Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context!

Before posting here, consult the neutral point of view policy page and the FAQ explainer. Also, make sure to discuss the disagreement at the article's talk page. Fringe theories often involve questions about neutral point of view. These should be discussed at the dedicated noticeboard. You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so. Additional notes: Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments, not on vote count or sheer size of argument. Consensus in previous discussions does not make policy, but you can generally rely on it. The list of articles where users flagged a point-of-view concern is here. This page is not a forum for discussions unrelated to the neutral point of view. We have a separate noticeboard for concerns about original research (material made up by a Wikipedia editor), and another dedicated noticeboard for questions about contextual reliability of a source. Start a new discussion

Should the Occupy Wall Street article mention that the "American Nazi Party" has publicly announced support for OWS?

There is/are one or more editors arguing for inclusion of material indicating that this group, the ANP, supports OWS. The discussion can be found here.

My feeling is that this would be an NPOV violation, and that it bears a troubling resemblance to guilt by association, although it's not clear that BLP policy is actually relevant here. It also strikes me that the sourcing for this association is very tenuous, and that some of the sourcing that comes from mainstream outlets actually reflects attempts by opinionated pundits to conduct a little tar-and-feather attack of their own by slapping a "Supported by the Nazis!" label on OWS.

I feel confident that at least one WP policy strongly counsels us against including material of this sort, but I'm feeling a bit out of my depth, in that I can't immediately articulate a bulletproof reason for excluding this. Thoughts, please? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Giving WP:UNDUE weight to a fringe group is absurd. Dualus (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Short answer: no. Long answer: fuck no. The American Nazi Party is such a small organisation that mentioning it, especially without mentioning other supporters, is a massive violation of UNDUE. It'd be like putting the fact that David Duke is a Tea Party supporter, or that Osama bin Laden was a supporter of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (and annihilation, but that's beside the point). There's an unwritten rule that guilt by association isn't allowed as it is a violation of NPOV (as, indeed, it cannot be written neutrally), and there are synthesis issues too (ANP support OWS, ANP is bad, therefore...) Sceptre ^(talk) 22:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Dualus and Sceptre. It's the equivalent of using the old "Hitler was a vegetarian" canard in a discussion about vegetarianism. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Although, interestingly, we do talk about Hitler and Stalin in Criticism of atheism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but that's suitably rebutted by Dawkins' moustache comparison. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Totally and completely agree that the American Nazi Party should not be mentioned in the Occupy Wall Street article... however, it might be (and please note that I say "might", not "is") appropriate to mention their support of the OWS movement in our article on the American Nazi Party. Due Weight is a contextual thing... ANP support of OWS is not important in the context of discussing the OWS, but ANP support for OWS could well be important in the context of discussing the ANP. Blueboar (talk) 00:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I would think the primary concern is whether or not the OWS movement's endorsement by Nazis has been covered by reliable sources. If reliable sources have covered it, then it should be included. Kelly ^hi! 05:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Also see Tea Party movement#Racial issues. As Wikipedia seems to lay racism at the heart of the Tea Party movement, it's probably appropriate to point out the endorsement of OWS by actual racists. Kelly ^hi! 06:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Radically different issue, Kelly. In that case, the claims (well supported, by lots of references) are that core members of key tea party groups, as well as broad trends among members, are racist or have racist overtones. That is radically different than the idea that a group that has no actual affiliation with core OWS members (if such a thing can be said to exist) happened to give support to OWS. Sceptre has put it best, in my opinion. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to establish a point of fact, did the American Nazis endorse the Tea Party movement, or only the Occupy Wall Street movement? Kelly ^hi! 06:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The ANP didn't endorse the Tea Party, but appears that the KKK, or at the very least, David Duke, did. But comparing the two articles is apples and oranges: the Tea Party article contains a lot of discussion of the idea among black conservatives, and so can be written neutrally, while putting ANP support in this article can only be done so in a non-neutral way. Sceptre ^(talk) 07:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• Using your reasoning, the KKK endorsed the Democrat Party by way of Robert Byrd. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment If it has been reported on in reliable sources and if other groups support are being mentioned then so should this. The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

This is actually a pretty easy thing to solve. Wikipedia does not censor facts Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not [1], but also does not allow for WP:UNDUE weight of any information above it's true notability. The information cannot be kept out simply because it "may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so". It should be allowed in the proper context with reliable sources and with the proper amount of weight in relationship to the overall facts being presented.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Short answer: it depends on the situation

1. The Nazi party posts a blog on their website saying they endorse it. Do not include information since they are small and irrelevant
2. It is widely reported that the Nazi party supports them. Do include the info as well as critics who have claimed that people are pointing out that info in an attempt to smear the campaign with guilt by association(as I assume many are arguing).

So if sources are talking about and debating this then yes, you should include the info, without too much weight, and while providing any comments from the OWS or anybody else responding to it.AerobicFox (talk) 05:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment There are no unwritten rules for Wikipedia. Policies and guidelines are not hard fast rules themselves and very few Bright-line rules exist at Wiki. Consensus should only be formed by the what we have before us, written down and laid out for our consideration. All else is irrelevant.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• The first two answers above (by Dualus and Sceptre) said all that needs to be said about this issue. Johnuniq (talk) 06:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Certainly not, for the reasons laid out by Dualus and Sceptre. This is a particularly clear-cut example of guilt by association at its slimiest. It cannot be denied that an occasional antisemite has snuck an antisemitic sign into OWS demonstrations; but that's all part of WP:UNDUE. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• The American Nazi Party has views on all sorts of current events - the bailout, the wars in Iraq, Afganistan, Libya, etc. The Last Angry Man and other editors who want the American Nazi view explained in articles must explain why the American Nazi viewpoint is significant. American Nazi views I think are insignificant, but if TLAM thinks we should take note of them then he should explain why American Nazi views are important. Otherwise, they belong in their own article. TFD (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not recall saying that the ANP views should be mentioned in the article in question, I do recall saying that if it has been mentioned in multiple reliable sources then it warrants a mention in the article. If celebrity's and other organizations are being mentioned as supporting OWS then why exclude the ANP, regardless of how distasteful they are. The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• • We cover what the mainstream media reports widely. Has the Nazi parties views received coverage concerning the War and Iraq, Libya, and other events? Why would the Nazi parties views not be covered in Wikipedia if they are reported on by a wide variety of sources, because they're incorrect? WP:WEIGHT was agreed upon by a consensus of Wikipedia, whereas "an unwritten rule that guilt by association isn't allowed" was never agreed upon by anyone. I have not followed this story, but if it gains traction then it should be presented. You can try arguing WP:NOTNEWS, which would be far more in line with policy then NPOV, but as this is an emerging news story deletions based off that would be better in a week or so to see if coverage has died down or continued.AerobicFox (talk) 00:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I got curious and looked on google news, 30 hits for "Occupy Wall Street" "american nazi party" seems to have gotten enough coverage to give it a line in the article. The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

One may google "American Nazi" and any subject and find that American Nazis have opinions on many current events. You may believe that American Nazi views are of such importance that they should be added to Wikipedia articles about current events, but I disagree. Can you please provide sources that they have any significance. Other fascist groups, such as the British National Party and the English Defence League probably have also commented, and probably many other fascist groups. How many fascist groups' opinions should we explain? TFD (talk) 01:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you deliberately misconstruing what I have written? Were have I said that any fascist groups opinions ought be in the article? I have said if it has been reported on (which it has been) then that fact ought be mentioned. If minor celebs who get 7 mentions in the news are in the article then a group which has 30 hits warrants a line.The Last Angry Man (talk) 01:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

"American nazi" wall street = 35 results

"American nazi" libya = 3 results

"American nazi" Afghanistan = 2 results

"American nazi" Iraq = 2 results

Although Google results are a bad indicator of notability, there is a clear discrepancy between the coverage of their views on other current events compared with their views on the wall street protest. While their views on those events have received no coverage, it is clear that their views on this have received attention. I have already seen multiple conservative and Tea part leaders condemn this as well the Anti-defamation league.AerobicFox (talk) 01:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)7

Mentions of ANP endorsement of OWS seem to be limited to right-wing blogs; (and yes, I am counting Fox Nation there) blogs by default are not RS, and editorial opinion is only RS for statements about opinions. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• "I think there is a danger in the people on Capitol Hill starting to embrace this movement, especially now that we know that the American Nazi Party and the American Communist Party are also starting to align themselves with this Occupy movement," Senator Allen West, from huffingtonpost
• "The Occupy Wall Street movement is getting support from some out-of-the-mainstream groups. The American Nazi party is urging followers to get involved..." Bret Bair:Special reporting Fox news
• "On the Monday edition of Fox News' flagship "straight news" program Special Report, anchor Bret Baier also treated this endorsement as if it were significant:" Response by Media Matters The Latest Desperate Smear Of Occupy Wall Street Protests: The Nazis Like Them
• "Fifteen percent of American people believe Jews control Wall Street,” said Abraham Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League. “It reflects itself in some of the people in the protest."metro

