Jump to content

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25

Chemtrail NPOV in the title

Hi, I wondered if you someone could stop by here and take a look. To avoid POV, should the title Chemtrail conspiracy theory be changed to simply "chemtrails", is the basic issue under discussion. Your input would be appreciated. 174.74.68.103 (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that current article content is about conspiracy theories related to chemtrails, and that sources have not been identified which refer to chemtrails in other ways. Science can go in articles about contrails or vapor trails, but the change of the title to "chemtrail conspiracy theory" seems sourced to me. Blue Rasberry 19:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians?

Despite having had it pointed out that standard WP:RS identify JWs as Christians (such as the Encyclopedia of Christianity published by Brill), an editor on the "Immersion baptism" page insists "JWs are not Christian no matter what your books say", and "I object to the use of the term regardless what your sources say and will not permit them to be called Christians on this page".--Taiwan boi (talk) 03:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

He's just wrong. Not much more to say. Sol (talk) 04:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Not wrong. I have WP:RS that say they're not Christian but a cult, however I concede that for the sake of Wikipedia and other non-Christian sources they are considered Christian. Tb is now just trying to deflect from his addition of multiple unnecessary headings. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
None of which you've provided. tb has provided sources. That's a big difference. Sol (talk) 05:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
The important thing, perhaps in this case, is to not say definitively that they are or are not Christians. If there are reliable sources, cite the source directly, for example "XXX denomination does not consider them to be fellow christians, but YYY source does". The key is to not present things in Wikipedia's voice as authoritative if sources disagree with each other. If all reliable sources indicate one stance, then perhaps its OK to indicate that. But if there is a common disagreement, it's not Wikipedia's stance to take a stand. --Jayron32 06:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
The dispute actually arose when the JWs were placed under an existing heading concerning immersion baptism in Christian denominations. Walter objected that they didn't belong there because they weren't really Christian, and he wants the title of that section to be changed so that it doesn't group JWs with other Christians. He is now changing his objection to "multiple unnecessary headings" (despite the fact that the original heading wasn't even mine). The truth is he doesn't want JWs grouped with other Christians, as he has made totally clear.--Taiwan boi (talk) 06:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
You guys are fighting over one line? And that takes up almost an entire talkpage? WP:LAME coming up... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
You should have seen how many pages of discussion it took before Walter and Esoglou would permit the five most commonly cited professional archaeological studies to be included in the article, and all the efforts made to resist quotations from standard lexicons. Editing that article has been uphill all the way against Christian sectarian POV.--Taiwan boi (talk) 06:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not fighting over it. Tb brought it here after I requested to change the wording and I have gone on record, twice, that I concede the point that as for Wikipedia, they should be considered Christian. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
You only stopped fighting over it when I brought the issue here. Previously you said "JWs are not Christian no matter what your books say", and "I object to the use of the term regardless what your sources say and will not permit them to be called Christians on this page", and you reverted my edit several times.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This entire debate is silly. I suggest we follow the principles laid out by WP:BLPCAT and accept that if a group self-identifies as "Christian", it is "Christian". NickCT (talk) 16:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

@ NickCT - Agreed, and thanks for that BLPCAT link, which I'd somehow missed until now.
@ Taiwan boi - let it go, the issue is resolved, it was a simple misunderstanding, and nothing more needs to be done about it. --Ludwigs2 16:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm letting it go but it needs to be pointed out that it was not a misunderstanding at all. Walter changed my edit several times, and told me pointblank that he did not believe JWs were Christians no matter which WP:RS said they were, and threatened that he would not permit them to be called Christians in the article; he was unashamedly POV. This is just one of many sectarian Christian obstacles I've met while editing that page over the last month.--Taiwan boi (talk) 17:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say it was a misunderstanding on your part. Walter apparently misunderstood the way these things are handled under wikipedia policy, he now seems to understand (or at least accept) it, and we should assume good faith that the issue is resolved. Please note though: he is entitled to have his perspective on these things, and I wouldn't begin to suggest that he should change his beliefs about JW. he just needs to work within policy as an editor. That's a vital part of NPOV, so don't criticize him for having beliefs that are different than yours. --Ludwigs2 17:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Seems to me that (given other examples) we do not label a group based on what they call themselves but what the bulk of RS call them. As it seems that the RS lean one way that’s the way we go.Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC).Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I asked just that question to a couple of ladies that visit me regularly and give me a copy of their magazines, which I try to read. What my lady explained to me was that although they do not believe that Jesus and God are one and the same, they believe that Jesus was the son of God, though not God Himself. They pray directly to God, she told me, not to Jesus Christ. They do not believe in the Trinity, though they are followers of Christ and His doctrine however, and I am quoting from "Awake!" here. In an article called "The Bible - Why You Should Know its Message" "Sections ...describe the life, ministry, miracles, death, and resurrection of the divinely appointed Ruler, Jesus Christ." It is to say that the Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian, as they identify themselves as Christian, they believe in His life, miracles, death and resurrection, and that He was "divinely" appointed. If you are not a Christian, you don't believe these things. (Although I am not a Christian, I capitalize out of respect) JW are one of many sects of Christianity. There was an early heretical movement who were victims of the Spanish Inquisition which had this same view, but I can't for the life of me remember what they were called. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 03:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Off topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I guess it was the Anabaptists who are listed, along with the Jehovah's, as a Restortion heresy on this page of Catholic heresies. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 04:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
It should be noted that Witnesses (JWs) consider it disrespectful when others refer to them as "Jehovahs"; the term is actually associated with ignorant persecutors.
  • "Argentina", 2001 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, ©Watch Tower, page 187, "Under the military regime [in Argentina from 1950 to 1984], thousands of people disappeared and were executed. [One] full-time minister for 37 years, said: “When the ban ended, we were no longer called Sons of Jehovah or The Jehovahs... There was a happy result—people finally recognized the name Jehovah’s Witnesses.”
  • "Portugal, 1983 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, ©Watch Tower, page 241-242, "Olegário Virginio: “...Going to work the following day, I saw an effigy hung on a large tree at the factory entrance with the words ‘hang the Jehovahs.’ ...400 were present when I was summoned...Communist members interrupted, attacking my religious beliefs."
  • "An Old Pattern of Intolerance Flares Up Again", Awake!, January 8, 1976, ©Watch Tower, page 23, "Press and radio dispatches carry such statements as “Mozambique is not Jehovah’s country” and “these fanatical Jehovahs must be reeducated.”
Perhaps Jehovah's Witnesses feel as they do about being called Jehovahs partly because of Scriptures such as this:
Regarding the larger thread discussion... In recent years, JWs have taken clear steps to make their Christianity unambiguous. Most congregational practicalities are now handled by Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Inc.. Some of their newer large houses of worship are called Christian Assembly Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses or similar. Their newest school is named Bible School for Christian Couples. A year or two ago their summer convention series was titled "Follow the Christ!". --AuthorityTam (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
It's probably also offensive to classify User:Snakeswithfeet along with "ignorant persecutors". It seems unlikely that that editor's use of the possessive form "Jehovah's" as a shorthand for "Jehovah's Witnesses" was intended in the manner you suggest above. Thicken that skin AuthorityTam.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
As fun as it is to have half (more than half?) my JW-related edits followed almost immediately by an edit from a certain editor...
No one is calling any editor here an "ignorant persecutor". Would-be totalitarians in Argentina, Portugal, and Mozambique were ignorant persecutors who used a certain disrespectful term. Surely, Wikipedia would prefer its editors to avoid disrespectful terms; no? --AuthorityTam (talk) 15:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Either your comments were associated with the statement by User:Snakeswithfeet or they were entirely irrelevant. But touché for the attempted deflection.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Also, the claim that "the term is actually associated with ignorant persecutors" is plain old ad hominem (guilt by association). The informal term Jehovahs (which was not employed in this thread prior to your 'objection'), whether intended to be offensive or not, is actually quite widespread, and is not specifically associated with "ignorant persecutors" at all, even though such people may be among those who have used the informal term.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, 21 minutes 10 minutes after my edit...
My initial comment should perhaps have been phrased, "...the term is actually associated by Witnesses with ignorant persecutors". I'd have thought that was clear since the statement was immediately followed by direct quotes from three JW references. Incidentally, historians such as Detlef Garbe have explicitly stated that terms such as "Jehovists" and "Jehovahs" were intentionally misused as pejoratives. Since that is true, it seems likely that what one overly defensive (defending?) editor may see as an ad hominem attack would likely be understood by others as merely an informative point on language and historical context. While a person may use this "informal term" or that, many editors are interested in choosing their words with conscientious regard for persecuted minority groups.--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Get off your soapbox. You 'answered' a question that no one asked as a knee-jerk reaction to a statement by Snakeswithfeet, and that's all. Many JW jargon terms are routinely used by JWs in a pejorative manner—'worldly', 'apostate', 'Christendom', etc—but it doesn't mean those terms are never used in a non-pejorative manner. An informal term that JWs don't like is not necessarily pejorative irrespective of whether it is sometimes intended in such a manner.
Obviously the informal term Jehovahs would quickly be replaced if it were used in an article.
The duration after which I responded is quite irrelevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Is not "knee jerk" largely related to "response" time?
Regardless, it doesn't seem even remotely erudite to argue "it's acceptable to insult JWs since JWs insult some poorly defined third party". Despite the "informality" of this or that Talk page, Wikipedia editors typically are interested in elevated discourse. And the fact is... a pejorative doesn't become less offensive just because it's used in an informal manner. Consider: the term chink may be a legitimate word but it becomes a troubling slur whenever it's directed at an Asian person. Should not an editor feel compunction about referring to a Chinese by that pejorative, even in an "informal" Talk comment? So too, the term "Jehovahs" is a slur when used as a particular euphemism for Jehovah's Witnesses. To address an adherent of Jehovah's Witnesses as "a Jehovah" is to either deliberately or carelessly employ a pejorative particular to the religion.
Perhaps Jeffro will now threaten to "report" me once again (yawn).
(See User talk:AuthorityTam#Ingratitude05:30, 23 July 201013:58, 19 August 2010.)
Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians; each adherent is "a Witness" but not "a Jehovah".
--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Again you have (deliberately?) missed the point. I did not at all state that it is "acceptable to insult JWs since JWs insult some poorly defined third party". Rather, I stated that although JWs do often use certain terms in a pejorative manner, that those terms are not always intended in such a way. Similarly, terms that may at times be used in an insulting manner about JWs are also not always intended in such a way. Many people use the term Jehovahs informally, often without any idea that it might be offensive. As an aside, referring to a Chinese person as "a Chinese" is also often considered offensive.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
No, Jehovah's Witnesses are not known for using slurs, and referring to a Chinese person as "a Chinese" is not "often considered offensive", despite what one editor may insist.
As an English-speaking American, I first and predominantly have heard the noun "a Chinese" used by Chinese persons themselves. If anything, the term's use has exploded in recent decades as certain "synonyms" came to be perceived as obsolete or problematic. The PRC, Hong Kong, and Taiwanese governments have all used the noun "a Chinese" in English language releases, as have journals and scholarly works in recent years and for hundreds of years.
Perhaps Jeffro77 meant to complain about the term "Chinaman" (which was not actually used in this thread by anyone). Interestingly, serious dictionaries have defined the obsolete term by comparing it with "a Chinese".
Note these dictionary entries for "Chinaman":
  • "Usually Offensive. a Chinese or a person of Chinese descent. (Infoplease, 2007).
  • "A native of China; a Chinese." (Websters, 1913).
  • "note that Chinaman meaning "a Chinese" is considered offensive". (Merriam-Webster, 1995
While some may not be accustomed to the singular noun "Chinese", they should be assured that it is certainly not "often considered offensive". If Jeffro77 continues to insist that "a Chinese" is an offensive term, he should support his accusation. So, even informally, editors should avoid calling a person "a Chinaman", avoid calling a person "a Jehovah", but informally and formally may feel free to refer to a person from China as "a Chinese". Also, Jehovah's Witnesses should be considered Christian for any encyclopedic purpose. --AuthorityTam (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
This conversation was already off topic, and you're going even further off topic in response to a sidenote. In-depth consideration of an entirely separate word is unnecessary. Perhaps 'a Chinese' (as a noun) is not considered offensive in the US, or perhaps your part of it. In any case, it is elsewhere, and the implication that it is purely of my own creation is false, as a very quick search reveals.[1]
JWs certainly do use terms such as 'apostate' and 'Christendom' to deliberately impart a negative view of those they are discussing.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

This old chestnut again. Sigh.

