements, they USE these movements to force people to agree with them, or be called a racist or hatemonger. Hyblackeagle22 (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hyblackeagle22, I can sympathise with your opinions, but to be frank: Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs that you see are being perpetrated, despite the fact that others may appear to be doing so. Please calm down and address issues within the frame of Wikipedia policy (they do make the rules here after all), and try to be sure that things stay as neutral as we can make them. Good luck and happy editing! Rapier (talk) 18:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Second that.

--Ludwigs2 18:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, forgot that wiki isn't a political debate forum.:P Hyblackeagle22 (talk) 13:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

DISABLED MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT IN ENGLAND NOW DECEASED

Laurie Pavitt who represented Brent South, up until 1987 in Westminster serving the Labor Party and having many questions for Mrs. Thatcher when she led the country, was profoundly deaf and that is why I as a distant relative by marriage would like to see him included in the Disabled section of Members of Parliament. Especially as he was credited with bringing in the 2009 Disability Act For England after he died in 1989! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cairrots (talk • contribs) 22:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I was able to find Wikipedia's article about Laurence Pavitt. It doesn't mention his deafness, but as long as that can be cited to a reliable source, the information can and should be added to that article. However, I wasn't able to find the place you wanted to add his name- I looked at Members of Parliament and also searched for List of disabled members of parliament, but neither of those seems to be the right place. Can you provide a link to the place you wanted him included? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

His entry in "Who Was Who" says that he was Vice-President of the British Association for the Hard of Hearing and a member of the Hearing Aid Council. Bluewave (talk) 14:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism, Part 3

80% of the sources and 90% of the text in this article consists of Americans accusing non-Americans of anti-Americanism. A large portion of the article consists of Anglos calling non-Anglo cultures anti-American. Half the text and well over half the sources are white vs. non-white. They consist of Americans calling Middle Easterners anti-American, and Latin Americans anti-American, and Japanese anti-American. Given the demographics of conservative politics its a fair educated guess that this amounts to white people making accusations of people of color (given the demographics of Wikipedia, it's a fair guess that it amounts to a bunch of white editors citing white sources dismissing the concerns of non-white people). A huge portion of the sources are actually just references to anti-Americanism in passing, rather than works that have it as its main topic. It's a textbook case of Anglo-American bias and of bias in moral and political views, and of course bias in structure and due weight. I've raised these concerns repeatedly in Talk, and they are constantly dismissed and wikilayered to death by a handful of editors. Noloop (talk) 22:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk page:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-Americanism

Please provide specific examples documenting your view. TFD (talk) 22:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thast the point its about what people say is anti_american, its a bit like saying that the articel about holocasut denile can't mention denying the holocasut becasue thats POV.Slatersteven (talk) 22:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Noloop. There's a few things I would say about this. Firstly, the article title suggests to me a topic that is encyclopaedic but which is inevitably going to present NPOV difficulties. This makes it all the more important to WP:Assume good faith and try to work collaboratively. You obviously feel there is an issue of WP:Systematic bias in the article, and you may very well be right (given the topic, this would hardly be a surprise). It would be good, though, if you were to do more than just point this out. You could try to present some sources that could be introduced into the article to make it more balanced. As TFD says, more specific examples of where you see the current bias would also be helpful (otherwise, the discussion may tend to a generalised "yes it is", "no it isn't", "yes it is").

I'm having a little trouble with the idea that it is a bias to give too much space to anti-Americanism amongst non-white populations. Wouldn't the regular bias be to give too little attention to those populations. I would agree that it is interesting to note that, all of a sudden, the tendency to ignore anything outside North America and Europe, which applies so often on WP, has evaporated on this article. But can this really be regarded as bias?