Looking into it though the Nazi's often seem to be lumped into the support to the protestor's being given from the communist and socialist parties as well, and Anti-Semiticism is more commonly brought up than Nazism. Even so, the Anti-Defamation League, a Republican senator, a Fox news(not editorial) anchor, in addition to the usual conservative pundits have weighed in, and responses have been made to them; worrying about prejudicial impact on the reader is not our pejorative, informing them of things reported is.AerobicFox (talk) 04:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It's only been reported in right-wing dog-whistle-political blogs; the coverage from left-wing blogs is more coverage of the coverage than coverage itself. All the sources fall into editorial comment, which do not count as reliable sources regardless of reliability of the source (hence why Fox News is okay but Fox Nation is not). In any case, the far-right are so miniscule in America that mentions of them, in either articles about the Tea Party or OWS, violate UNDUE. We don't mention David Duke in the Tea Party article, even though his endorsement was notable enough that a quick Google News search shows that it's still talked about, notably in comparison to this. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

"right-wing dog-whistle-political blogs"? I'm not sure which link you think is a rightwing blog. Counting the links down below I see a New York Times article that was published on the print version, and outside of the opinion section in an article devoted to analyzing Antisemitism on OccupyWallstreet, Fox New's flagship "hard reporting" show which is as far from editorial as you can find on Fox News, The Huffington Post, and several comments including multiple critiques by the liberal ADL.AerobicFox (talk) 23:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

A discussion of anti-semitism in general is fine, as it's a dispute that's being thrashed out in RSes (and could do with a contextual link to new antisemitism). ANP endorsement, however, is only used by right-wing political figures to denigrate OWS. Allen West is a Tea Party Republican, so is not a good source, and Fox is established on this noticeboard as not a good source on political issues ("Mark Sanford (D)" and all that). Sceptre ^(talk) 13:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Obviously not. Very little coverage in proportion to the weight of the subject as a whole, no obvious relevance, and some clear guilt by association. It's probably not worth covering in the articles about the American Nazi Party either, but if it is significant thing for them that would be a more obvious place for the info. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Okay, Googling "Anti-semitism wall street" yields a lot more results and appears more significant than the Nazi's support:

The Occupy Wall Street protests, now in their second month, have increasingly been criticized by a variety of groups, most of them politically conservative, for flashes of anti-Semitism.

But much as the Tea Party movement initially grappled with accusations of racism, Occupy Wall Street has been consistently confronted with accusations of anti-Semitism.

New York Times:Cries of Anti-Semitism, but Not at Zuccotti Park

Olbermann responded to statements made by those he described as "right-wing pontificators" like Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh. He took particular issue with the general use of the term "antisemitism," a label he believed was imposed on the Occupy Wall Street protesters by members of the conservative media.

"The right-wing seems to have woken up to some of the power of Occupy Wall Street," Olbermann said. He quoted Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin's latest article in which she criticized the media for ignoring what she called Occupy Wall Street's "antisemitic elements."

Huffington Post, Keith Olbermann Rips Rush Limbaugh Over Occupy Wall Street (VIDEO)

"Jews have been run out of 109 countries throughout history, and we need to run them out of this one," she told Fox11 Tuesday.

McAllister's comments prompted Amanda Susskind, the Anti-Defamation League's Los Angeles regional director, to call on those "more directly affiliated with the Occupy Wall Street and Occupy LA movements" to "denounce any expressions of anti-Semitism during the protests.

Los Angelos Waves Occupy L.A. denounces participant's anti-Semitic comments

If one was trying to tack the label of antisemitism onto the Occupy Wall Street movement, (which apparently, everyone is) one needs to look no further than David Brooks‘ October 10th op-ed for The New York Times, entitled “The Milquetoast Radicals.”

New York Observer, Much Ado About ‘Adbusters’ Relationship to the Jews

In addition to above sources there is enough commentary on this from a variety of people to warrant inclusion into the article.AerobicFox (talk) 05:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• This matter has been resolved as the following ten editors have explained above why the proposed text is undue: Dualus, Sceptre, Dominus Vobisdu, Blueboar, Piotrus, Qwyrxian, Johnuniq, Orange Mike, TFD, Wikidemon. Naturally there are media reports with excited commentary on every blip-of-the-day, and it is no surprise that links mentioning Nazis and OWS can be found—see WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. Johnuniq (talk) 03:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "ten editors have explained above why the proposed text is undue"
  • I seem to be missing this "proposed text". To answer your response, consensus is not decided by numbers, but by arguments, and I have currently addressed above editor's arguments that only conservative blogs have reported by finding both conservative and liberal news sources, organizations, and pundits that have commented on this. Also, applying NOTNEWS to an article which is a breaking news story is difficult enough to do and easy enough to argue against, please respond to the above sources on Antisemitism.AerobicFox (talk) 04:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote. It's what everyone can live with. If it's undue weight, OK. If it's added, it should be in the proper context with reliable sources and not be undue weight to the overall content of the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I suppose I can "live with" a line or two. Not including any mention despite the NYT equivocating it to racist charges against the Tea party, the ADL speaking out on multiple occasions, and various pundits will stand out more as a blind spot in Wikipedias coverage of the article more so then will a brief mention stand out as undue weight.AerobicFox (talk) 05:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Per your reasoning here AerobicFox I have posted on the article talk page requesting this be mentioned in the article. The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Well I added a single line which was promptly reverted, I tagged it for neutrality but no doubt that will also be reverted. Some articles are impossible to edit really, people just ignore policy and let their bias lead the way. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

As a

^^Phantom edit?', meh whatever. I don't care enough to devote more time to this, in a few weeks things will have settled, there will be more sources, and it will be more clear what the impact of all of this will be.AerobicFox (talk) 23:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

College dating

Whatever the reason, the College dating entry represents, in contrast to "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" on the topic, only one view, one that neither claims nor cites evidence to suggest that it is representative. One editor says that being "just incomplete and poorly developed" should be an exemption from the basic requirement of the NPOV policy quoted above, and has removed a maintenance template, directing me here. So I am soliciting views on both the specific article, and on the general topic of whether an article that is so incomplete that it gives a skewed view of its subject is in conformity with the NPOV policy.

Thank you, ^Bongo_matic 03:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thee is a reason we do not slap POV templates on all stubs, and other poorly developed articles. Look at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. Even a C-class article states, by definition, that it is not comprehensive. Yet, we don't tag all C and below class articles with POV templates for a reason, the reason being that not being comprehensive is not the same thing as not being neutral. In even simpler words: small is not necessarily evil, just... small :) POV applies to articles that are biased towards some points of view, not to articles that are simply not comprehensive, because they are not developed. The article may deserve tagging with some Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup indicating a need for expansion, but not with the generic POV template. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Some forms of incompleteness lead to POV problems, some don't. The incompleteness in this article does. It's not a question of missing certain pertinent but non-essential facts. Rather, it's a case of a very narrow subset of the topic being presented as being representative of the topic or relevant to the topic on a standalone basis. I have created dozens of stubs, none of which (as far as I'm aware) has ever been tagged for POV violation because of its brevity, so the "small ≠ evil" concept is well familiar to me. But it's simply inapplicable here. ^Bongo_matic 13:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You are just repeating yourself. Let's wait for input from others. Oh, a disclaimer on our POVs: I am instructor of the students writing this article, and Bongomatic is an editor who tried to get the article deleted, and even after the debate was closed keeps commenting on talk that the article should be deleted. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no strong feelings about the npov tag itself, but the article is very incomplete. It says there are several "types and traditions", but then only describes one (disturbing) practice. There is already a globalization tag, which is certainly needed as it seems to have an unstated focus on dating in one nation (US, I would guess). The article makes no mention of possible negative outcomes to dating, i.e. the only mention of date rape is the see also link that I have added, and which has been questioned as even belonging - a section should be added about the topic. LadyofShalott 16:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I certainly agree that the article is far from being comprehensive. The point asked, however, is - does it make it non-neutral? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, the article has improved since I last looked at it--it now resembles something close to an article, and in its current state I don't see the need for a POV tag. I am glad to see a section on date rape, of course; I suggested a while ago that sexual violence on college campuses ought to be paid some attention. So I am not displeased, on the whole--but when Bongo started this thread, the date rape thing wasn't in there (unless I'm mistaken), and I think that his tagging was warranted. Now for that globalize tag... (other countries have colleges and dating too, I would imagine) Drmies (talk) 13:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I still think the article is woefully inadequate and fails to address all of the significant perspectives on the matter, including some of the most basic (what percentage of people find their spouses from college dating? etc.). But it has improved substantially and I don't have a strong opinion on the tag any longer. ^Bongo_matic 14:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

19 out of 40 references about violence and rape? I get the impression that rape is a major factor in daily college life in Amerika. I'm curious about the frequency, must be a few reports per week per campus, by the looks of it? or is it just a coatrack? DS Belgium (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

POV tag removal on Occupy Wall Street

I have been accused of edit warring and warned twice because I want to include information about calls to amend the Constitution to the Occupy Wall Street article. I have spent several hours over the past five days carefully sourcing and condensing the material, but three other editors insist on deleting it without any specific objections that I have not fully addressed, apart from vague claims of undue weight. I believe I am being WP:TAGTEAMed by people who simply want to discredit the movement (they also want to remove the most recent polling from the intro even though they had no objections to it when it was not as favorable.) Right now I just want to add a {{POV}} tag to notify everyone that there is a dispute. I have done so but it was quickly reverted with the edit summary, "consensus is not a dispute." I just replaced it, and it was deleted again.