  1. JWs fulfil any testable definition of the term Christian - i.e. those who consider themselves to follow 'Christ'. POVs about whether Jesus existed or is the Messiah or is God or is a nice guy or is floating around in the sky are subjective and irrelevant.
  2. JWs self-identify as Christian.
  3. The primary objection many Christians have to calling JWs Christian is they don't believe in the Trinity, however the Catholic Encyclopedia states that "Nontrinitarianism includes all Christian belief systems that reject the Trinity."
  4. Whether JWs are a 'cult' is irrelevant as cult and Christian are not mutually exclusive.

Please don't make this tedious debate go another round.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, apologies in advance if some editors have already bumped into the WP:BISLES discussions. I'd like to solicit some neutral/outside opinions on weight and reliability of references ... or in a nutshell, what would *you* be happy to see in the article as reliably referenced and neutral. We had an initial discussion here revolving around the "uniqueness" of the name "Westward Ho!" (with an exclamation mark). A number of editors contributed to the initial discussion and references were produced and discussed. The weight and reliability of references suggested "UK" as the largest relevant area. Subsequently the topic was reopened and an editor found a single reference for "British Isles". I've disputed the reliability of this reference, especially in the face of the WP:WEIGHT of the other references. Any opinions/help greatly appreciated. --HighKing (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It would be great if a neutral opinion was voiced - we'd really would appreciate any input. Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 13:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Jamie M. Koufman NPOV

I found this article when browsing wikipedia about GERD. The general article on GERD states that there is only anecdotal evidence regarding the effect of dietary changes on GERD, but this article states that the subject has collaborated to create "a low-fat, low-acid diet that will help cure reflux and is every bit as healthy and sustainable as it is delicious." The rest of the article also reflects the style of a book jacket plug. There is ample bibliography on the article but no citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.5.79 (talk) 13:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

NPOV being used to justify OR at Family Research Council

The question of WP:SYNTH was raise for adding a reference to a paper debunking a claim by the Family Research Council. The talk at FRC is at Talk:Family Research Council#POV pushing on the criticism section and the ORN discussion was at WP:ORN#Synthesis on Family Research Council. An editor now is trying to justify on the talk page of FRC the addition of the synthesis on the basis that it is needed to ensure a neutral point of view. I've tried to say the article should only be based on sources about the topic or mentioning the topic in some way but not ones that have no relation to it but they won't accept that. Dmcq (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Please note this dispute is only a day old, and this is the second board this editor has approached. As the first board was generally supportive of his position, and discussion is continuing, I don't know why he felt it necessary to also post here. Input is welcome, of course, but be aware the primary issue currently so far as I can see is that this editor is failing to AGF and work with others. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 20:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I believe I've solved this problem. The source here links its statement "Sprigg have pushed false accusations linking gay men to pedophilia" to this page. They directly link the words "false accusations," and so we can use a full refutation directly from a source discussing FRC. I don't see any lack of AGF? Am I missing something? BE——Critical__Talk 20:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Editors have been accused of POV pushing if they didn't agree with Dmcq's interpretation of policy. This is a failure to AGF IMO. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 20:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I believe it does solve the problem. As to KillerChihuahua: Firstly it was a different editor who approached the other board. Secondly you changed the grounds from stright synth to saying NPOV overrode synth and quoted long experience for overriding my objection, so I brought it here to be exposed to other editors of long experience. Thirdly please desist from accusations of bad faith without very good grounds. Dmcq (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
You are in error. I did not "change the grounds" I was merely trying to discuss the issue and brought up relevant policies. I mentioned my time on Wikipedia in a response to your suggestion I read policy, saying that I had read it; not in any way to "override" any objections of yours. I certainly never said NPOV overrode SYNTH. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 20:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Water fluoridation controversy

I recently made this change to the article to improve the POV based on the the source, but was reverted. The source is an article that is a discussion of the precautionary principle, with one section discussing the application of it to water fluoridation. Our current WP article cherry picks safety issues raised by the authors of the source and ignores the context of the article (i.e. discussion of the precautionary principle and how the authors relate it to fluoridation, the authors' recommendation, etc); I was hoping to improve the article by placing this context in, as the source is a discussion of the precautionary principle, not a review article on the safety of fluoridation. I have now been reverted twice by an editor who admits to having not read the source in question. More input would be appreciated. Yobol (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I an only view the abstract, which does not appear to menion floridation. Could your provide some quotes from the articel that discuses floridation? The abstract does not support (as far as I can see) you desired text.Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I think some thought ought to go into choosing better encyclopedic names for the Water fluoridation article and that of the Water fluoridation controversy because at present some aspects don't fit well into either article. If the former name was changed to Fluoride (as dental treatment) it could include both artificial water fluoridation and topical fluoride application by dentists. In other words: the underling 'aim' would sit comfortably in one article and not exist as an afterthought. The new title would also makes it clear for the reader that this is nothing to do with plastic fluoridation, gas fluoridation etc. Then rename the water fluoridation controversy to Fluoride in the environment This could include the water fluoridation controversy and also sections about other sources of fluoride in the environment -good and bad. At the moment it is proving too difficult for editors to bring more stuff into any article and so fully cover all aspects. For instance there are problems caused by volcano eruptions and coal burning, eating certain food etc. which can increase levels of fluoride to harmful levels. China has now ended water fluoridation for this reason for the burden of fluorosis in it population was considered to have risen too high. Cattle in Iceland regularly suffer fluoride over exposer. Currently these two article names make countering systemic bias nigh on impossible. Sometimes, it looks like they are turning around and getting better, only to deteriorate again a few months later. They create a dichotomy in which both sides will always be wrong, (or is it the other way around). I would go further than Yobol and say both articles are simply oozing in POV and are an utter and shameful mess.--Aspro (talk) 18:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Water fluoridation is actually a featured article, and I think in fairly good shape. The controversy article however...not so much. Renaming won't solve that issue, as there is certainly enough material to justify a "controversy" article by itself, just that getting the right mix of POV is (and likely will always be) difficult. Both deal exclusively with artifical water fluoridation - any other information such as environmental fluoride would likely need a new article, not just a renaming of old ones. Yobol (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
(e/c)Certainly. For context, the text discussing fluoridation comprises a little less than one page of the approximately 8 pages of text of the article. Some quotes (I have removed ref numbers for ease of reading):
  • Title of the section: "CASE EXAMPLES OF PRECAUTION AND DENTISTRY"
  • Intro paragraph:

    "Fluoride has been added to drinking water the United State since 1945 for the exclusive purpose of preventing dental cavities. One could argue that it is the most widely used medicine in history. Since its inception, water fluoridation has been promoted as a "safe and effective way of preventing tooth decay", and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) now calls fluoridation "one of the great public health successes of the 20th century." However, some studies have raised concerns about the safety and efficacy of the practice. Some issues that make fluoridation ripe for applying a precautionary approach include the following:"

  • Following 2 paragraphs lists individual studies (all negative) about fluoridation's safety or efficacy, including discussion of cumulative exposure
  • Concluding paragraph:

    "In the face of uncertain evidence it is important to act in a manner that protects public health. A precautionary approach to fluoridation would consider all the available evidence on efficacy, safety, and alternatives. Given the temporal (throughout a lifetime) and spatial (broad population exposure) exposure to fluoride in drinking water, a more detailed analysis of potential impacts, including population variability and identification of potentially vulnerable populations would be prudent under a precautionary framework. Given the potential magnitude and scale of impacts, if they were real, one might accept a lower level of proof before taking preventive actions. Such actions could include a detailed analysis of whether cost-effective alternatives to achieve the function of fluoride exist (reducing cavities). Given the uncertainties and broad population exposure, dialogue with affected communities or their representatives would also allow a more thorough weighing of risks, benefits, and alternatives."

I note that the current text that is supported by this source seen here lists only the negative studies about fluoridation, while ignoring the intro and concluding paragraphs (and basically the entire context of the article). This is why I proposed this change. Yobol (talk) 18:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Vision restoration therapy

This new article is being written by a brand-new editor. He's doing a good job, but the article could use some help with someone familiar with WP:MEDRS, to choose and present medical information properly. --Ronz (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I wrote on the user's talk page with some suggestions. The issue is that he is referencing a lot of scientific articles without putting them into templates. There might also be oversourcing, or maybe the article really does benefit from this much sourcing. Blue Rasberry 19:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Template: Religious text primary, and Template: Primary sources

A TfD discussion has recently been opened on template {{Religious text primary}}. The TfD is currently fairly balanced in terms of bare !votes, and (as of today, Monday morning) still has about 24 hours to run. The template in question generates the text:

This article uses one or more religious texts as primary sources without referring to secondary sources that critically analyze them. Please help improve this article by adding references to reliable secondary sources.

Those bringing the TfD claim it represents POV-pushing of a particular view. They also submit that any valid purpose of the template can instead be served by template {{Primary sources}},

This article needs references that appear in reliable third-party publications. Primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please add more appropriate citations from reliable sources.

I don't want to pre-judge the outcome of the TfD, but it seems to me that one thing that the basic {{Primary sources}} template maybe doesn't do so well at the moment is to make it concrete what it is that, underlying WP:PSTS, we believe that secondary sources can bring to our articles. This is not just verification of the text of the primary source, but also critical assessment of its reliability, significance, broader context, etc.