Lastly, I would agree that there are issues with the article. I am more interested in how your suggestions would improve it, though, rather than whether you can succeed in establishing that it is currently biased. --FormerIP (talk) 22:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It want to give advice about conduct on the article generally, you should read the archives for the last year. Some of your points are also addressed in the current version of Talk. My reason for believing there is cultural bias is given above. The "regular bias" would be to give too little attention to the viewpoints of the other cultures, which is what the article does. Such viewpoints can't be given equally because of systemic bias: The Japanese accused of anti-Americanism don't write books titled Hating America (a source in the article that is relied on extensively) in which they describe themselves. And if they did, it wouldn't be likely to find them in English. Aside from that, the term is inherent propaganda. Most Middle Easterners would call this article "anti-Muslim", and so on. Noloop (talk) 00:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Noloop, I have looked at the talkpage contents, but I don't feel I want to review a whole year of the stuff. If the viewpoints of non-US cultures are under-represented, why not find some sources and propose them for inclusion? I get your point that Japanese writers, for exampe, may not generally self-describe as "anti-American" (although I am sure this is not unheard of), but if they are mentioned in US books then surely this makes them citable in their own right. --FormerIP (talk) 01:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The viewpoints are under-represented in the available literature, so it isn't possible. What you're describing can make sense when there are due weight problems without systemic bias. Noloop (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I have repeatedly asked Noloop to do this and he has both effectivly (its other peoples job) or actualy (the articel is too long so we cannot add this material) refused to do so. No9llops objection seems to be to the page in general, not just to some material.Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That's right, it is other people's job: the job of the people adding the material causing violations of due weight and systemic bias. The system is not that you add material without regard to weight or bias, and then demand other people fix the imbalance if they don't like it. Noloop (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

But other editors may not understand or agree that there is bias in there, and they may not know how it can be fixed in any case. If there is indeed a bias issue, then alternative/additional proposals are what will address this most easily. --FormerIP (talk) 14:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Or (like Noloop) we have tried to address the balance issue but have also been unable to find material to do so, AGF.Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

If there is disagreement about it, you don't keep shoving it in the article. The Wikipedia guideline on systemic bias says explicitly to remove the bias.Anglo-American bias You can't find equal opposing viewpoints, because Anglo literature doesn't contain equal opposing viewpoints: that's the point of systemic bias. It would help if people actually read the article and read the guideline on systemic bias. Noloop (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

But you need to identify it and establish (by consensus) that it is indeed bias before it can be removed. Also, just my take, but I wouldn't say that removing bias necessaarily means removing content. It could equally mean adding balancing content. --FormerIP (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The most recent issue was over adding one-sided content. Of course, removing bias doesn't necessarily involve removing content. It is typical in cases of systemic and cultural bias, as the guidelines on neutrality make clear. The purpose of commenting here, I think, is to get some discussion of whether the article suffers from bias from due weight and systemic/cultural bias. So, let's discuss that. Noloop (talk) 23:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Or (as Anglo-American bias says) "or making readers aware of them", which I bleive the articel is trying to do, but this does need work. Besides you still have not identified an example of cultural bias. If you bleive the whole articel is biased then AFD.Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Climate change denial article

The climate change denial article describes a somewhat concerted movement to intentionally provide misinformation on climate change. My problem with the article is it presents this all as fact. I would simply like to add one word to the first sentence, changing:

Climate change denial is a term used to describe attempts to downplay the extent of global warming...

to

Climate change denial is a term used to describe [alleged] attempts to downplay the extent of global warming...

to clarify to readers that this idea is not widely accepted. I had a long discussion about this on the talk page but we could not come to an agreement. -Cwenger (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Cwenger. Your suggested text would imply that there is considerable doubt as to whether anyone has attempted to downplay the extent of global warming or not. Is this what you are intending to get across, or should it read differently? I suspect you are wanting to cast doubt over something other than the existence of the attempts. --FormerIP (talk) 00:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi FormerIP, I mainly want to alert the reader that a large-scale and/or concerted effort to downplay the extent of global warming, which is what this article largely addresses, is not accepted as fact. As I said on the discussion page for the article, it would be akin to saying "The vast right-wing conspiracy is an alleged coordinated effort to...". I am of course open to other ideas to get this point across. -Cwenger (talk) 01:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Cwenger, I understand you, I think. You want to insert a clarification that the denialism in question might not be concerted. That may be fine, but it doesn't look as if the place to do it is the sentence you have chosen, since it doesn't contain any claim about being concerted in the first place. You have nothing appropriate to attach the word "alleged" to, it seems to me, so you are trying to make a clarification where none is needed. --FormerIP (talk) 01:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course there is a large-scale and concerted effort to downplay the extent of global warming. The only question is whether these efforts are "correct" (i.e. whether global warming is a problem). I have not read the article, but the proposed change as described above is pointless. Johnuniq (talk) 01:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Cwenger, as a tangentially involved editor, your suggestion seems like a violation of WP:NPOV to me. What do the sources say? Do they say "alleged" or not? We should just be following the sources. OTOH, that article name may also be in violation of WP:NPOV. Based on my knowledge of how reliable sources have covered this topic, "denial" isn't the most common name. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Johnuniq, you make a good point. Perhaps my suggestion would make more sense if the rest of the sentence was clarified like so:

Climate change denial is a term used to describe [alleged] attempts to [intentionally and maliciously] downplay the extent of global warming...