Relevant discussion sections are:

• Talk:Occupy Wall Street#US constitutional convention
• Talk:Occupy Wall Street#Summary of polling in intro
• Talk:Occupy Wall Street#Constitutional Convention
  • Talk:Occupy Wall Street#Eleven additional news sources
• Talk:Occupy Wall Street#Intro now even shorter than required by WP:LEAD#Length
• Talk:Occupy Wall Street#What reasons are there to not include this material?
• Talk:Occupy Wall Street#Reliable source for groups joining the call for a constitutional amendment

Thank you. Dualus (talk) 09:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

And this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_Lawrence_Lessig_part_of_the_Occupy_movement.3F. This is a very long and covoluted debate, can you proved the material you wish to include and the sources so we can judge if the accusations against you of Synthasis are valid?Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Also this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Call_for_a_constitutional_convention_in_Occupy_Wall_Street.3F). It seems worthy of note that at least one reason there are so many different discussions on this topic is that the above editor disengages from the discussion and head off to start a new one whenever the current one doesn't seem to be leading in a direction he likes. (Granted, noticeboard discussions are always new discussions; I'm mainly referring to the seven different section at the article talk page.)

For the record, I don't especially care whether the tag is removed, although I would point out that after several days of debate, no other editor has agreed with the edits Dualus wants to make. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I think its really poor that the tag has been removed before the discussions have finished. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

This is begining(?) to look a lot like forum shoping.Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

There seems to also be one more noticeboard thread, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Please_restore_POV_tag_to_Occupy_Wall_Street_and_help_me_with_dispute_resolution.3F. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

There's definitely some WP:FORUMSHOPPING going on here; I see the same arguments, from the same user, at the article Discussion page, here, and at WP:ANI. Two of the three need to be closed, and the OP given a {{trout}} for conduct unbecoming a contributive editor. 'Nuff said. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

And at RSN, it would be a poty tp leave all this effort unrecognised.Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

While I don't condone the Forum shopping... it does seem that there is quite a bit of POV warring on the other side as well. I can see how people on both sides are getting frustrated and turning to the policy/guideline notice boards for help. That said, since the article has been raised at ANI, we can leave it to them to sort out. Blueboar (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually Dualus has opened all of these notice board pleas. The other editors who have achieved the consensus Dualus just can't deal with have not filed any notices, expect for the two 3RRs I have filed - both of which are about edit warring and not content. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk)

Dualus was told to discuss this here on WP:ANI. It therefore isn't forum-shopping. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I have closed the first two sections - the first is closed as reliable sources need presenting and the second is closed as there is a consensus against adding polling information. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

This does not explain why this has been raised in 2 otehr notice boards.Slatersteven (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the issues raised at the original research noticeboard are subtly different so its worth assuming good faith - and at ANI he was told to discuss it here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Eraser has neither edited the content of the OWS article or been involved in the formation of consensus. All disputes content disputes have been resolved, though Dualus persisted in ignoring, as an admin noted in a warning to that editor,"please read WP:CON and WP:EW - you are ignoring the one and engaging in the other. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 20:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Which makes me uninvolved and more neutral. Please see WP:OWN. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Get this straight, there are no unresolved POV issues requiring a tag. We have reached consensus on them all in a timely fashion. Trying to get in the mustard when you can't even ketchup, as it were. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I would just like to note the irony of saying that all POV issues have been resolved on Occupy Wallsteet when there is an unresolved discussion concerning Occupy Wallstreet here in the NPOV board just two spots above this one. Anyone feel like commenting up there in a timely fashion?AerobicFox (talk) 02:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Ever hear of edit warring against consensus? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm for whatever the consensus decides. My own point of view is that Dualus decided to use this in the middle of a discussion as further disruption to simply poke at people with a new stick.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Ditto, just as I do not believe a POV tag should be added but am rather using this opportunity to poke a stick at people to respond up above to a day old comment.AerobicFox (talk) 04:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I was told to "take it to" the RSN first, and the one uninvolved person who responded there told me to take it to ORN, then when I thought the evidence of tag-teaming was overwhelming, someone told me to post on ANI and I did, and they told me to go to NPOVN. So here I am. I didn't even know there was something against forum shopping. Sorry, but I've been doing what other people have told me to do in each instance. Dualus (talk) 15:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh...a new accusation! Didn't see THAT one coming! Now everyone is trying to discredit the movement! This NPOV/N made by Dualus could be Wikipedia:Libel by now accusing editors of actions for a specific reason without cuase or proof. He is quickly stepping over a line. I urge him to take more caution because I am losing patience with these accusations.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

How do I think I feel about your constant reversion of statistics, polls, or other information which shows the movement in a positive light? Dualus (talk) 15:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

In that reply you simply make further accusations....and show your POV is what you are editing into the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

This new hater meme of Dualus is something else, but it falls in with the editor's predilection to play the role of the victim minus any proof. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Hater memes and what not aside I took the time to address editors up above who stated they wanted good sources, and found good sources including information on antisemitism, and find it absurd that such editors have now just become silent while a another editor has just appeared and declared their previous comments, which have been adequately addressed and do not relate to current comments, as somehow representing a consensus. I'm being courteous enough not to be pushing for a POV tag or editing in such information into the article to draw attention, or other obnoxious things that some editors do when they want responses, so please return the favor and respond back in a somewhat timely manner.AerobicFox (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any unresolved questions? Dualus (talk) 23:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Black Power

I think that characterising this as simply racialist is pov, but I'm being reverted by an editor with the comments first that "Cleaned up some of the whitewashing of history" and when I reverted that as changing cited text, saying "word choice in the sourced text is not NPOV" - maybe this is for RSN, I'm not sure, but it's being called NPOV by the editor changing the text. Dougweller (talk) 07:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I undid the latest as lacking sources. I can see the idea behind the edit, but it needs something more than an appeal to authority for support. Particularly as the term "black power" has been widely used in a variety of contexts, it is rather sweeping to say they are "racist ideologies". Johnuniq (talk) 09:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't a monolithic movement and shouldn't be labelled as though it was (or is). Some strands are very similar to the Gay Power movement. Dougweller (talk) 15:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see the edit as valid, because it altered sourced material, therefore may have misrepresented what the content of those sources actually is. Unless the editor wants to make a case that s/he is actually representing the sources better... Itsmejudith (talk) 15:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It's difficult to know which edit you're referring to, I assume this initial one by TBSchemer? I definitely don't see that as valid, since the opening sentence talks about "various associated racist ideologies" (in the new version) with the footnote listing them as "three groups: nihilists, integrationists, and separatists", with an accompanying reference. Obviously racial integration isn't a racist ideology (or at least not that I'm aware of). Looking at the article talk page there's been various attempts over the years to portray Black Power and White Power as two sides of the same coin which has no doubt transferred over to the article at various points, I wouldn't personally agree that's the case but it's largely dependent on how reliable sources see things and not giving undue weight based on the "there's a source" argument. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Edward Witten's biographical article

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

If you read through this, you'll find it's absurdly tilted towards the guy in a very flattering manner. Whoever wrote it was a serious admirer. Phrases such as "Clearly a leading figure in the field" and "Perhaps even a successor to Einstein" just don't sound very objective to me. I removed the latter myself, but I think the whole thing needs revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerovistae (talk • contribs) 18:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Removed some of the blatant puffery. Collect (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Aerovistae, thanks for posting this. I've removed some more puffery. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory definition

The Conspiracy theory article is having some POV problems. I am trying to follow WP:LEADCITE and am supported by Mystichumwipe and Mystylplx but we have editors reverting under the guise of a consensus which with the three of us think doesn't exist.

Here is what I want to put in:

A conspiracy theory in its broadest sense is "simply a theory that posits a conspiracy--a secret plan on the part of some group to influence events by partly secret means."[1][2][3][4] but it is also used as a derogatory term to denote ridiculous, misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish or irrational theories.[5]

1) "But if a conspiracy theory is simply a theory that posits a conspiracy – a secret plan on the part of some group to influence events by partly secret means – and if a conspiracy theorist is someone who subscribes to a conspiracy theory, then the conventional wisdom itself is not just suspect, but obviously absurd."(Pigden, Charles R (2007) "Conspiracy Theories and the Conventional Wisdom" Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology Volume 4, Issue 2, Edinburgh University Press pp. 222 DOI: 10.1353/epi.2007.0017.)

2) "What is a conspiracy theory? The discussion so far suggests that a conspiracy theory is simply a conspiratorial explanation, and that an explanation is conspiratorial if it postulates a group of agents working together in secret, often, though perhaps not always, for a sinister purpose." (Coady, David Conspiracy theories: the philosophical debate Ashgate Publishing Page 2) later on page 140 Coady reiterates that at its most basic level a conspiracy theory is the theory of a conspiracy.

3) Balaban, Oded (2005) Interpreting conflict: Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations at Camp David II and Beyond Peter Lang Page 66

4) Parish, Jane (2001) The age of anxiety: conspiracy theory and the human sciences Wiley-Blackwell page 94

5) "conspiracy theory n (1909) the theory that an event or phenomenon occurs as a result of a conspiracy between interested parties. Originally a neutral term, but more recent usage (dating from around the mid 1960s) is often somewhat derogatory, implying a paranoid tendency to see the hand of some malign covert agency in any unexplained event." 20th Century Words (1999) John Ayto, Oxford University Press, p. 15.

Keeping WP:LEADCITE in mind just what is wrong with this lead?--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I am half-heartedly involved.