So, regardless of the outcome of the TfD, I was wondering whether (for cases where it was more generally commentary on reliability, significance, broader context that would enhance the article; rather than simple verification that this is what the primary source says) it would be appropriate to add an option to Template:Primary_sources to put this over, to give text something like

This article uses one or more primary sources without referring to secondary sources that critically analyze them. Please help improve this article by adding references to reliable secondary sources.

I am cross-posting this message to both WT:PSTS (as that's the page that 'owns' the PSTS policy); and here at WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard (since in many ways this is more a POV/NPOV issue than an NOR issue -- that seems to be how both sides in the TfD discussion are framing it, one side seeing critical assessment as a POV that ought to be there included in any article, part of the fabric of what a reputable secondary/tertiary work such as WP aims to be; the other side seeing any such call as pushing in itself a particular POV, and therefore not neutral.)

So: Would extending Template:Primary_sources to allow it to generate text as above be consonant with the aims of the project? Or would it be POV-pushing, and (potentially) reinstating content deleted by due process? I thought I should seek advice. Follow-ups probably best centralised, I would suggest over at WT:PSTS. Jheald (talk) 12:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Need neutral descriptor for Jewish control of the media article title

A one-time editor renamed the article Jewish control of the media (Antisemitic canard) because he thought the original title made it sound like the topic was Jewish control of media, instead of a listing of various sources who say various people/groups alleged Jews controlled all or the great majority of media. However, canard means lie or fabrication and most sources use less loaded descriptors like myth, conspiracy theory or some other phrase. And there were BLP problems with constantly saying living people were guilty of a “canard” when the sources did not describe whatever they said in such negative terms. Other options are below. (Added later: I just added up results of the survey on the current name and only one person actually liked it, most just wanted some modifier and/or a more neutral sounding name that didn't make it sound like article was about that topic. See results here. )

Can people give their opinions - per Wikipedia:Name#Non-judgmental_descriptive_titles and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Naming - on which of these, or some other alternative, is better?

Thanks.CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

If I look for stuff like Apollo moon landing hoax accusations, it takes me to Moon landing conspiracy theories. So how about Media control conspiracy theories? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Part of a series on
Antisemitism
Definitions
Geography
Manifestations
Antisemitic tropes
Antisemitic publications
Antisemitism on the Internet
Persecution
Opposition
Category
Media control conspiracy theories is not quite right for two reasons: (1) the material is exclusively about alleged control of the media by Jews (although, in theory, it could be a sub-article of a larger article on other media-control topics ... but I'm not certain what those would be); and (2) the phrase "conspiracy theory" is too narrow: many of the sources do not treat the topic as a "conspiracy theory". The sources generally treat it as either: a bigoted antisemitic falsehood; an urban legend; a myth that is un-wittingly spread; the truth; a discussion of disproportional influence; or an example of media bias (see, e..g. Media_bias_in_the_United_States#Claims of a Pro-Israel media ). So the title should be broad enough to reflect all that. Very few, if any, sources use the nomenclature "conspiracy theory". Probably the most common phrase used in the sources is "Jewish control of the media canard" or "Myth of Jewish control of the media", but those do not exactly encompass the viewpoint of all the sources. --Noleander (talk) 00:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

For the sake of completeness, some other titles that have been mentioned include:

  • Allegations of Jewish control of the media
  • Jewish influence in the media
  • Jewish control of the media

Note that the latter was the original title, but some editors felt that readers might be misled by the title into thinking it was an established fact. Hence the search for a title that gives more insight into what the sources say. Part of the confusion is that some sources do perceive disproportionate influence, and that often gives rise to claims of canard and/or anti-semitism, even though the source may not have intended it that way (and many of those sources do claim they were mis-interpreted). --Noleander (talk) 00:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I included the Antisemitism sidebar here, so other editors could get the bigger picture. The "allegations" portion in the middle contains several antisemitic canards. More are listed in the Antisemitic canard article. The word "canard" is very common in that context, hence the current name of the article. See, for example, Kosher tax (Antisemitic canard). On the other hand, other similar articles such as Zionist Occupation Government do not include the word "canard" in their title. So there is no solid pattern. --Noleander (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Why not go the simple route? - Belief that Jews control the media (antisemitism) --Ludwigs2 01:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Re: use of canard in other articles Noleander mentions, I don't think we can use that as a defense of canard in this title for two reasons. First, all but two clearly refer to negative and bigoted accusations. Yet not all of them use canard at all and/or have sources that use the word.
Second, one of those two is Jewish lobby, a phrase a simple internet search can show is used more by mainstream media and even Jewish groups than bigots, and that article reflects that fact as well as current WP:RS will allow. More pertinent here is that canard means lie or fabrication for bigoted reasons. However, WP:RS more frequently use myth or conspiracy theory to describe incidents, some of which are either confusion on the part of speakers or political debate which some have chosen to call antisemitic, but are not described as deliberate lies and fabrications. Which is why I am currently tagging as failed verification all those refs that do not label such incidents "canard," at least til a more neutral title for the article allowing things described as myth, conspiracy theory, misunderstanding or whatever can be found. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Don't use pejorative terms (even anti-semitism). You don't even have to be anti-Semitic (you could even be a loyal Jew) to wonder vaguely how much influence Jews or Gentiles have over any particular profession or part of society (e.g. the diamond trade, the law or a left-wing political party). Both Jews and Gentiles often joke, for example, about the number of Jews in Hollywood or particular parts of New York. That's not equivalent to wondering if Christian blood was shed to make matzoh for Passover (Pesach). Even if the article is exclusively and specifically addressing only the anti-Semitic belief of Jewish control of the media, it's harder to disabuse such persuadable readers of the general belief if they think the article is hopelessly biased (as one would conclude from an article entitled the "Fallacy of Evolution" or the "Fallacy of Creationism"). Maybe some term like "Extent of Jewish presence in the media" or "Jewish influence [not control] in mass media" would avoid the opposite problem of seeming to assume a control that doesn't exist. There's also the tricky question of distinguishing a disproportion of Jews in some professions (and, correspondingly, of Gentiles in others) from some kind of control or overwhelming dominance. —— Shakescene (talk) 03:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I, and doubtless others, have a feeling an article on "Jewish influence in the media" quickly would be AfD'd as being "antisemitic coatrack" as was the earlier article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies related to prevalence of Jews in leadership roles in Hollywood. So perhaps only an article which focuses on negative uses of the term can survive. However, I myself will AfD it if it continues in its current highly negative form (both content and title). But if it accurately reflects sources, has some minimal discussion of when discussions of influence become bigoted accusations of control, and has strong defenses from WP:RS of those accused unjustly of being bigoted (for example, Jimmy Carter and Walt and Mearsheimer), it might at least serve some useful purpose of educating people on the topic. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Am I reading you right in that you are saying that if we don't characterize the people as anti-semites, or at least as people who have made anti-semitic comments (assuming there is a distinction) then the article will be considered antisemitic? Honestly I would hope that it is possible to have a neutral article with an encyclopedic title. I agree with Shakescene, perhaps the solution is to widen the scope of the article instead of focusing on one POV or another. un☯mi 05:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
This is just my personal perception, which could be wrong, and it's not something I agree with and obviously a partisan battleground problem. There does need to be a discussion somewhere of how to deal with articles about "accusations" against various groups of people which some or most consider to be bigoted but some significant number of WP:RS may disagree with or debate. But then I guess that's what NPOV noticeboard for. Anyway, the new title deals with my objection and I think the article can be rewritten in an NPOV way per policy, though there may be some large "debates" on various points. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

(Note: the article was just re-named to Accusations of Jewish control of the media. I don't think the re-name was intended to be disruptive; it was simply a consequence of an admin closing a week-old rename proposal. I don't think the closing admin knew about this thread here). --Noleander (talk) 06:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

That seems to me a good name for the article. Can we close this discussion now? Jheald (talk) 10:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
This sems to me a fair name. It prety much says what it does on he tin.Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
It is not a bad title. But it seems like the word "allegations" is more appropriate in this context: Allegations of Jewish control of the media. "Accusations" seems to imply face-to-face vitriol; whereas "allegations" encompasses a greater variety of claims, some subtle, some not-so-subtle. --Noleander (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree. I'd prefer "allegations", too. --Konstock (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Now that you bring it up, I agree. Oh dear. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
"Allegations" might be better. It might depend on the overall character of those claims. If you've ever spent any time at the Moon Hoax article, some of the hoaxsters are serious fanatics, and have had actual face-to-face confrontations with some NASA people. "Allegations" is perhaps more general, and at least can be thought of as "not totally wrong", in that a number of Jewish folks over the years have had media empires. The issue is whether it's true "Jewish control" or "control of some of it by businessmen who happen to be Jewish". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I prefer "accusations". It's harder-edged, more firm, more solid, more concrete -- a good thing in a title, which should sound as definite as possible. I think it also better captures the weight and seriousness of these slurs. Jheald (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Scope and WP:COATRACK

I continue to be fairly neutral on the canard/conspiracy theory/accusation front. However, I want to highlight to the board that there's been some effort to specifically focus on antisemitic allegations of control, rather than analysis of Jewish influence. Spaceclerk and myself have both suggested repeatedly on talk that the latter be placed in Jewish influence on the media (or some more regionally specific version of the same. Marokwitz and SolGoldstone have supported narrowing the scope of the article to the antisemitic allegations, which is how we ended up with the problem presented here. This is a sort of pre-emptive split of the topic that should have some benefits (see below). Right now, the following text in the lead serves as a delimitation on the topic being considered:

Although some Jewish individuals and groups — like many other individuals and groups — do have significant influence on the mass media, the anti-Semitic essence of such allegations is the proposition that Jews are not simply one influence among many, but rather control some mass media to an extensive degree and utilize the control to promote Jewish or Zionist interests.

In my ideal world "influence on the mass media" would eventually link to Jewish influence on the media.

Why bother with this split? There is a well documented antisemitic theory that suggests that Jews control the media. Remarkably, this theory arose in media environments with very limited Jewish participation. There is also scholarly and other analysis of the prominence of Jews in the United States media. Separating these two things is a way of better describing each, and lets us reduce the tarring of legitimate research with antisemitism, while explaining the discomfort aroused in some by this research. Both topics are more likely to be NPOV and well written if described separately.

I've stayed out of the above discussion because of real world busy-ness, but also because the exact wording doesn't matter to me as long as we maintain this specificity. However, bringing the title here seems to have encouraged some topic creep from "antisemitic theory" towards "phrase that might be antisemitic or might be analytical."