-Cwenger (talk) 01:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Using the term "alleged" for accepted science is like talking about the "alleged" moon landing. TFD (talk) 01:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge, the sources do not say "alleged" because they are the ones doing the alleging, and as such state it as fact. That is what I am trying to avoid in this article. There are plenty of references that rebut this characterization of climate changes skeptics, e.g. http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1782, should I reference those in the article? -Cwenger (talk) 01:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

TFD, we're not talking about the science here though. We are talking about the existence of significant, malicious efforts to downplay climate change. -Cwenger (talk) 01:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Cwenger, are you saying you think there are no intentional and malicious attempts to downplay global warming? Really? You think that all attempts are accidental and/or friendly? --FormerIP (talk) 02:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

FormerIP, I am not saying there are no intentional and malicious attempts to downplay global warming. Certainly there are some. There are also intentional and malicious efforts to exaggerate global warming but we don't have an article on that. The point is we have no idea what the intentions of people are unless there is incontrovertible evidence, which I do not see in this case. As a compromise, could we at least add a sentence that strongly clarifies that this article is distinct from sincere climate change skeptics. -Cwenger (talk) 02:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There is invalid logic there. Some people have labeled climate change skeptics as climate change deniers. Climate change skeptics do not go around spreading misinformation for money. Therefore it is wrong to say climate change deniers do that. The logic is false and is no reason to stick in alleged. BTW the article complaining about skeptics being called deniers is already referenced in the article. Dmcq (talk) 01:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Do third-party reliable sources refer to those who hold this opinion as "climate change deniers" or "climate change sceptics"? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There's a section about this in the article Meanings of the term. The books which mention climate change denial mean what the article is about but there are articles which label sceptics as deniers and others that say that is inappropriate. The term denialism says it could be applied to people who just are covering their ears and eyes and minds but there's not a lot written in relation to climate change on that, I believe the environmental scepticism article would be appropriate for that sort of stuff. Dmcq (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Skeptics and deniers are very different. Skeptics hold sincere views that oppose the consensus. Deniers, by definition, must privately support the consensus but publically attempt to undermine it. I am fine with the climate change denial article as long as it clarifies that it is specifically about the latter group and it is alleged, as there is no hard proof that anybody is misrepresenting their true views for alterior gain. -Cwenger (talk) 02:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

True Sceptics do not 'hold sincere beliefs', they check the evidence. What you are talking about is environmental scepticism. The article should be based on reliable sources and in acordance with Wikipedia's policies. Dmcq (talk) 02:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Dmcq, certainly you will agree that two intelligent, well-meaning individuals can look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions, right? -Cwenger (talk) 03:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

They certainly can, I'm finding it difficult when you give no reliable source for your point of view though. Dmcq (talk) 08:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I also see this as a problem of not providing a reliable source. The article is well-sourced for what it is; adding the word "alleged" would refute most of those sources and this ought not be done without sourcing and some explanation in a section outside the lede. Blue Rasberry 16:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin
^ http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin
^ http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin
^ http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolus_Robertus_Darwin
^ Evidence and Evolution: The Logic behind the Science.—Elliott Sober. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008. xx+392 pp. ISBN 978-0-521-87188-4.
^ Wilkins JS. Evidence and Evolution: The Logic behind the Science. Systematic Biology 2009 58(5):544-545; doi:10.1093/sysbio/syp048

[1] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin

[2] ttp://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin

[3] ttp://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin

[4] ttp://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolus_Robertus_Darwin

[5] Evidence and Evolution: The Logic behind the Science.—Elliott Sober. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008. xx+392 pp. ISBN 978-0-521-87188-4.

[6] Wilkins JS. Evidence and Evolution: The Logic behind the Science. Systematic Biology 2009 58(5):544-545; doi:10.1093/sysbio/syp048

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]