It appears the issue at Conspiracy theory concerns whether the lead should say

A conspiracy theory explains an event as being the result of an alleged plot by a covert group or organization or, more broadly, the idea that important political, social or economic events are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public.(permalink)

or should say

A conspiracy theory in its broadest sense is "simply a theory that posits a conspiracy--a secret plan on the part of some group to influence events by partly secret means;" but it is also used as a derogatory term to denote ridiculous, misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish or irrational theories.(permalink)

One side asserts that the first summary is accurate and the second is an attempt to cleanse "conspiracy theory" to remove its negative connotations so it is merely a theory about a conspiracy rather than a cuckoo belief as is actually the case. Johnuniq (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I will point out that my version has reliable sources to back it up while the version it replaces has NONE. WP:LEADCITE clearly states "The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation." Again, keeping WP:LEADCITE in mind just what is wrong with the lead I am presenting?--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Drop the "but" and use a separate sentence on the general nature of: Some conspiracy theories are thought sufficiently unlikely that the term is often used to indicate extreme unlikelihood of a theory being correct. Avoiding any "negative" wording, but making the nature of the problem clear to readers. IMO. Collect (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The but likely reflects comments by authors like Keeley (see Talk:Conspiracy_theory/Archive_15#Conspiracy_theory-definitions_and_meaning) who makes a distinction between conspiracy theories in general and Unwarranted Conspiracy Theories (UCT). Clearly the referenced version is the better one.--67.42.65.209 (talk) 07:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Collect's suggested changes. I think the "but it is also used as" can give an impression that the second definition is somehow suspect, or less valid. Mystylplx (talk) 07:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

(I'm involved) Mystylplx, why do you think that "but it is also used as" casts the second definition as suspect or less valid? I'm also concerned that BruceGrubb use of quotes creates the impression that the source say exactly that, and they don't, but I expect that is more of an issue for WP:RS. In way of context, we did hold a straw poll on this issue two months ago, see Talk:Conspiracy_theory/Archive_15#Up_or_down_.21vote_on_Black_Kite.27s_suggestion in which we reached rough consensus to use the simple version, but BruceGrubb has refused to accept that or to acknowledge that most sources do use the pejorative meaning. My basic question for this forum would be are there any neutrality issues in regard to the first version listed here by Johnuniq? I don't think there are any POV issues with it myself, but it seems to me that BruceGrubb's suggest introduces a POV issue by stressing that the "broadest meaning" is neutral, and that seems unsupported by sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Nuujinn, you have admitted that you cannot read some of these sources and your claim "In your version of the lede, you're presenting the definition as a quotation, and none of the sources use that exact phrase" presented in the talk page can be proven to be false as the two sources quoted at length above do indeed use that exact phrase:

"But if a conspiracy theory is simply a theory that posits a conspiracy – a secret plan on the part of some group to influence events by partly secret means – and if a conspiracy theorist is someone who subscribes to a 'conspiracy theory, then the conventional wisdom itself is not just suspect, but obviously absurd."(Pigden, Charles R (2007) "Conspiracy Theories and the Conventional Wisdom" Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology Volume 4, Issue 2, Edinburgh University Press pp. 222 DOI: 10.1353/epi.2007.0017.)

2) "What is a conspiracy theory? The discussion so far suggests that a conspiracy theory is simply a conspiratorial explanation, and that an explanation is conspiratorial if it postulates a group of agents working together in secret, often, though perhaps not always, for a sinister purpose." (Coady, David Conspiracy theories: the philosophical debate Ashgate Publishing Page 2) later on page 140 Coady reiterates that at its most basic level a conspiracy theory is the theory of a conspiracy.

In fact, "simply a theory that posits a conspiracy--a secret plan on the part of some group to influence events by partly secret means" is taken straight from the first source ie a direct quote.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

BruceGrubb, we're here to get outside opinions on the POV question, not to carry this endless debate to yet another forum. And I'm sorry, you're right about the quote appearing in the one (although you attribute it to four), but that's a posed question, not a definition. I think to use a portion of the question in this way to define the term is not neutral. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

After going to the talk pages it is clear that you and several others are ignoring NPOV. The version with actual references is the superior version so give it a rest.--216.31.124.148 (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Nuujinn, the version you and several other editors support has NO references to back it up--not a single one. Are you and those other editors now claiming that a book published by the freaking Oxford University Press doesn't know what it is talking about without thing to back that up?!? Do any of you understand how insane that position is? When I challenged Knight's claim of the phrase first appearing in 1909 I at least had reliable sources to back up my position; so far all we have seen contesting my position is a bunch of empty OR rhetoric and not a single RS backing up any of it up.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Wall Street nuetrality needs checking

My major concern is the use of academics, authors, activists, celebrities and other living persons in a way that may violate Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policies and guidelines. Even as a strong supporter of the Occupy movement I am disturbed by the promotional tone that is near pamphlet like in its prose and references seem to be used to promote the author's works, especially in the case of lawrence Lessig, which now seems to have only Wikipedia making claims about this academics involvement with protesters at the level being claimed. (I have removed much today, but it keeps being returned by a very stubborn editor) in google searches and all sourced by the same editor. The use of user submitted video with copyright problems seems to be way out of line for many reasons, point of view being just one of them with very weak explanations and arguments to include. Heavy use of images without context to article and only decorative, many from the same photographer/editor that could be seen as POV.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment. I do share your concern but IMO it is overshadowed by (and perhaps difficult to separate from) the behavior of a few extremely disruptive editors who seem to feel they should not be fettered by troublesome policies such as V, NOR, and CON. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

A recent edit to the article has used a reference from the NY times that shows David Haack to have a leadership role in the protest and the Demands working group.[2] how do we handle his blogs and articles concerning the movement moving forward? Also the 99% Declaration continues to be used as a primary source to reference claims about the document. Is this within MOS or should it be used as an illustrative source behind secondary sources?--Amadscientist (talk) 10:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Biased presentation of the critical response to Hart of Dixie

The article on Hart of Dixie misrepresents the critical response to the show, deliberately portraying it as more positive than it actually is. See discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hart_of_Dixie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephkugelmass (talk • contribs) 01:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The article is currently balanced in the Critical reception section. As you can see on the article's talk page here, the new editor above has suggested the favorable comments be deleted. This would consititute WP:UNDUE. this has already been explained to him. Indeed, another editor has also already stated that as it is, the article is balanced re: positive and negative reviews by TV critics. Lhb1239 (talk) 01:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The above statement is a deliberate misrepresentation. If I thought the existing positive material should be deleted, I would have attempted to delete it. I merely disapprove of Lhb1239 actively re-editing the document so that the positive quotations precede the negative ones, which were more representative, and which appeared in more reliable publications. Take a look for yourself! Josephkugelmass (talk) 04:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)josephkugelmass

I think that the current critical reception section gives undue weight to TVLine. WP:UNDUE states that "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views." For creative works like televions shows, WP:UNDUE also states that an article can describe how the "work has been received by prominent experts". Note that the prominence of the source matters. Putting these ideas together, applying WP:UNDUE here mean that the proportion of positive and negative reception in the article should match the proportion found in prominent TV critics. For television shows, MOS:TV provides a list of prominent critical sources: "Reviews should preferably come from the conglomerates (Associated Press, REUTERS, Canadian Press), major newspapers (USA Today, The Toronto Star, The Times [London]) and major periodicals (TV Guide, TIME, The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, Entertainment Weekly)."

The current Hart of Dixie critical reception section gives TVLine priority by listing it first and giving it much more space than TV Guide and the LA Times (whose review for Hart of Dixie was published by The Toronto Star). I've looked for other reviews from sources listed in MOS:TV, and so far, they've all been negative. For example, USA Today wrote, "There's nothing deep in 'Hart of Dixie'".

While I think it may be good to provide a brief positive statement about the show and TVLine would work as a source for that, the current version of the reception section is out of line per WP:UNDUE and MOS:TV.-- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Sanity check on Calgary Stampede

Resolved

 – Going to mark as resolved. Thanks for input, and more is always welcome. Resolute 18:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Specifically the animal welfare section. Another editor has periodically made edits that, in my opinion, are an attempt at slanting the section towards an anti-chuckwagon racing POV. See my reversion from yesterday's changes here. I feel that the changes made do not reflect the sources that pre-existed, while new additions are from advocacy sites and blogs that do not qualify as RSes. Knowing the controversy exists, I went to significant lengths to try and present both sides as neutrally as possible. Given I wrote the article in its current state (and took it to FA), I would rather not resort to simply reverting such changes without other views so as to avoid appearing to be taking a WP:OWN stance on the article. As such, I would appreciate opinions on both the section of the article, and the appropriateness of my revert. Thanks, Resolute 17:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

minor comment: The couple refused, attending and participating in a private demonstration of rodeo and chuckwagon events.. Seems unlikely they actually refused, the Royals don't usually make public announcements about such issues. DS Belgium (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Reading your version it seems POV as well.Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Good point, DS Belgium. I will reword that. Slatersteven, can you give me an example? Resolute 17:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

"the animal activist community placed political pressure on travel agencies " smacks of POV, as does "Each year, the Stampede attempts to balance rodeo", which I cannot find mentioned in the sources.Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I see you have made modifications to both passages, thanks. FWIW, the latter was cited to here (ref 112 in the article): "The two-step between contemporary animal-welfare sensitivities and hootin’-and-hollerin’ rodeo tradition continues in 2010". Resolute 17:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