This being the NPOV noticeboard, I guess the question is whether this sort of limited (and later, divided) scope deals effectively with NPOV issues.--Carwil (talk) 13:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have come back just this once to make just this remark. This is a scoping issue first and a title issue only secondarily. The title cannot be agreed upon until the scope is agreed upon. Right now, the central dispute seems to be between those who believe that there is one topic here and those who believe there are two topics. It is at root a scoping issue. To some editors, the difference between these two claims --
  • "Protocols" saying that the press is in the hands of the Jews, who exercise absolute control of it
  • A contemporary comment saying that overabundance of Jews in the western press tilts coverage toward Israel
is a matter of kind or category substantial enough to deserve two separate entries; to other editors it is a matter of degree and one entry would suffice. Carwil is an example of someone who considers it a matter of kind, while CarolMooreDC considers it a matter of degree. The point of distinction is clearly made in the sentence from the entry Carwil quoted.
I stand with Carwil on this. There is a strong historical argument for maintaining that these are two fundamentally different kinds of claims, and I think that attempting to blur the two together in a Cuisinart does a terrible disservice to the entry. "Protocols", "Mein Kampf", "The International Jew" -- these describe a worldwide and coordinated plot to control the world by controlling the gentile mind by controlling the world press. They describe what they think is a flaw in the character of The Jew. Think James Bond villains; that's the scale of the plot the canard describes. And that clearly deserves its own entry, just as other antisemitic canards similarly well documented and widespread deserve their own entry.
These accusations are really quite fundamentally different in nature to contemporary discussions about whether or to what degree there is somehow undue Jewish influence on the contemporary western press. And it is of course an entirely different topic than whether or not there is undue Zionist (i.e. not necessarily Jewish) influence on the contemporary western press; adding that into the mix is to hopelessly muddle the topic and guarantee the article itself turns into applesauce.
The issue of "canard" vs "myth" vs "conspiracy theory" is really something of a red herring or a proxy for the fundamental issue here, and will not be resolved until that fundamental issue is resolved.
There is no serious dispute that there should be an entry on the "Protocols" historical canard. It is notable and well-documented. The dispute is about whether the article should be extended to include other things as well. It would be genuinely terrible if a solid and signficant article were turned into applesauce because of a dispute from someone who thinks the article's clearly delineated boundaries should be stretched to include other topics.
Carwil and I are among those who feel the two topics need separate entries, rather than trying to WP:COATRACK the second into the first. It is also, I think, the broad consensus of the talk page. No one is telling editors not to do an entry on Jewish influence on the media - literally no one has said this. But there is substantial resistence to coatracking it into the entry on the canard. And this is what must be addressed before any solution to the naming issue is likely to stick. Spaceclerk (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I think that 100% of the material in the current article is based on sources that treat the topic as myth/canard/conspiracy. Although some primary sources may use wordings like "disproportionate influence", the secondary sources that analyze the primary sources all do so in the context of "this is an example of the myth/canard/conspiracy". And, of course, secondary sources are more important in this regard. Even the sources that discuss employment statistics in media fields do so in the context of analyzing the myth/canard/conspiracy. I concur that there could be a new article on Jewish influence on the media (not in context of myth/canard/conspiracy) - if such a new article were created many of the same sources would be used for both articles (e.g. J. J. Goldberg's Jewish Power), and probably there would be some overlapping material between the two articles. If someone wants to start on that second article, I could help a bit, but not much due to real-life obligations. --Noleander (talk) 22:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Spaceclerk: above you discuss the distinction between "older" topics (Protocols, etc) and "contemporary" topics. But the sources do not make such a distinction. To the contrary, they often treat modern instances of the myth as just a continuation/repetition/refinement of the older instances. Unless you can find some sources that make such a temporal distinction, it would be Original Research for us editors to make that distinction. --Noleander (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • There have been so many false and even nasty accusations [add later to clarify: from one editor especially saying] that I personally want to make the article about Jewish influence in the media that I had to report it to Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts. I hope we are not going down that path again!
  • This subsection is just "Involved editors," all ignoring the main points I've made over and over: a) control has to be defined by WP:RS, which it still is not (and even after looking I haven't found very good definitions, but will keep trying) and b) the article emphasizes C, so there are some real BLP issues.
  • Changing the name to include Antisemitic canard seemed to me a gross attempt to label any and all discussions of control/influence that are mentioned in the article as lies and fabrications, even when the WP:RS did not, which is why I brought the issue here. However, at this point there really are no specific article edits either a) showing that someone wants to make the article about influence and b) trying to correct the verifiability and BLP issues mentioned above. So it's not too relevant to this board, just more WP:Soapbox that stymies real work on the article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Carol, is this—"Carwil is an example of someone who considers it a matter of kind, while CarolMooreDC considers it a matter of degree."—an "accusation"? Really? I think it's an attempt to discuss the appropriate scope, in a polite and dispassionate way.
Your point (a) seems to be focused on the above debate on terms, which is fine to me. Whatever encompasses the various antisemitic concepts is lovely.
Point (b) is a good example of material that should be split to Jewish influence in the media, or whatever such an article ends up being called. It's precisely because this material should not be readily associated with Mein Kampf and the Jewish World Conspiracy that it belongs in a separate article. Perhaps you are missing my agreement on this issue because I haven't made bold edits to this effect yet.
In such a separate article, it will still be appropriate to say "Source X argues that Academic Y's argument is merely a continuation of a long-running antisemitic canard that Jews control the media."
Finally, if you re-read what I and Spaceclerk have written, you will see that "a gross attempt to label any and all discussions of control/influence that are mentioned in the article as lies and fabrications" is in fact the opposite of our intent.--Carwil (talk) 13:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I clarified one editor was making accusations, which makes me highly sensitive to his bringing up the issue here again. Obviously other non-involved editors above did make make a point about widening the scope, but they are not editing the article currently. Let me say yet again: I'm content to just fix the obvious organizational, WP:RS, BLP, WP:synth (when they appear) problems that make the article WP:POV. And fixing BLP problems means you can't just say one source says something is antisemitic when solid WP:RS disagree. But we don't have to argue in general terms here. I am starting to make changes to correct BLP problems and if they get reverted (as opposed to tweaked, which is often appropriate) we can just go to WP:BLPN (noticeboard) for uninvolved editor opinions. Also I clearly wrote that "gross attempt" was related to "Changing the name." And in fact the talk page survey showed that only one person wholeheartedly supported it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that the previous title "Jewish control of the media (antisemitic canard)" is much preferable to either the "accusations" or "allegations" current titles. As the article itself points out, the notion that Jews control the media is, in fact, an antisemitic canard, and is described as such by reliable sources. In contrast, the use of either the word "accusations" or the word "allegations" as is done in the current title is not compliant with the MOS guidelines for the use of these words. (See: WP:ALLEGED, "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people on trial for crimes. When alleged or accused are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear.") Here, the article describes an antisemitic myth, not a case where "wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined," and moreover the source of the "allegations" is neither clear, nor easy to make so. We should rename this article to something that more accurately reflects its content, and that is more in line with Wikipedia's policies. I'm going to propose a move to "Jewish control of the media (antisemitic canard)", unless someone can explain why another alternative title is better. Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

All this discussion is fine, but User: Jehochman clearly violated policy by changing the name back to a rejected one without discussing it on the talk page. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Please support your accusation with diffs, or else strike it. Where was my version rejected? I am unaware of any such rejection. Jehochman Talk 05:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
At this diff: whose edit summary reads: moved Talk:Jewish control of the media (Antisemitic canard) to Talk:Accusations of Jewish control of the media: Per WP:RM discussion.) Now will you change it back? As this and discussion on talk page show, there are a lot of different ideas for titles for the article, but yours is not the most popular one. CarolMooreDC (talk) 06:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the diff, I moved the article back, pending outcome of the discussion. It would have been ideal if you'd assumed good faith initially and just shown me that diff, instead of haranging me for "Policy Violation" and "ADMINABUSE". We could have saved a lot of trouble. I'm quite reasonable when people use logic instead of rhetoric. Jehochman Talk 06:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Please note that the first sentence of this whole thread is: A one-time editor renamed the article Jewish control of the media (Antisemitic canard) . And the posting you initially replied to started off it seems to me that the previous title "Jewish control of the media (antisemitic canard)" is much preferable. So you should have read more carefully to start. I linked to it in my first response to you. CarolMooreDC (talk) 06:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
This thread is obviously too convoluted for my underpowered brain.  :-) Jehochman Talk 07:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar

[2] In the confident expectation this will be reverted to include text that cherry picks details and includes details as a coat rack for modern nationalist claims, I invite outside comment on the change. Justin talk 12:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

[3] And it was, I welcome outside opinion on my edit proposal. Justin talk 21:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Chrysostomos Papasarantopoulos

I've been trying to neutralize this article, but it keeps getting reverted by User:ΙΣΧΣΝΙΚΑ-888 on the basis that I'm "biased" and not an "SME" (whatever that is). See diff and diff.

Here is what I wrote on the talk page:

This article contains some wording that is more suited to a eulogy than to an encyclopedia. Some examples:
  • Although no longer young, Father Chrysostomos displayed an energy, which a man half his age might have envied. He launched himself into a continual round of evangelizing, teaching and preaching. He had the qualities, which should be the hallmark of every priest: zeal, dedication, self-sacrifice, devotion to duty and, above all, holiness.
  • The greatest desire of his heart was to spread Orthodoxy to Congo, and in this, he was marvelously successful. He was a perfectly humble man, full of the Holy Spirit, a truly altruistic person who remains relatively unknown even today.
  • For 10 years, Father Chrysostomos laboured in Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania, but all the time his spiritual vision was fixed on another territory, where the flag of Orthodoxy had not at that time been raised.
  • he fell asleep in Africa having started a huge task, which was continued with great success
Some other parts of the article are borderline. Articles are to be written in a factual, neutral tone. The goal is not to say how great the subject is. Even if the text is sourced it has to be written neutrally, unless it's a direct quote.