And suddenly there is an IP editor tagging the hell out of the article, with no actionable reason why... on the talk page they seem upset by my intro paragraph on my FA nomination rather than anything to do with the article itself. Could someone assess this discussion as well? Resolute 18:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Recommendation: Reduction of the whole melange to perhaps three paragraphs from the current six, removal of the images, removal of such words as "argue" and "claim" and simply stating that animal rights groups are unhappy that the Humane Society works with the major fair. Heck, cutting the entire article in half would double its effectiveness. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I would like to think that I haven't put too much bloat into the piece, so a theoretical cut down would possibly necessitate a split to a history of... child article. I'm not sure I want to do something like that at this point, but it is worth considering in the future. Resolute 22:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The section is way too long. We should provide more attention to what the Humane Society, the mainstream animal welfare group, says, and less to fringe animal rights groups. TFD (talk) 17:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The VHS is, alas, a mainstream group, while the animal welfare issue is becoming a dominant theme at the Stampede. I have tried to detail not only the local and outside views of the various humane societies, but the attitudes of Stampede itself, and changes made irrespective of outside influence. Cutting paragraphs 3 and 4 seems the most logical to me, but I fear that doing so would strip the section of historical context. I am interested in any specific suggestions you have in mind, however. Resolute 14:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I have paired down one paragraph by a couple of lines,Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I see that. Thank you, Resolute 15:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

shortemde thje following paragraph too, there is a bit too much detail.Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The Vancouver Humane Society is not a mainstream organization. It is not a member of the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies and should not be confused with the Vancouver branch of the BC SPCA, the main animal welfare group in the city.[3] Note too that the Stampede does even take place in British Columbia. TFD (talk) 16:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with all of that (and on that latter point, the Calgary Sun has had some truly amazing front pages and editorials attacking the VHC for butting into Calgary's business). However, affiliated or not, they have been major players in recent controversies and have managed to push bans at other major rodeos. I don't care for them too much, but I can't call them fringe either. That said, they aren't even identified by name in that section, so I think I only wasted your time bringing them up. Sorry about that. Slatersteven's modifications look like they are helping pare the section down. Resolute 16:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Switzerland has no conservative parties at all?

[4] has the edit summary:

Remove unsourced section. The SVP btw is no longer consider a conservative party)

Leaving not a single conservative party in that entire nation. Nil. Is this true? Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

All that's needed is to find a source calling it conservative.   Will Beback  talk  20:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

One of the parties removed is the "Conservative Democratic Party of Switzerland." I kinda sorta think that finding a source calling it "conseervative" is a no-brainer. YMMV. The WP article calls it "centre-right." [5] is also clear. Has proof of existence been met? Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Some parties with "liberal" in their name are actually conservative - we can't go by names alone. "Centre-right" isn't the same as "conservative". If we can find a source saying that the party is conservative then add it back, if not then leave it off. I don't see an NPOV issue here.   Will Beback  talk  21:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Note further that the entire unsourced section was added today.[6]   Will Beback  talk  22:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

In the case at hand, the parties are clearly considered "conservative" by multiple RS sources, are each described as "conservative" in their respective articles on Wikipedia (sourced), and each is on the "right" in Switzerland per Swiss news articles. I wot not how to explain this to you, but sometimes it looks like replies are made without thought. And how does the adding of material by another editor make any difference at all as to whether there are absolutely no conservative parties in Switzerland? Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

For the amusement of onlookers - see as one example [7] which makes clear that there are, in fact, conservative parties in Switzerland! Collect (talk) 23:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

If you have sources then add material summarizing them. No big deal.   Will Beback  talk  23:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

In order to categorize a party as conservative, or christian democrat or liberal, etc., we need to demonstrate not only that some sources call it that but that that is the normal categorization of the party. The article clearly states in the section on political parties, "According to Alan Ware, Belgium, Denmark, Iceland, Finland, France, Greece, Iceland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK retained viable conservative parties into the 1980s. [Ware, Alan. Political Parties and Party Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. ISBN 978-0-19-878076-2]... Since then, the Swiss People's Party has moved to the extreme right and is no longer considered to be conservative. [Flecker, Jörg. Changing working life and the appeal of the extreme right. Hampshire, UK: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2007 ISBN 978-0-7546-4915-1, p. 19]" The Conservative Democratic Party of Switzerland btw is actually called the Bourgeois Democratic Party of Switzerland and is a splinter of the the SVP. However, it may be too insignificant for any sources to exist about its categorization. The Christian Democratic People's Party is categorized as christian democratic, rather than conservative. Will, these foreign "liberal" parties really are liberal, they just do not conform with American terminology. See for example Arthur Schlesinger's 1956 "Liberalism in America: A Note for Europeans": "...liberalism in the American usage has little in common with the word as used in the politics of any European country...."[8] TFD (talk) 05:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but much of this looks like a typical case of WP:SYNTH. You have Ware (with his idiosyncrasies) claiming "viable parties", then you substract the SVP based on Flecker (who may use a different classification scheme) and end in none? Finally (here is my Meta-WP:OR!), party classifications are very much ambiguous, and many parties can be classified as both "conservative" and "liberal" (European sense, or "conservative" and "christian democratic". In particular, the German CDU and CSU have been classified as "conservative" for really long periods of time (and, weirdly enough, the "Christian Social" party is universally regarded as more conservative than the "Christian Democratic" party - these are just labels). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I still don't see any NPOV angle to this matter. Why can't this be discussed on the article talk page?   Will Beback  talk  05:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Removal of an entire section based on a SYNTH claim that no conservative parties exist in Switzerland is absolutely an NPOV issue, Will. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The categorization was developed by Klaus von Beyme. Ware is merely used as a source for the broad acceptance of Von Beyme's categorization. Of course Ware was writing in the 1980s, and Flecker writes in 2007, "a party that was formerly a conservative one...."(p. 217[9]) Flecker of course is writing about the "extreme right", which is part of Von Beyme's terminology. Note that in A Europe, a Political Profie [2 Volumes]: AnAmerican Companion to European Politics (2011), Hans Slomp identivies the SVP as "Radical right", which is a category of the extreme right. (p. 486[10]) And Slomp explains the various ideologies in Chapter 7, "European Liberals are Not American Liberals". In fact there are extensive sources for categorization of modern European parties, all of which place the SVP in a different category from traditional conservative parties. Incidentally I originally created the Switzerland section, but removed it when I found that later writers did not consider the SVP to be conservative. TFD (talk) 14:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Ecopsychology

This page was nominated for a POV check back in 2007 but it doesn't look like much was done or that it ever made it here. I know nothing of the subject so I'm not sure where to start. N^oformation ^Talk 22:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Is it NPOV to use a Mormon source to describe a critic as a "vitriolic anti-Mormon journalist"?

See [11]. I did a quick Google Book search and didn't find similar comments, although Wilhelm Ritter von Wymetal seems to be mentioned in a number of books. Dougweller (talk) 08:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course not. Such a claim would have to be supported by an independent scholarly source. The source provided is not independent, nor is it scholarly. As a self-published source, it would fail as "unduly self-serving", as the LDS Church has a vested interest in undermining the journalist's credibility. Even with attribution, it would almost certainly fail WP:NPOV, especially WP:WEIGHT. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Of course a document hosted by Brigham Young University cannot be used to write that a critic can be dismissed merely as a "vitriolic anti-Mormon journalist". While a case could be made to attribute the statement as an opinion (of those who disagree with the journalist), that would be a rather transparent attempt to cherry pick factoids in order to discount a critic. An article on Wikipedia should not discount a statement attributed to an author unless an independent source has discounted the author. Johnuniq (talk) 09:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I am coming late to this issue, but I have to say I agree with Dougweller that the statement is not NOPV, but not for the same reasons listed here. I have no problem with the source itself, not using "Mormon source". However, To assume that all LDS scholars are Bias and cannot be objective, is just as inappropriate as a Mormon editor insisting that an all "Anti-Mormon" scholars can't be objective about Mormon research. One's religion should not even be an issue on Wikipedia. Mormons (not the Mormon church) have a very good history at researching history. However, again, I don't think the statement is NOPV and should be removed since it really has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but is just an attack.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 16:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The source is a book review in a publication of Brigham Young University, which puts it on the same level as a book review in an academic publication. However I do not think that makes it a good source and the author appears to be expressing his own opinion rather than the consensus opinion of historians and therefore WP:WEIGHT would require us to igore it. TFD (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree. The statement is POVish and dose seem to be a matter of the authors opinion. It should not be used and should be ignored. However, the statement above like "Such a claim would have to be supported by an independent scholarly source" and "Of course a document hosted by Brigham Young University cannot be used to write that a critic can be dismissed...." are what I took issue with. It seems that Dominus Vobisdu and Johnuniq are saying (and if I'm wrong forgive me) that a book review in a publication of Brigham Young University, is not an academic publication, since it came from Mormons. That is what I took issue with, just as I take issue with Mormons who say that I can't be objective about Mormonism since my family history was part of Mormonism, but I am not one. I just don't think that "They are Mormons" is justification for removing the statement and it sets a very bad precedence.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 17:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Brigham Young University has some distinctly non-standard policies with regard to academic freedom that limit its use as a reliable source on issues where the Mormon faith is concerned. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

So has a large number of other Universities. If your going to limit Brigham Young University sources you have to limit them all.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 21:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Most of the examples you link to are either not based on official policy, or are several decades old. Brigham Young has a specific policy of forbidding opposition to Mormonism. If there are other universities that limit academic expressions, then yes, these are indeed dubious sources for that field. Liberty University publications are not, e.g. reliable sources on biology or geology or anthropology. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Sound like typical Anti-Mormon bigotry. BYU dose not have "a specific policy of forbidding opposition to Mormonism." That is your opinion. You can't have it both ways. Ether it is or it isn't a academic source. If we are then every collage in everywhere has to have a second source for everything.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 12:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Is this not an example of where the solution is just to write "Mormon source X writes that Y is a "vitriolic anti-Mormon journalist""? Including that seems more a matter of WP:DUE than NPOV since it is a factual statement about what a Mormon source has written without omitting the sources possible bias or representing the sources opinion as a fact or in a non-neutral manner.AerobicFox (talk) 18:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

While I like your suggestion, the more I read over the talk page the started this discussion (ie Talk:Children of Joseph Smith) the more I think this has nothing to do with "Mormon sources" vs "Non-Mormon Source" but an attempt to reopen the "Abortion" debate in the past on that page. Therefor I'm not sure if the this will solve the issue. Not that this help, but I thought it was worth mentioning.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 18:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI: A WP:Consensus and a WP:Compromise between the two editor in this issues has been reach so I have made the agreed upon changes. Therefore the page will no longer include the POV statement nor Mormon source anyway, making this issue Moot.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 21:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

JIMPORTANT! Challenges Tab on Junie B Jones/ Childrens Book

Junie B. Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

am writing herein as the Talk page for this article has many posts yet nothing has changed. This article is not open to editing or I would have clarified the problem.

The Challenges Tab is completely misleading. It references The American Library Association site staying that these books are #71 of #100 on their "Challenges" list and states why these are listed thereon. Unfortunately, any additional reference of explanation of what the list actually represents is not included.

This ommission is Crucial since the Talk Page has been addressing the Challenges Tab over and over and it is absolutely Critical to Clarify what this list is and the fact that the ALA DOES NOT SUPPORT these listed books as needing any censorship outside of parental choice. To the contrary, according to The ALA (cited as below), they advocate for First Amendment Rights. The list is compiled from newspaper articles, feedback from other libraries, etc. and The ALA's research has been completely distorted in this article to the point where the author of these books has a good case for there being LIBELOUS MISREPRESENTATION OF HER WORK THAT WOULD BE A BASIS FOR A LAWSUIT AGAINST WIKIPEDIA SINCE, WITHOUT A READER LIKE MYSELF DOING FURTHER RESEARCH, MOST PERSONS REFERENCING THESE BOOKS ON THIS WEBSITE WOULD BE SWAYED TO NOT PURCHASE HER MATERIAL!

I personally almost decided not to purchase them for my granddaughter.

Please take the necessary action. I almost always check references when seeking clarification but from the posts on the Talk Page, it would appear people disagree with the author's mistake but they did not read through The ALA's website as the link cited in the article just goes to the list of censored books. Seeing the Harry Potter series as #1 as well as literary classics on this list is what made me investigate further.

Thank you for your time and attention to this potentially volatile misrepresentation.

Corinne Smith <redacted>

If you need a volunteer to investigate articles, I would be happy to help out. I am both a reseacher and writer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corspeak (talk • contribs) 16:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think any action whatever is required here. Warned Corinne about the NLT policy.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi, I'm trying to look at this, and in the article there's a brief description of why it's on the list, cited, unfortunately, to a blog directly. We don't consider blogs to generally be reliable sources, so that's one problem, but the cite doesn't go to the specific blog post mentioning the Jones books which is also a problem. The ALA list used as a reference does list both Banned and Challenged books and has Junie B. Jones as #71 on the list, so that's accurate. Part of the reason for that list is to highlight classic books that various groups don't like (Steinbeck, Mark Twain, etc).

Also, please, please be careful using legal terms on Wikipedia. We've got a very strict policy called no legal threats that I don't think you cross, but it gets a bit close. I don't think WP pointing out that a book is on a banned or challenged list from a major group like the ALA is even close to the criteria for libel. Unfortunately for Barbara Park, some groups do object to her books. That's just a fact. I think that section could use some additional references and maybe some examples though. I'll add it to my list of things to look at. If you happen to find some good examples of groups that have challenged that book (and why) or something from the ALA about why they added that book to the list, adding them to the talk page would be helpful. Please look at our reliable sources page though so you'll know what kind of sources we can use in our articles. In particular, most blogs are usable sources for us. Thanks! Ravensfire (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Subtle anti-Israeli sentiment in the lede of the Palestinian people article

What can I say, I really don't know what else to do so I'm here. This is the discussion, but really, apart from "it's relevant" no one has a convincing argument. The problem is best described below the aforementioned paragraph, under the RfC heading that yielded virtually no response. Here is how I presented the question – hopefully, this will be settled in an encyclopedic manner:

• Basically, the question is whether or not it is appropriate for the lead section of an article about Palestinian people to:
  1. Precede the wikilink Palestinian territories by the expression "Israeli-occupied";
  2. List, in detail, the number of Jewish residents in what is disputed as Palestinian territories in and around Israel, with a separate sub-sentence in parentheses that pertains to East Jerusalem, the wikilink of which is also preceded by the expression "Israeli-annexed". Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Under international law it is occupied.Slatersteven (talk) 23:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't there be an argument that excluding this information would be much more anti-Israeli? That would be to suppress the hard information that the area is controlled by the Israeli military and has a large Israeli population. Surely?

Plus, I think "it's relevant" is actually a pretty killer argument. --FormerIP (talk) 00:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the international law, but how relevant is any of it to the lede? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 00:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Another interesting point: Palestinians have always lived in an occupied territory, first in the Ottoman Empire, then in the British Empire, then in Jordan and only then (since 1967) under partial Israeli control. Isn't this just a little undue weight towards the Israeli issue? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you should consider that the issue may be that you haven't verified whether you can reliably detect bias in the Israel-Palestine conflict topic area. You wrote an RfC statement that says "List, in detail, the number of Jewish residents in what is disputed as Palestinian territories in and around Israel, with a separate sub-sentence in parentheses that pertains to East Jerusalem, the wikilink of which is also preceded by the expression "Israeli-annexed"". You repeated it here on a neutrality noticeboard. It's the kind of sentence you might find in an article by CAMERA where standard perfectly neutral terms are transformed. Settlers become residents, occupied becomes disputed, areas outside the green line such as East Jerusalem are in Israel. It's out of touch with reality according to RS-world. I think it demonstrates an inability to see bias. You should be concerned about that if you plan to continue editing in the topic area. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your personal attacks and address the issue in question. And just for the record, CAMERA is no less a reliable source as the leftist propaganda clumsily masked as mass media you so eagerly advocate for. And lastly – before you judge me, think how many aspects you ignore in your edits and comments to fortify an agenda. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack and I'm not judging you in a negative sense. It's sound advice offered free of charge that will help you avoid conflict and making mistakes in the topic area. I'm not interested in the issue at hand because I don't believe there is one. I wasn't aware that I had advocated the use of leftist propaganda unless you are referring to the use of China Daily and Xinhua in various articles about Chinese topics and elsewhere. They qualify as leftist propaganda in some sense I guess. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

One more thing, Sean. Let's deal with your accusations one at a time.

1. Residents – please read the definition of the word, do they not reside in the area? If anything, settlers is a far more biased word.
2. Disputed – is there not at least one side that disputes the issue? Suppressing the dispute's existence is more biased than at least balancing it with neutral wording.
3. If according to Israel, Jerusalem is the undivided capital, does it not exist in your world? Or is Israel and its supporters (such as CAMERA) nothing but a sack of lies that should always be seen as such? Surely you cannot admit to such belief, but your comments strongly suggest it. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

@Hearfourmewesique

1/ Think about Nazi personnel living in France 1940 – 1945. They where certainly residents - but would you say the term occupiers was less relevant?

2/ I dare say Hitler and his chums would have "disputed" claims made against them. Dose that automatically validate the term disputed?

3/ Surly scepticism about some of the claims Israel makes re. the status of Jerusalem, does not amount to "Israel and its supporters (such as CAMERA) [being] nothing but a sack of lies"? Prunesqualor billets_doux 01:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

<- Hearfourmewesique, since Malik has separated out a section below I'll respond here. With respect, it's not a good use of your time to try to explain your position to me because I think your approach is fundamentally flawed. We just reflect what reliable sources say in a way that is consistent with the policies and guidelines of the project. To me this is just cold, heartless information processing. Assuming for the sake of argument that I had some personal views on the issues that mattered to anyone, they still wouldn't be part of the decision procedures. I honestly don't care in the slightest about the words themselves; resident, settler, colonist, disputed, occupied, Israeli village, Israeli settlement, Israeli colony, West Bank, Judea and Samaria etc etc even though these words have great symbolic significance for many people for reasons that are a bit puzzling but are always irrelevant to content decisions. The objective is simply to maximise policy compliance by ensuring that the language we use is consistent with the plurality of reliable sources (noting important discrepencies and disagreements over language of course) in a demonstrable evidence based way by actually properly sampling RS-world and faithfully reflecting what we find.