No response from the article author. Any advice? ... discospinster talk 15:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

"SME" would mean "Subject Matter Expert". Those comments are definitely editorializing, and quite possibly lifted from elsewhere. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I reviewed the changes you made and posted support for your edits on the article's talk page. Your edits remove peacock terms, make the article more NPOV, and do nothing controversial. Blue Rasberry 19:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Charlotte Green

We've got an WP:UNDUE dispute. Please see this edit to see the dispute, and then comment at Talk:Charlotte_Green#UNDUE? on how much mention there should be of her 'corpsing' or giggling while reading the news. Thanks. Fences&Windows 00:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Rabbi Pinto

Help in reviewing said page. Single unit users add biased information and simply dont read the sources. They want positives and not facts. Pls assist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 (talk) 11:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Appears to be a disagreement between User:Diannaa and User:Babasalichai, with the above IP intervening and User:Debresser reverting the IPs edits made on the 29th. I'm having a look at the article. --Habap (talk) 16:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Rabbi Pinto Prominence: The page is biased and whitewashed. How can he be such a great worldwide leader if the sources cited say the following: The Forward article says http://www.forward.com/articles/128944/#ixzz17UWltlMZ Pinto, an Israeli-born rabbi of Moroccan descent, is little known in the United States. The Haaretz article says: “Pinto is not well known in Israel.” http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/a-rabbi-not-afraid-to-deviate-1.265442

Should these not be added ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 04:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

There are already ongoing discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts#Rabbi Pinto and Talk:Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto. --Mosmof (talk) 04:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

There arent participants other than the people whitewashing the info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 04:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

FYI, the accumulation of those multiple sections wasn't spamming. Random users just kept opening new sections with the same topic, so I took all of them and just placed them one after the other, in hopes that it would deter someone from creating new ones. --Habap (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Paul Robeson again

Hello, following up on a thread formerly posted here I wish to reiterate the problem. User:Catherine Huebscher is insistent on claiming ownership of this article, refusing an improvements made by me, pushing her particular POV. She even goes so far as to delete sourced information not to her liking (section "religious views"), goes on insulting her opponents. This is a grave disruption of Wikipedia and cannot stand like this! Str1977 (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Go to WP:ANI, post specifics of her exhibiting WP:OWN, show diffs with the deletions of sourced material, and diffs of the insults. It's not just a POV problem, but also a behaviour problem. --Habap (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
A sub-issue within this thread is the existence of Paul Robeson Congressional Hearings as a separate article. I re-created this article (formerly titled Paul Robeson and Jackie Robinson) on 12-9-10 due to the prior deletion's impact on the FA status of the Robinson article, on which I have worked. Without commenting on all the Robeson material, this limited subpage seems sufficienlty NPOV to me, and had been re-worked by numerous editors other than User:Catherine Huebscher. BillTunell (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. Hello, following up on a thread formerly posted here I wish to reiterate the problem. User:Str1977 is a LIAR about my actions,insistent on claiming ownership of this article and pushing his particular POV. he even goes so far as to delete sourced information not to his liking, goes on insulting his perceived opponents. This is a grave disruption of Wikipedia. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 7:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Catherine, simply repeating my words back at me and calling me "liar" is not a very intelligent response. I have repeatedly worked in changes and suggestions by you and do not at all claim OWNership. Str1977 (talk) 10:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I am somewhat involved, having edited the article after the issue was previously raised on this or another board. It is getting very tiresome. An ANI post might help to clear the way for collaborative editing. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Famine Song

There has been an ongoing problem at the article Famine song. Editors did not write a very good lead so it was fiddled with. It is considered a racist and bigoted song. The lead makes that clear. However, it seems inappropriate to not give even a brief mention of the rebuttal. Please see the recent revert and let me know if I am smoking crack.[4] Another problem with that version of the lead is it gives undue weight to a single court case while the previous version was more encompassing. I would not mind adding an additional line like "it was banned from Ibrox" to give the rebuttal even less weight. Cptnono (talk) 02:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC) Follow up: see source used

Think there's a bit of a problem here because the rebuttal 404s. I also can't get it from Wayback. So, unless an alternative source can be found, it should probably not be referred to either in the lead or the body. It's probably a BLP issue, because the suggestion is that the Supporter's Trust, which will have identifiable officers, defended what is perceived to be a racist song.--FormerIP (talk) 03:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
The rebuttal has been rejected, and it is a minority fringe view only held by the people who sing the song. Do we include "he claimed to be not guilty as his trial" in the lead of articles about every criminal who did so? The opinions are racism are deliberately left out of the lead and the facts are stuck to. The facts being judges have ruled the song is racist and that someone has been convicted of singing it. Comments like "single court case" would suggest Cptnono has not even read the article also.. O Fenian (talk) 09:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
That is my bad, FormerIP. The secondary I used was This. I thought it was sufficient enough of a paraphrase to not include it. The rejection has been based on undue weight. That was taken care of in the edit, IMO. And of the impacted parties, this is not such a minority viewpoint that it shouldn't be in the lead at all. Furthermore, the recent revert limits the readers understanding of the subject by reducing the summary of the article. I was thinking about it and thought adding "It is banned form Ibrox and singing the song can lead to arrest and prosecution" might improve the summary while also reducing the prominence of the rebuttal. As it is now though, I provided a solution that expanded the lead, gave prominence to the overall concern, and made a small mention of thoughts by an involved party VS a short lead that only summarizes one incident.Cptnono (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay, well the Times is clearly an RS for the info. In terms of having an opinion as to whether it should be in the lead or not, the only thing I would say is that the rebuttal seems to me a bit flimsy to be taken seriously. --FormerIP (talk) 01:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
That is the beauty of satire. Either you laugh or you are offended by it. It isn't up to us to decide if it is to be taken seriously or not. We have at least two (I proposed a third) lines criticizing the song w/ a single line giving the explanation. And the revert readded a template since it is a poor lead right now.Cptnono (talk) 06:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
It is up to us to decide what is to be taken seriously, since we ought to be giving due weight to the different bits of information available. We don't, for example, consider that revisionist accounts ought to feature in the lead of The Holocaust. Given the well-documented sectarian tensions between Rangers and Celtic, I'm not sure that the POV that the song is just a bit of fun and Celtic fans are just failing to get the subtle humour is very credible one. --FormerIP (talk) 19:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Did my version say anything like that? Again, multiple lines criticizing it and a single line showing a different view. What is the problem? Have you looked at the diff and source provided and if so, how is the revert superior?Cptnono (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Multiple lines? I see you have a tendency to overstate the number of lines involved, while understating the number of courts that have said the song is racist. If the article was to (correctly in my opinion) state right at the start "The Famine song is a racist song.." then there may be a case for inclusion. However we do not do that, and stick solely to the facts. The extreme fringe viewpoint that a bigoted song is not bigoted has been rejected by not one but two courts, and I have yet to see an independent source that says it is anything but bigoted. As I have said constantly, extreme minority fringe views do not belong in the lead of the article. O Fenian (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes multiple lines. There were two added about criticism and I have proposed a third. I also added a line discussing what the song was about. So that would be 4 lines that certainly make the impression that it is often considered offensive. I understand that there was some knee-jerk reaction (why else would someone revert to a version that has the lead tagged?) but I do not understand what the problem is with the version presented especially if an additional line is added. And defining it as racist in the first line is a nonstarter for me. It also is not necessary since the version I presented is properly balanced with weight given towards it being offensive. Cptnono (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's a racist/nationalist/offensive song. We have multiple sources saying it is. It's not exactly unheard of for football supporters to sing a deliberately offensive song, is it? I don't see any reason to provide a "rebuttal" unless there's a good source for that. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

And my edit made that even clearer! Did you read the diff? Also, there is a fine source.[5]Cptnono (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
To make it even clearer:

The Famine Song is a derogatory football chant sung by Rangers fans, mainly to provoke Celtic supporters. Set to the tune of Sloop John B by The Beach Boys, the chant was first heard in 2008. The lyrics–which include the line "the famine's over, why don't you go home"–refer to the Irish famine of the 1840s.

The song has been criticised by politicians in Scotland and Ireland. Scottish authorities consider it racist and bigoted. Some Rangers supporters dismiss such criticism and consider the song to be satirical rather than sectarian. Fans singing the song at Ibrox Stadium are subject to arrest and prosecution.

VS

The Famine Song is a derogatory football chant sung by Rangers fans, mainly to provoke Celtic supporters. Set to the tune of Sloop John B by The Beach Boys, the chant was first heard in 2008. Three judges in Scotland have ruled the song is racist, and a Rangers fan was found guilty of a breach of the peace (aggravated by religious and racial prejudice) for singing the song.

Cptnono (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Where are these multiple lines of so-called criticism you refer to? The current version has a single sentence of what you term criticism, although simply stating courts have ruled the song to be racist is not actually criticism. Where are the ones you refer to in "There were two added about criticism"? Considering virtually every single source that deals with the song is negative, the article will be also. That is neutral point-of-view, not sympathetic point-of-view. You repeatedly fail to address the extreme fringe nature of your proposed change. The bigots' excuse has been rejected by two courts already, so why on earth would they get a rebuttal saying they dismiss the criticism? There is not a "fine source", since no reliable source actually holds a viewpoint like that. A reliable source reporting on an extreme fringe viewpoint does not make the viewpoint any less fringe. The only people that still laughably claim the song is not racist are the bigots that sing it or their paid advocates, and their viewpoint is not shared by any reliable source and has been rejected twice by courts. O Fenian (talk) 01:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I think be "fine source" he means it was reported in the Times so we can be confident that there is such a person and he did make such comments, which is true enough.
Cptnono: Your version seems to excise the fact that there have been successful prosecutions over the song (surely, absent that a football chant would not merit its own article in the first place) and instead promotes the existence of some ham-fisted apologetics from a PR guy. I don't think a reference to "some Rangers supporters" is warranted in any case. This guy is speaking very much for himself. The song is very obviously intended to cause offence. Rangers fans are likely to split into two camps: those who think it is good to cause offence and those who don't (I won't speculate on proportions). Giving prominence to the absurd viewpoint that no harm is meant by the song just doesn't seem appropriate. --FormerIP (talk) 01:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
It clearly states that it has been called racist and bigoted (more then the current lead) and it clearly states that those who sing it are subject ot prosecution. What is the problem with those lines? And if I provide more sources saying that some fans do not consider it racist would it be acceptable then? Right now we are giving prominence to one specific case so I don't see how that is better then giving a brief mention that not everyone looks at it as racist. They don;' that is factual and verifiable. It doesn't mean they are right just that that is how some people feel. You do realize that I am not trying to make the article say that it is not racist, right? I thought that was clear in the edit. If you would prefer "Scottish judges have twice ruled that the song is racist" then I would be fine with that also.Cptnono (talk) 12:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

NPOV and Article Titles (Help!)

This is more of a conceptual question, so I can't provide diffs for you to read. I write this here since I am sure that most of the contributors in this Noticeboard are quite knowledgeable in the area of WP:NPOV and article titles. It would be of great help if you could please answer this since I am in the process of improving an article, but I would like this background point to be answered prior to starting the improvement. Please help. This is the situation:

  1. Article X is currently under the title of Article A.
  2. There exists other possible names for this article, including: B, C, and T.
  3. The names A, B, C, are all linked to different theories, all relating to the same article, and none of the theories has "an upper hand" on the other. In other words, names B, C, are not fringe theories. Any of them could have been the title for the article, but it just so happens that A was preffered.
  4. However, article name T is unbiased in this respect as it is not tied to any specific theory: it is simply a term. In other words, article T fits the WP:NPOV guideline (in comparisson to the other article names).
  5. All of the possible titles have the backing of reliable sources. Despite name T is not tied to a theory, it does have reliable sources backing it as a synonym of the other titles, and also establishes its definition.
  6. There exists a controversy regarding the origin of Article X, and theories A and C are the main competitors.
  7. Also, none of the titles (A,B,C,T) can be verified through reliable sources as having the most common usage or being the "most used".

The Problem

  • I would like to know if, by naming the Article X by the name of A, is the WP:NPOV rule broken? I ask this question since the article could be named also B or C, both equally valid theories, but the name A is being imposed just because it was the first to be used to title the page. Additionally, remember that A is a controversial term which is challenged by term C. Also, remember of the existence of the valid WP:NPOV term T.

Why the question? I'd like to rename the article to term T, but I don't know if I will have the Wikipedia policies/guidelines on my side before I begin this task. T seems to be the neutral, valid, and reliable name that the article should have. Please, could you answer this question?--MarshalN20 | Talk 03:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It's too theoretical. If you are sure you are firmly grounded in Wikipedia policies, better to just bring the specific, explicit issue here. CarolMooreDC (talk) 06:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't know about NPOV but policy P and Q might apply to A and X and perhaps R might be the right approach to B, C and T. Dmcq (talk) 10:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Hypothets are difficult at best. Unless the title is clearly POV, and I mean clearly POV ("John Doe (Nazi)' or the like), the title should not be changed, but appropriate redirects meake sense. Using article title selection as being on the basis of editors' judgement as to "fringe theories" is just going to create more problems, for sure! Vide the CC article title arguments. Collect (talk) 11:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, it's not about us at all. [6]

I am having a bit of an issue in the Spanish wikipedia with some editors regarding the WP:NPOV pilar and the WP:TITLE guideline. Yes, I know that the best place to deal with this issue would be in the Spanish wikipedia, but this is just a general question (and I feel more comfortable writing in English than in Spanish).

--Habap (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Editors who know any Spanish (or can use the Google translator) may exercise their policy skills in this discussion on the Spanish Wikipedia. It concerns what title to use for a football (soccer) move known in English as a Bicycle kick. Currently, this topic is written up under 'Chilena (fútbol)' on es.wiki but editors disagree on the best name to use. If they would just call it a 'bicicleta' then they might be done :-). EdJohnston (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

You've got the matter partially right, though my actual point was going to be in regards to the English article Ceviche. I'd like to name it "Cebiche" like in the Spanish wikipedia, but I didn't know if I had the policy foundations on my side to argue the point. Other possible names include the Quechua "Siwichi," or its other variations of Sebiche/Seviche. So, if you could please tell me whether I have a case here or not, it would help me save time.

  • However, since you brought up the Spanish wikipedia discussion I'm also having (which, I suppose is similar), the matter (though in Spanish) applies to the same WP:NPOV Wikipedia policies. The Spanish article discussion has gotten to be quite a mess, with a series of different points being discussed, but maybe you NPOV experts can help in at least one point (The NPOV point, of course). Here is the matter:
Currently, it is being questioned whether the title "Chilena" fits or does not fit the WP:NPOV guidelines. The arguments for this are (1) there exists various equally valid theories of invention that have their specific name for the play, (2) the name "chilena" is one of the terms associated with a specific theory, (3) it cannot be proven as the term with the common usage in its language, (4) there exists a third "neutral" term named "Tijera," which could be used to title the article. So, the simple question, based on these points, is whether "Chilena" fits the WP:NPOV guideline or if it breaks it.

Nonetheless, please remember to answer my first question. If you don't want to answer the second, you don't have to.--MarshalN20 | Talk 01:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

You have not linked to any place that the 'cebiche' spelling is being defended. Per WP:COMMONNAME we should use the most common spelling in English as determined from the reliable sources that discuss this topic. I don't see how WP:NPOV gets into this problem. We just want to know the term that most published sources use. Regarding the Spanish wiki, if the sources actually show that different countries use different terms for the bicycle kick, then that should be documented in the article. Your idea that there ought to be a 'neutral' title appears new. I don't see that any WP policy recognizes that idea. (We want to know which word is used the most; that should not be a POV issue). EdJohnston (talk) 01:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Ceviche is the common spelling in both English and American Spanish, so there's not much of a controversy here. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 01:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again for the quicky response. I do have sources that show "cebiche" as a common name. Here are some:
Whatscookingamerica: "Ceviche, which is often spelled seviche or cebiche".
Ochef: "Ceviche, seviche, or cebiche — your choice".
Recipes4Us: "Cebiche, also spelled Ceviche or Seviche".
Wikibooks: "Cookbook:Cebiche de pescado"
Spanish Academy: "Cebiche"
Cookbook: "Cebiche"
However, if you believe that these don't "quite cut it", I'll leave it at that; I value the opinions of contributors in this area plenty more than mine (I have yet to learn more about how the WP:NPOV guideline works; but always willing to learn).--MarshalN20 | Talk 02:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
In regards to the bicycle kick article in Spanish. All of the different theories are documented in the article. I have been a constant contributor to the bicycle kick article in this Wikipedia, including creating the History of the bicycle kick article (which is currently an orphan, but I'm not sure how to fix that). I tried going to help out in the discussions going on the Spanish WP, but failed to find a solution to the problem (Nobody wants to reach consensus). I proposed the neutral title "Tijera" expecting that they would agree on it, but still no consensus came about for it.
I understand your statement regarding the "word [that] is used the most", but the editors are unable to provide any sort of documentation to verify which word is the most used (I have asked them directly). They are all equally valid Spanish terms (synonyms, I guess is the right word), but the problem is that while terms such as "chilena" are associated with "origin theories", the term "Tijera" is not associated with any origin theory. Newspapers throughout Latin America and Spain use the term "Tijera", and I even found a source that explicitly said countries such as Denmark, Sweden, Slovakia, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, etc. call the bicycle kick "Tijera" (or "Scissors") in their own language (Source is in Spanish [7]). Based on the sources, is where it seems "Tijera" comes out as the most appropiate term to use to title that article.--MarshalN20 | Talk 02:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
(Back to the original question) If you want more definitive examples of English usage, I would look to what reputable culinary institutes use. There the usage for the modern dish (that is, what is taught to chefs, what you eat at a restaurant) is ceviche--but in discussing traditional roots, say, Peruvian cebiche, the cebiche from is used. One option for the article is to use ceviche for the title and modern English usage but to use cebiche when discussing the "original" ethnic dish from a particular region. Appropriately written, both forms can have their place in an English-language article. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 22:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
In Peru they call it either way, though I think most Peruvians actually preffer the usage of the "v" (Ceviche) rather than the "b" (Cebiche). However, from what I can tell (based on the sources I've read), "Cebiche" was the "original" name of the plate. I get to this conclusion based on old documents showing the usage of the "b" more common than the "v" (Even to the point of the term "Sebiche" being used, no "v"). However, I'm quite sure that's original research. In the case of Spanish, even the Royal Spanish Academy (which "regulates" the official Spanish language) calls it with a "b". You mention that the "usage for the modern dish is ceviche" (in regards to culinary institutes). Are there any sources that actually prove this? If there are no actual sources that explicitly demonstrate or state this, couldn't that point be considered original research? Best regards, and my apologies for the long discussion.--MarshalN20 | Talk 20:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Windows Phone 7 Grossly Biased, Active Editors Purge All Negative Info

Certain users are unilaterally deleting any negative information regarding Windows Phone7, causing the page to have an absurdly pro-platform bias. For example, CaptainStack has been particularly active in unilateral deletion of information on issues with phone features and sales results. Further, CaptainStack has colluded with Intelati off the article's discussion page in the past to oppose user Lester, who may have files a prior NPOV.

Some examples.

[8] [9] [10] [11] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.99.114 (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The filing IP has been blocked as a sock of User:MbdSeattle, who is currently under a 3RR block per Wikipedia:AN3#User:MbdSeattle reported by User:Dayewalker (Result: 24h). EdJohnston (talk) 22:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I am CaptainStack, accused of removing all negative information on the Windows Phone 7 page and collusion with other editors, as well as being acused of being a blogger I am not, and being paid by Microsoft to edit the Windows Phone 7 page. Let me start by saying that I try to remove all information that is irrelevant, non neutral, speculative, or unencyclopedic. Secondly, I don't think working with other editors, or having people that agree with me coutns as collusion. Many editors disagreed with Lester's edits and it got to Sysops, where it was eventually settled. We "worked together" to end the edit war and but there was no collusion. I do not personally know any of the other editors. CaptainStack (talk) 01:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the first three diffs, there very well maybe an NPOV problem with the article. Infoworld is major publication in technology. You can't exclude their reviews of Windows Phone 7 just because you disagree with it. Likewise, I see nothing wrong with comparing WP7 sales to Android or iPhone sales. No offense, but the claim that you only remove "irrelevant, non neutral, speculative, or unencyclopedic" content seems hollow. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

In this ANI thread (see the second and third sections), I have expressed my concerns about the actions of an admin closely associated with Scientology-related articles. Since it is a pattern of actions rather than actions on a specific article, I feel that ANI is a more appropriate place to start the discussion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

How many different noticeboards are the two of you going to take this issue to? This is starting to clog the works all over the place. I literally cannot find a noticeboard at Wikipedia where there exists some thread where you and Cirt aren't actively battling over Scientology. Seriously. I think some action needs to be taken against both of you equally here. --Jayron32 05:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Cirt may be battling over Scientology, but I am not - my concern remains the application of our policies and guidelines. It just happens that Cirt's main subject area is Scientology. I posted courtesy notices here and in BLPN since the concerns raised deal directly with POV and BLP issues. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 06:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Look, I have two toddlers at home that fight in a more civil manner. The whole "HE STARTED IT" motif of these threads is beginning to wear thin. It makes people lose interest in the content of these threads and instead makes us focus on the juvenile nature of the battle. If either one of you is "right" in the substance of this dispute, it is getting masked by the expression of the dispute. --Jayron32 06:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I merely wanted to be clear that my interest in this actually has very little to do with Scientology, since it has been misunderstood in other places. If this is your reaction to a fairly unremarkable three-day old posing, perhaps the problem lies with you. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 06:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Christian eschatology

The article certainly is informative, however, it is written from a strictly Seventh-Day Adventist point of view and does not identify itself as such. In fact, it just plainly states the SDA viewpoint as if it is authoritative.' 69.127.144.106 (talk) 00:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I have tagged the article with problem templates.[12] I have asked for assistance from WikiProjects Religion and Christianity.[13][14] Vassyana (talk) 03:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Greenhouse gas emissions of plug-in hybrids

Over at Talk:Plug-in hybrid #Fossil fueled electric mode CO2 emissions relative to petroleum internal combustion inefficiencies, two editors thought this version was POV, so they assumed that I was biased when I tried to edit the intro to remove a lie about whether plug-in hybrids (PHEVs) cut greenhouse gasses -- even though there is a source in the article saying PHEVs cut greenhouse gases 30 to 60 percent. They are using comparisons of PHEVs to regular non-plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) showing that the HEVs supposedly save greenhouse gas emissions relative to coal. The electric drive train is much more efficient than the internal combustion engine, but oil is cleaner than coal. If the article isn't comparing the subject of the article to the status quo, then it's not as useful as if it did. Please help! Thank you. Why Other (talk) 11:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

David Roberts (mayor)

Glowing descriptions / biospam persistently added by User:Elbeat and an IP. I've pulled some out but they keep coming back. The current version borders on being an advertisement. Hairhorn (talk) 23:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I confirm that user:Elbeat just made this revision which removed lots of references and added a huge unreferenced replacement of the cited material. I reverted this. I support your efforts to police the page; please tell this board or an admin if you continue to have problems. Blue Rasberry 06:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Malvinist?