Years have been wasted in the I-P conflict topic area with people arguing and edit warring over which string of words properly describes something according to policy when sampling a large set of RS usually makes the optimal solution quite obvious. My point is that an editor may think something is biased or neutral but we have to actually know whether something is biased or neutral according to policy and be able to demonstrate that using evidence sampled from RS-world. When it comes to words like resident vs settler, occupied vs disputed, what is in Israel and what over the green line, the results from sampling of RS and the constraints imposed by policy are clear. There's no need to waste time on arguing about wording issues like these or to use words that are inconsistent with RS. That's not to say that your concerns about detailed wording tweaks in the article's lead in question here are necessarily invalid (although I personally think they are). That's up to others to decide, I won't be participating.

My point was simply that I don't think you can reliably see bias, you shouldn't assume that you can and that you should be concerned about that in the topic area as it will bring you into conflict with both policy and editors. I'm not sure which sources you meant by "leftist propaganda" but if they are mainstream sources that other RS and the community regards as reliable, dismissing them as leftist propaganda is probably another thing you should be concerned about as it will compromise your ability to make proper evidence based assessments of policy compliance. This isn't meant as criticism. There are a number of topics about various places and issues, mostly technical but also political that I'm probably too close to to reliably see bias or properly stick to policy without messing up. I don't edit them. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

This is fallacious in more than one sense, but unfortunately I don't have too much time at the moment, so I'll make it short. As I wrote on the article talk page, Palestinians were never a sovereign nation, they have always lived under someone else governing them. To this day, Israel is the first – and only – governing body that gave them control over Gaza and parts of the West Bank following the Oslo Accords. The article lede, which is supposed to give a concise summary of the entire article, does not say any of that – it only tells the reader that the territories are occupied by Israel/got annexed by Israel and that a relatively high number of Jews live on their land. It doesn't give the slightest idea as for why the territories were annexed to begin with, and what part the Palestinian (and other Arab) leaders played in the entire process. This is why I believe the article is initially presented with a strong bias and the lede should be changed to tell the whole story, rather than hand-picked parts of it. I have more to say, but I must go now. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The main point of this post, reiterated since it's already been buried under irrelevant stuff

• Basically, the question is whether or not it is appropriate for the lead section of an article about Palestinian people to:
  1. Precede the wikilink Palestinian territories by the expression "Israeli-occupied";
  2. List, in detail, the number of Jewish residents in what is disputed as Palestinian territories in and around Israel, with a separate sub-sentence in parentheses that pertains to East Jerusalem, the wikilink of which is also preceded by the expression "Israeli-annexed".
• Food for thought:
  1. Palestinians have always lived in an occupied territory, first in the Ottoman Empire, then in the British Empire, then in Jordan and only then (since 1967) under partial Israeli control. Even if anyone thinks it is relevant to the lede, isn't this just a little undue weight towards the Israeli issue?
  2. Out of all the governing bodies in the area, Israel is the first – and only – one that gave Palestinians control over Gaza and parts of the West Bank following the Oslo Accords.
  3. The main reason for annexing territories was boosting security in the area, following constant threats and attacks by Palestinian and other Arab militant groups. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Hearfourmewesique, you already started an RfC on this subject. Please stop WP:FORUMSHOPPING. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Malik, this is the irrelevant stuff. I'm trying to get the point across and get honest opinions based on all the facts. Please stop. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Not only is it forum shopping, it is clearly and demonstrably based on false pretenses. To begin with, Palestine was not "occupied territory" under the Ottomans. And the annexation of East Jerusalem had nothing, and I mean nothing, about boosting security in the area, following constant threats and attacks by Palestinian and other Arab militant groups. There is an open RFC about this on the talk page. So far Hearfourmewesique has not gotten the answer he or she has hoped for and has sought to run to the other parent for a different one. Though when getting an answer not to his or her liking even here, the user chooses a creative way of responding. Disruptive and tendentious, pure and simple. nableezy - 19:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments that are purely there to spew hate (i.e. comparing Israelis to Nazis and their leaders to Hitler) are unwelcome on Wikipedia, since – as I already wrote in the edit summary – this is not a hate forum. And you have the audacity to call me disruptive and tendentious??? Especially after "sweeping" my honest answer to your "Excuse me?" on your talk page, so that you can continue your smear campaign under the pretense of free speech just because it's your own user/talk page. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Do not remove others comments. The end. nableezy - 12:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

To quote the policy: "Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowed[...]Removing prohibited material such as libel[...]Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism[...]Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are[...]borderline case". Comparing Israel to the Nazis is libelous, disruptive, racist, hateful and any other adjective that comes to mind, in other words – unacceptable. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

No, no, and no, but as you insist on edit-warring to remove others comments that are neither personally attacking anyone, trolling, vandalism, or in any other way disruptive Ill just let somebody else deal with you. nableezy - 19:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Selena Gomez and Justin Bieber

A group of active editors in both the Selena Gomez and Justin Bieber articles have made a decision to omit any and all references to their relationship. I find this decision to be in violation of our best practices and virtually unsupported by the preponderance of reliable sources on the subject. Although I am uninvolved in this issue, having only just noticed this glaring omission, I would like to hear from uninvolved editors who have not contributed to either article and are willing to take a look at this problem with fresh eyes. However, if you are involved in contributing to these articles and you wish to share your opinion, please note your involvement. Viriditas (talk) 04:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Christian Michelides

A report regarding this article recently appeared at WP:COIN. The article is about an Austrian psychotherapist whose article on De WP has reportedly been somewhat contentious. Several users have come to En WP from De WP and feel that other editors' aims conflict with WP and have cited the German article being locked several times. Some editors there feel that there's a never-ending fight between editors creating an encyclopedic article and members of a fan club who have resorted to socking to push their point of view.

As there's no evidence of a close connection besides claims of fanclub membership, I bring this report here and have asked the involved editors to discuss the issue here and ask for the help of the members/watchers of this noticeboard. OlYeller21^Talktome 19:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC) @Robertsan - stop vandalism because of bad emotions, like on the other page is told by OlYeller21"it sounds like the article is good in its current shape " and by the way - in the German version wie have "und wirkte maßgeblich an der Organisation der ersten Regenbogenparade 1996 auf der Wiener Ringstrasse mit" and its more the correct version than Yours - by the way an version preferred by Elisabeht (see German discussion) - because it is the truth - again - without Mihcelides no CSD at this time -read the source and like all your unreading, ignorierin and inaccuracies - McWien without an a. So stop vandalism because of envy and hate - article was good in the beforerobertsan-shape - you are the man on a mission i guess.--Das-Geheimnis-der-Sphinx (talk) 08:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I did some edits in the article, correcting the hardest POVs according to the German sources. And I deleted the unsourced parts. For CM never got any academic degree in all the studies he mentioned in the beginning, I took them out. There is only one paper he wrote as a student in Vienna to be found in the national library. Every catalogue is published by himself and only one book is in the national library, the only book he (or his fanclub) did not mention in the article. It was a catalogue for an exhibition in the rooms the company he was working for. The dog is not part of the job and so we decides to change to a more neutral photo in German WP. So I will change it in this article, too. You can see how the two two accounts talk about how to work here. McWien is blocked forever in German WP because of being a man on only one mission, to use WP for glorifying Christian Michelides (there are articles in es and francais based on the POV article in English). I hope there will be help from the watchers/members of this board here. Thank you for your attention. --Robertsan (talk) 08:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess all this needs discussion - we are 3 people who thinks article was in a good shape and only YOU - ONE guy, says other things - dog is part, he as studied - and where i can read here in en wikipedia, that a catalogue puplished in his own publishing house can not be a source - show me and don't regulate by yourself. and by the way again - you change without discussion when discussion is needed!--Das-Geheimnis-der-Sphinx (talk) 08:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Servie:block--Robertsan (talk) 08:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Warning user Robertsan because of his vandalism, see [12] McWien (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

NPOV is no vandalism, dear McWien. My Answer you can find there. --Robertsan (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Medical Torture

Big problems at Medical_torture#Asserted_medical_or_professional_complicity but I don't have time to clean it up right now. Also includes at least one severe BLP violation. causa sui (talk) 00:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Astrology

Some editors at Astrology are intent on adding the following criticism of a peer-reveiwed study in Nature into the article (see here for full context: [[13]]):

"Criticisms of Carlson's study have been published in numerous astrological and other fringe journals. These arguments range from faulty design and conclusion by Professor Hans Eysenck (1986) and Professor Joseph Vidmar (2008) to the claim that the Carlson data provides statistically significant evidence favoring the astrologers by Professor Suitbert Ertel (2009)".

The sources used are: Astrological Journal, Correlation, and Journal of Scientific Exploration, all of which are non-peer-reviewed fringe sources. Nevertheless, they are being used to challenge a genuine peer-reviewed scientific study, using WP:PARITY and the fact they they are identified as fringe journals as a justification.

The noteworthiness the criticisms is questionable as none of these criticisms have been discussed in reliable sources. There is no evidence that they are part of mainstream scientific discourse.