Resolved

There is ongoing discussion in Talk:Falklands War#Malvinist? about the text:

Admiral Jorge Anaya ardent malvinist and anglophobe, was the driving force in the Junta's decision to invade

A majority of editors have said that "Malvinist" is a biased neologism and in my opinion "ardent" and "anglophobe" represent only the British POV but not the Argentine view. I would like outside opinion as to whether the edit meets WP:NPOV and gives appropriate coverage per WP:DUE. Thank you. --Keysanger 21:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

A correction to the misleading post here. Keysanger alleges this is a biased neologisn no one else does, the majority including our Argentine colleagues disagree. In point of fact, the regular contributors from Argentina disagreed and provied sources to support the caption. Anaya was the principle architect of the Argentine decision to invade the Falkland Islands and his antipathy toward the English and ardent desire to "recover" the "Malvinas" are well known and noteworthy. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Everyone is encouraged to read and comment in Talk:Falklands War#Malvinist?. --Keysanger 15:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The Scott Sisters

This is an article that I've written & that is currently linked from the main page on DYK. An editor has recently added a POV tag, but does not have specific suggestions abut how to make the article more neutral, other than to say that they feel that there is probably another perspective that is not represented in the article. I've gone through the news articles relating to this case carefully, though, and feel that the article reflects the balance of reliable sources. I'd like to resolve this quickly, because the article is currently linked from the main page. Could someone take a quick look at the article and its sourcing and advise? Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 16:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I was the one who tagged the article and I think your characterization of my tagging is both inaccurate and misleading. There are many sources you have not consulted -- the proscutor's pleadings, the appellate pleadings, etc. You haven't done a Lexis search. Googling something is not exhaustive research. As well, you could strip out the subjective language and attribute it to the sources, not include it in the article as ironclad fact. You are trying to promote an article you wrote -- you are not an objective party in this matter. 64.38.197.208 (talk) 16:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
This is duplicating a conversation currently on Talk:The Scott Sisters, but here is my reply from there: The case documents are primary sources, so any analysis of them would be original research. From what I've read of the case transcript, the primary sources seem consonant with the coverage of the case in the news, but it's actually not relevant for writing the article what the primary sources say, since this is considered original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Also, in general, attributing subjective language to sources is a good idea, any particular phrases you had in mind? I'd like to resolve this quickly since it seems unfortunate to have an article tagged while it is linked from the main page, if there are no concrete suggestions for improving it. Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 16:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I think the article has been improved significantly since the tag was placed and now presents several sides of the issue based on sources provided by the original author. I think the original version was rather subjective and omitted key facts, like the fact that it was an armed robbery not just a robbery, and that they were charged with orchestrating the crime not just involvement. Additionally the article has been restructured by moving some of the subjective statements in support of the two women out of the lead paragraph and into the body of the article under a separate section. I would say the article is now balanced enough that the tag can be removed. The local newspaper in Mississippi, The Clarion-Ledger has many articles about the case but they're only accessible by subscription online. I will visit the library next week and see what I can pull from their archives to add to the article. 208.83.61.202 (talk) 20:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with 208.83.61.202. In my opinion, the article accurately details both the reason for the incarceration and the opposition.-RHM22 (talk) 23:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Bosnian pyramids

I'm just a simple user, so I'm not sure if I'm following all your rules correctly. The author of entry on Bosnian pyramids insistently misinterprets the article he referenced. He claims that "Scientific investigations of the site show that there is no pyramid there" and references three outside sources for this claim. Yet, the author of reference 3 Anthony Harding specifically explains that he visited the site but also that there hasn't been any scientific investigation there u until now, and even gives an his opinion why it didn't happen. I tried (and some people before me) to point it out to the author on article's talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bosnian_pyramids#.22Scientific_investigations.22 but he simply refuses to hear anything, and ignores proposals to correctly interpret the text. Now, I understand that the matter is highly controversial and maybe really is a hoax, but would anyone need to bend the truth on Wikipedia, even slightly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.137.191 (talk) 23:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I know nothing about the article's subject or about the discussion you are having, but it seems you are not asking for anyone to check either despite your providing links to both. In answer to your question, check wp:truth to see that truth is not important. Wikipedia attempts to gauge the extent to which sources are reliable and to keep neutral, but neutral information from reliable sources is acceptable. State another question if that answer does not satisfy you. Blue Rasberry 06:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

An accredited professor, Ezra Zubrow, has stated that these ARE pyramids, and more research should be done. Yet, you will not find any reference to him on the WP Bosnian Pyramid page because they keep getting deleted. Any posts showing proof for, or arguments for the existence of the pyramids is promptly deleted. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqiqCgjQxlA Here is the link yourself. At very least, to provide a neutral point, the opinions of Dr Zubrow should be represented at the WP page, along side the arguments contrary to what he is saying. Until then, the page shows a clear bias.

47th of foot regiment

Disregard
 – Non-actionable due to lack of information, lack of NPOV issue, and likely wrong place. J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Correction: The 47th of foot was commanded By Lt. Colonel John Hale (1725-1806)rather than Major General James Wolfe during the battle for Quebeck City, Plains of Abraham. Sept. 13th 1759. Col. Hale was the fast friend of Gen. Wolfe and on Wolfes request carried the dispatch of the victory back to King Geo. III, returning Wolfes remains to England. He was granted a warrant to raise one of five new cavalry regiments being formed, patterened on the succesful model of Cromwell's cavalry. John Hale was the founder of the Death of Glory Boys, the 17th Lancers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.66.133.144 (talk) 00:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Correction to what?
Please note that this noticeboard is for the discussion of WP:NPOV issues (possible violations of Neutral Point of View) that haven't been resolvable on an article's talk page. You have not claimed any such issue, nor even an article (47th of foot regiment?); there doesn't seem to be anything to discuss here. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps our OP means 47th (Lancashire) Regiment of Foot? James Wolfe is mentioned, "John Hale (soldier) (1728–1806), British soldier" has no article, but appears on the John Hale disambigution page. Perhaps the post should be moved/copied to the relevant articles talkpage? - 220.101 talk\Contribs 10:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, likely that's what the poster had in mind. But even as a request for a correction this is non-actionable as there is no source provided. I would advise the poster that requests for change should be posted on the talk page ("Discussion") of the specific article, and also that reliable sources are required to document the material. With that, I think there is nothing more to do here. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Indo-Pakistani War of 1965

An editor has recently been trying to add a non NPOV source on the article Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. I tried to invite him on talkpage to discuss it but is continuing to revert all other editors. Moreover he is reverting any neutral(non Indian and non pakistani) source including one from BBC. I would like further assistance into the matter.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

"Neutrality" is the term that is applied to WP articles, not to sources; it means that all reliable sources should be represented "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias". There is no problems with using www.pakistanarmy.gov.pk/awpreview/textcontent.aspx?pid=1965, however, one has to keep in mind that it is highly probable that this source reflects the viewpoint of the Pakistan government, so alternative viewpoints (if they exist) should be also represented. The second potential problem is that this source seems to be a primary source, so one should use it carefully and in accordance with WP:PSTS.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Furry fandom

NPOV dispute about sexuality in the Furry fandom article. My claim: two Master's theses (and a third academic paper deemed un-citable by a furry wikipedian) assert the emphasis on sexuality of the furry identity and in the furry community. These verifiable, highly reliable sources are being rejected on the basis of personal anecdotes by self-identified furry wikipedians. In general the article's NPOV is compromised by such editors who revert edits about the sexual nature of the fandom.

  • The two Master's theses:
    • Morgan, Matt (2008-03-25). "Creature Comfort: Anthropomorphism, Sexuality, and Revitalization in The Furry Fandom".
    • Eric Stephen Altman (May 2010). "Posthum/an/ous: Identity, Imagination, and The Internet" (PDF).
  • A third academic paper, deemed "personal essay":

Somewhat related to this NPOV issue, bad references and original research that puts the fandom in a positive light remains unchallenged. -Furry-friend (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

All the policies work together. While doctoral dissertations are generally considered reliable sources, master's theses are not usually given that status. Undergraduate papers don't count at all. NPOV requires that we include all significant views with weight according to their prominence. But views which are not found in reliable sources need not be included at all. I suggest that the theses, if used at all, should be kept at arm's length, more to show the level of academic interest in the topic than for their actual contents.   Will Beback  talk  19:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Why aren't master's theses usually regarded as reliable sources, and why don't undergraduate papers count at all? Suppose some undergrad scribbled something, backed it up reliably, and got aced by a professor who passed it on to another professor, who also thought it a good paper... — Rickyrab | Talk 02:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand this approach. Other, much less reliable sources are given prominence in the article. The very first sentence which defines the fandom is taken from a small newspaper. How is it that one non-academic article from a newspaper takes precedence over two other Master's theses? -Furry-friend (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Do you know the writer of the newspaper article?Slatersteven (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it's in the article -Furry-friend (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Are both theses making completely novel claims about the sexuality aspect? If they are you are out of luck, but if they aren't I'm sure there are usable sources in the reference sections. Just be sure to actually read the sources before you use them.Griswaldo (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I must wonder again why I'm "out of luck" while most of the article cites press, non-academic publications, and even user-edited website. -Furry-friend (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Because, MA theses are not considered reliable sources. Hence any novel claims made in them are unusable. Non-novel claims can be sourced elsewhere. What is it you don't understand about MA theses not being reliable? This is the consensus here. You can try the RS/N but I assure you you'll get the same answer there. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
So I need a PhD thesis or a widely-cited MA thesis to stand against personal anecdotes and newspaper articles? Or will a newspaper article be enough? -Furry-friend (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Personal anecdotes which haven't been published in reliable sources should not be included either. But otherwise you're correct.   Will Beback  talk  21:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I will suggest using a newspaper article as a source and see how it goes. -Furry-friend (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Even though I recognize the proper Wikipedia policy on this issue, I'd like to note that I think it's absurd. Were the conclusions of these research theses made as personal anecdotes in a newspaper article, they would be considered more reliable and more worthy of being cited. -Furry-friend (talk) 13:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Perhpas it has something to do with editorial oversight.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

As one of those who was involved in the discussion, I will offer my input. Furry fandom does include a degree of adult material and sexual aspects, and there is already a section of the article that addresses this. The consensus up to this point has been that this section gives that aspect of the fandom an appropriate level of coverage. Furry-friend is trying to use the master's theses to claim that the current degree of coverage is not sufficient and has been trying to make changes to other sections of the article, including the lede, that would give the impression that sexuality is a more pervasive and inseparable element of furry fandom.

Of the two papers he cites, I have been unable to access the Morgan thesis due to restricted access. Myself and at least one other person have raised issues with the Altman thesis, or at least the manner in which it is being cited by Furry-friend. For example, he employs a definition of what a furry fan is that in actuality applies only to a specific subset of furry fans. That may be well and fine within the scope of Altman's thesis if that's what he wishes to address, but what Furry-friend is attempting to do is to turn it around and use Altman's conclusions based on this sub-group as applicable to furry fandom as a whole. There were other issues brought up in the discussion.