Your input would be appreciated at the article's talk page: [[14]]. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

This conversation also took place on Jimbo's talk. N^oformation ^Talk 02:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

IMO, this issue is more relevant to the WP:RSN, because the three journals you mention Astrological Journal, Correlation, and Journal of Scientific Exploration are not scientific journals at all. For example, none of them is included into the ISI database. They have no impact factor, they are not considered as scientific by scientific community. Therefore, to include them into Wikipedia (as a source, not as a subject of discussion), means discredit Wikipedia. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

That's essentially been the point that many editors have been trying to make. Would you be interested in swinging by and joining the discussion? N^oformation ^Talk 03:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Nicholas Roerich

He seems to have been a genuinely notable guy; but this article, apparently poorly translated from one or more other languages, is absolutely worshipful (as well as being poorly formatted and ungrammatical). I've taken a very shallow pass at it, but would really appreciate some help here, ideally from a Russian-speaking editor. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Sailor Moon (English adaptation)

I'm posting this here as an effort for a dispute resolution, so some help here would be greatly appreciated. The discussion at WT:WikiProject Sailor Moon#Is this correct?WP:Sailor Moon (The beginning starts with a different issue so if you're reading it, it may be best to skip the first few paragraphs). The question with whether that article is aWP:POVFORK or a legitimate WP:SPINOUT article. The POV contention is that it places undue emphasis on the importance (ie the overall impact and not the quantity of sources) of the English localization of Sailor Moon vs. the Japanese when sources do not support this. The counter-argument is that more sources cover the English version and its a natural spinout article.∞陣内Jinnai 23:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Jinnai. I have a slight correction to offer - it's not that more sources cover the English version, it's that it is a natural spinout article which meets the GNG. --Malkinann (talk) 23:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

it makes no sense to separate english localization and distribution. A more logical choice as jinnai has said (and so have I) is to make an anime article. Not to mention has information that can easily merge to the other daughter articles such as list of sailor moon chapters and list of sailor moon episodes. Plus it gives undue weight to each individual alteration instead of actually summarizing it.Bread Ninja (talk) 03:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Muslim organizations

I brought this here both because the user in question claimed it was a POV issue. I think it's a simple question of sources, but it would be very, very silly to bring these sources to RSN...

CNN, Radio Netherlands (link is dead but article is available elsewhere), and Agence France-Presse call the Party for Freedom (Partij voor de Vrijheid) anti-Muslim (as do the New York Times, the Telegraph (link is dead but the article is available elsewhere), the Economist, etc.). Given this, are we justified in placing the article in Category:Anti-Muslim organizations from the Netherlands?

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure. Wilders has repeatedly and stridently declared that he is anti-Islam, but not anti-Muslim. Andries (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

yes, almost all right-wing extremists claim they're not anti-muslim. however, what matters in the end is the assessments of reliable secondary sources.-- mustihussain  19:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

And now we've got the same issue at Danish People's Party, where the sources include the Guardian, the Seattle Times, and the Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and Racism, and at Stop Islamization of America, where the sources include the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Mondoweiss, and the Huffington Post. This isn't about whether Wilders has denied being anti-Muslim; this is about two editors' campaign to deny that anyone is anti-Muslim. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

exactly! roscelese is absolutely right.-- mustihussain  20:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• I think some scholarly, political science sources would be preferable.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Why should we hold this designation to a higher standard than we hold any other? Why is it perfectly acceptable to source other elements of PVV's ideology to newspapers, to a paper by a graduate student (anything under a dissertation is not considered reliable, IIRC), or to a "living abroad country facts" webpage, but it's so very important to ignore otherwise reliable sources to avoid calling anyone anti-Muslim? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall ever having argued in favor of any of those viewpoints. What is the PVV? It sounds like an WP:OTHERSTUFF type argument to me.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

PVV = Partij voor de Vrijheid. Which article were you referring to? As for the OTHERSTUFF argument, the reason that's considered a flawed argument is because it's often comparing apples to oranges. Here, we have elements of the same class, viz. parts of the group's ideology, but you're arguing that we need scholarly sources to call it anti-Muslim, while lower-quality sources calling it anti-Islam (because they aren't against the people! just ignore their inciting of hatred) are just fine. Why should we use different standards for exactly the same sort of material? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Noone has argued that those two cases should be treated differently. (I came from the Danish People's Party article). I think we generally should use better sources to support claims about political ideologies.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I think before we state as a fact that a party is anti-Muslim, we need a source that says that is how they are normally viewed, rather than an example of where they have been called that. TFD (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, why should we hold this designation to a higher standard than any other? Piles of reliable sources describing the organization as anti-Muslim aren't enough, we have to go meta? Whereas propagating their claim that they're just anti-Islam, without any similar meta source, is completely fine. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Any reader with a bit of capacity of independent thinking can see that the quesiton of anti-islam or anti-muslim is pure sophistry. But yes - we need good sources - preferably scholarly sources summarizing different views on their political stances. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the distinction is pure sophistry, but in the interest of compromising with these other editors (one of whom has since been blocked for edit-warring), I tried to find sources that used terminology they would find acceptable. It hasn't helped, clearly. I'll look round for scholarly sources in a bit, I'm sure it won't be difficult to find some. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Added! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

there is an abundance of reliable secondary sources demonstrating clearly the anti-muslim nature of these parties. in addition, there is a campaign going on where the anti-muslim category is deliberately being removed from a wide range of pages without any discussion i.e. in violation of wp:brd. these pov-pushing spa-accounts need to be stopped.-- mustihussain  20:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think any of the sources presented are particularly weighty - it is easy to find exaggerated claims about the ideologies of most any political group if using only news sources and websites.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly why I've reverted those changes: all the sources have been cherrypicked by one user just because they contain the exaggerated 'anti-Muslim' claim in it. None of the sources explain the question in any depth. According to Roscelese's logic, just because a sensationalist claim has been posted between the lines by CNN we should immediately make the encyclopedia article reflect this usage. Estlandia (dialogue) 09:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

"Categorization must maintain a neutral point of view: categorizations appear on pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial" - WP:CAT. I've been told adding something about terrorism in a category is not acceptable based on that argument. If members of the group deny the assertion that they are anti-muslim then it is controversial. Time getting bent out of shape over the removal of a cat would be better spent making the prose clear. This would be of the most use to the reader.Cptnono (talk) 20:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

you missed the point. "anti-muslim"-category tags are suddenly being deleted by two editors, unilaterally from several pages. they don't have any consensus.-- mustihussain  21:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

No, you missed the point. I don;t care if editors are being lame or if the party in question really do hate Muslims. I care about what CAT says. Pay more attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptnono (talk • contribs) 05:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

NPOV requires reflecting the views of reliable sources, rather than suppressing them. The category is justified in the article text; unfortunately, the users who are removing the category are also removing the article text, so maybe this is why you are confused. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

"Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial". A group or person denying something doesn't make it controversial. Terrorism related categories are widely used as are criminal convictions (with no dependency on the opinions of the convicted), holocaust denial, pseudoscience, and categories related to all sorts of things that represent facts and overwhelming consensus positions. I don't know about this case because there would need to be enough samples to establish whether it really is the case that there is a consensus view that justifies the categorization. But my point was that a denial means little by itself and manufacturing controversies that don't actually exist in RS-world is a popular sport in Wikipedia so sampling a lot of RS wouldn't hurt. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

What we should base our conclusions on are not a few newspaper articles cherrypicked by one user where the label 'anti-Muslim' has just been used passing by (probably synonymously with 'anti-Islam'). There are equally reliable sources that tell e.g. that PVV is a centre-right party [15] (and conversely, there are sources out there labelling it far right). We shouldn't attach all those labels to the articles, but as Maunus has rightly said find “scholarly sources summarizing different views on their political stances.” That is, articles that really substantiate the opinion, not just use sensationalist labels without giving a reason how is, say, PVV 'anti-Muslim' (as opposed to 'critical of Islam').Estlandia (dialogue) 09:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Your source describes the PVV as "conservative", not "centre-right". I suspect you mixed it up with the VDD. Of course, neither description is strictly incompatible with "anti-Muslim" or "anti-Islam" (a purely rhetorical distinction without practical substance). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Colleague, the page clearly reads PVV /Conservative (Centre-right). I'm not mixing up anything.Estlandia (dialogue) 14:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I see. I look at the text for the party ("A Dutch conservative political party which combines..."). You look at the table. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

With 119,000 hits for anti-Islam [16] and 189,000 for anti-muslim [17] this is not about "cherry-picking" but about terminology. The dichotomy of "anti-Islam" and "anti-muslim" is about the same as with "anti-gay" and "homophob" - nonexisting. BTW both lemmata link to Islamophobia. --78.53.37.169 (talk) 12:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia only cares about RS, Google search doesn't know how to identify those, so results like these have limited value. I don't think there's any way to avoid manually sampling RS in cases like this. Even if Google hits mattered you have only sampled part of the space. You've excluded the cases where neither term appears. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• The key here is to distinguish fact from opinion. In order to maintain a neutral point of view, we should not apply labels to a person or group ourselves. Instead, we should report on the labels others (reliable sources) apply to the person or group. This means we should attribute any labels to those who apply them: "Radio Netherlands has labeled the party as being 'anti-Muslim'" etc. If the person or group disagrees with that label, we would mention that as well. Blueboar (talk) 15:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

What I was saying is, with 100,000+ hits it's not about opinion but about phrasing. If PVV wouldn't be considered "anti-Muslim", it wouldn't get that many hits or vice versa. Neutrality in this case is not about creating a Polish Parliament, but about reflecting informed judgement. --78.53.37.169 (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Mylo Xyloto

Edit req, Talk:Mylo Xyloto#Edit request from , 2 November 2011. Thx.  Chzz  ►  06:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)