The issue was raised that some of the more active contributors to the article are members of the fandom (myself included) and whether that would disqualify us as having a neutral point of view on the subject matter. My response to that is that I'm not trying to push my opinions, but rather to keep the article consistent with my observations, and I believe the other involved fans are doing likewise. In other words, I would characterize our actions as exercising editorial discretion rather than POV-pushing. I don't know the extent of Furry-friend's involvement in either furry fandom or anti-furry. It seemed interesting that his prior experience as a Wikipedia editor was just enough to get past the semi-protection against newly registered users (the article is semi-protected indefinitely due to past vandalism). There's no rule against people who have personal experience in a subject contributing to articles about that subject; it is my understanding that when handled appropriately, the improvement to accuracy and completeness more than outweighs any potential neutrality issues. If this weren't the case, then we might, as an extreme example, have the reliability of Neil Armstrong, if he were to contribute to articles about the Apollo moon landings, being questioned by moon landing conspiracy theorists on the grounds that his point of view is biased. --mwalimu59 (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Haha, so you are to the furry fandom as Neil Armstrong is to the Apollo moon landings? Jokes aside, that still qualifies as original research and personal anecdotes. The "specific subset" you are referring to is nearly 80%. Since other internet surveys are included in the article, I'm going to go on a limb and cite it. As much as I don't like self-selecting samples, I'm going to cite it as apparently internet surveys hold more credence than Master's theses. -Furry-friend (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
If I may add my personal anecdote, there is a backlash by furries about the prominence of sexuality in the furry community which, Morgan concludes, stems from shame, which is perfectly natural when discussing sex, and non-mainstream sex in particular. I believe this is amplified by the unflattering portrayals of furry sexuality in the media. This backlash is what leads to the NPOV issue in the article. Anecdotally, the vast majority of fursonas I have encountered are sexualized or hyper-sexualized. Non-anecdotally, I can point to the sources I cite in the article, which time and again note the prominence of sex in the fandom. Morgan argues sexual empowerment through furry iconography is what defines (or redefines) the individual in the furry fandom. -Furry-friend (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I took a look and that paper seems to have been self-published by the film student who wrote it. If so, it would not be an acceptable source.   Will Beback  talk  20:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I realize this, however the other article editors have no issue with similar surveys. Two wrongs don't make a right, but perhaps an experienced editor can take out all of the unacceptable sources in the article, starting with original research. I avoid doing so because it will undoubtedly create conflict. -Furry-friend (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
The WP:verifiability policy applies to all articles. I don't know which sources you're referring to. I suggest you discuss the issue on the article talk page and if community input is needed start a thread at WP:RSN.   Will Beback  talk  22:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
You're free to remove unreliable sources from the article (especially when they don't cover trivial facts). But so far you have shown more interest in adding sources (both reliable and unreliable, you don't seem to make a difference there) that suit your point of view rather than actually improving the article. --Conti|✉ 22:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh please. Why don't you remove all the internet surveys yourself and see what happens. -Furry-friend (talk) 08:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
That is not a helpful response. Try again? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Franklin child prostitution ring allegations

The subject of criminal charges is referred to by newspapers variously as a "nationally active Republican politician" (he was vice chairman of a Republican council), a "prominent Republican", "a rising star in the Republican party" or a "major Republican fundraiser". Three editors were happy just to mention the connection only in the lead ie: "Republican fundraiser Lawrence E. King" and not to mention the connection at all in the article. One very active editor repeatedly deletes this claiming that any mention of his Republican affiliation is pushing an "all Republicans are perverts" agenda which is POV pushing and a BLP violation. It took some time to get him to accept using the word "political" and the lead now says "prominent political fundraiser Lawrence E. King". This disagreement has been ongoing in talk since early January. Wayne (talk) 11:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The same newspapers point out that King was a Democrat for most of his life, but that didn't make it into the Wikipedia article. Instead, the criminal was described exclusively in the Wikipedia article lede as a Republican. The party identification of Democratic state senator Ernie Chambers and frequent Democratic presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche, who flogged this scandal for every political point they could score, was also never mentioned in the Wikipedia article. If we're going to mention political party affiliation, we need to be even handed about it, particularly in this case where the most salient allegation (a large scale child prostitution ring that allegedly flew child prostitutes all over the country) was never proven, and in fact produced a perjury conviction and prison sentence for one of the accusers.
Yes, for a few months years before his embezzlement conviction, Lawrence E. King changed over to the Republican Party. But prominent Democratic Party members were backing even more hideous allegations that turned out to be nothing but a smear campaign. Either the political affiliations need to be completely described on both sides, or they need to be left out. By the way, I am the one who proposed using a compromise word "political" instead of "Republican," Wayne/WLRoss was the one who eventually accepted it, and the diffs are available to prove it. I grow very weary of these misrepresentations. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
It is worth noting that this editor has been pushing for inclusion of an unreliable source in this BLP article (which espouses the minority/fringe POV even though it criticizes LaRouche), on the article Talk page here. The issue was taken to WP:RSN, where several previously uninvolved editors unanimously agreed that the unreliable source should not be used.[15] Dissatisfied with this result, the editor has now brought his grievance to WP:NPOVN. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I looked into this in the past, and King is commonly referred to as a "Republican fundraiser" in reliable sources. Part of what made the story so salacious were his connections to Washington politics. However his main title was manager of a credit union, and so that should be used first with the fundraising role mentioned later.
  • The grand jury did not identify those suspected of engineering the hoax. But it did indict two witnesses who it said had given perjured accounts in the tangled case, involving a failed credit union formed to help the poor that was headed by a nationally prominent Republican. [..] The rumors about child sex abuse, drug trafficking and other offenses began to circulate in late 1988 shortly after the failure of the Franklin Community Federal Credit Union, which was headed by Lawrence E. King Jr., a former vice chairman of the National Black Republican Council, an affiliate of the Republican Party, who has entertained generously at Republican national conventions. He has been indicted on charges of embezzling money from the credit union, which closed in November 1988, but a Federal magistrate has ruled that he is not mentally competent to stand trial at this time.
    • Omaha Grand Jury Sees Hoax in Lurid Tales WILLIAM ROBBINS, Special to The New York Times. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Jul 29, 1990. pg. A.19
  • Lawrence E. King Jr., everyone now agrees, had a remarkable knack for stretching a dollar. On a salary of $16,200 a year, the credit union manager drove a $70,000 white Mercedes-and still could afford to spend $10,000 a month on limousines. His credit card charges topped $1 million, he owned a four-story house on 26 acres overlooking the Missouri River, and his floral bill alone came to $146,000 during a fragrant, 13-month period in 1987-88. A former McGovern Democrat who converted to the GOP, King threw a $100,000 party for 1,000 close friends at the Republican National Convention in New Orleans two years ago, leasing a warehouse used to store Mardi Gras floats. Four years earlier, before singing "The Star-Spangled Banner" at the Republican convention in Texas, he hosted a similar bash by renting Southfork, the ranch used to film "Dallas." [..] Moreover, King's high profile in the GOP has "got the Republican Party here as nervous as a long-tailed cat in a roomful of rocking chairs," added former state senator John DeCamp, a Republican. [..] King once served as business committee chairman of the National Black Republican Council, an organization with official ties to the party. Federal Election Commission records show that he donated more than $30,000 to various political causes in the 1980s, including $2,500 to the Republican National Committee, $15,000 to a gay rights political action committee and, in 1987, $1,000 to Jack Kemp plus another $5,000 to a Kemp PAC. "He was in fact a contributor, but one of thousands," a spokesman for Kemp said Thursday. "They met at a fundraiser but King was not a personal friend."
    • Omaha's Hurricane of Scandal; Larry E. King Jr., in the Eye of the Storm Over Fraud, Prostitution Charges; [FINAL Edition] Rick Atkinson. The Washington Post (pre-1997 Fulltext). Washington, D.C.: Apr 1, 1990. pg. f.01
  • King, 45, a flamboyant entrepreneur once hailed as a black role model and embraced by the national Republican Party, is accused of using the Franklin Community Federal Credit Union as his personal treasury. Prosecutors and federal regulators say he looted about $37 million in depositors' funds, spending lavishly on clothes, gifts and parties. [..] In his heyday, from 1983 until late 1988, King was ubiquitous here. In addition to the credit union, he owned fashionable restaurants, rode around town in limousines and mixed with the city's arts, business and Republican establishments. A polished tenor, he sang the national anthem at the 1984 GOP convention in Dallas and threw huge parties for black Republicans there and at the party's 1988 convention in New Orleans.
    • SEX-SCANDAL TALK DELUGES OMAHA Andrew Cassel. Philadelphia Inquirer. Philadelphia, Pa.: Mar 12, 1990. pg. A.2
  • He became politically active, too, as a fund-raiser and a contributor to the Republican Party. He maintained a second home near Embassy Row in Washington. He sang the national anthem during the opening ceremonies of the 1984 Republican National Convention; later, he threw a party for several hundred convention-goers at Texas' Southfork Ranch, where scenes of the television show Dallas are shot. Mardi Gras was the theme of his 1988 convention party in New Orleans; the menu featured alligator meat.
    • Fallen Hero: A Credit Union Fails, And Omaha Wonders: Was It Bamboozled? --- Manager Lawrence King Jr., A Role Model for Blacks, Is Sued in Misuse of Funds --- Limousines and Lavish Parties By Robert L. Rose. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Feb 8, 1989. pg. 1
  • King was an active Republican, working with the party's Citizens for America and the National Black Republican Council and singing the national anthem at the 1984 GOP convention in Dallas. Last summer, he orchestrated a party at the GOP convention in New Orleans for 1,000 people under the auspices of the Council on Minority Americans, a group he heads. Caterers estimated that the party cost $100,000.
    • Credit Union Boss Sued for $34 Million Reports Say Funds Allegedly Diverted to Pay for Lavish Life Style; [Home Edition] Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext). Los Angeles, Calif.: Nov 24, 1988. pg. 5
I don't see any reason to exclude the party affiliations of other involved parties, where they are mentioned by relevant sources. However party affiliations from the past, prior to the scandal, seem less relevant.   Will Beback  talk  22:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Will, but some of the same sources feel that King's previous Democratic Party prominence was worth mentioning:
  • In 1972 he headed a national political organization, Black Democrats for George McGovern. But he gained greater prominence after he had switched parties a while later, serving for a time as vice chairman of the National Black Republican Council, an official affiliate of the Republican Party, and becoming a familiar figure on the Republican social scene.
    • Omaha Grand Jury Sees Hoax in Lurid Tales WILLIAM ROBBINS, Special to The New York Times. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Jul 29, 1990. pg. A.19
I think we should allow previously uninvolved editors to take a look at this before we make any final decisions. I would also suggest to you, Will, that Wikipedia has the advantage of 20/20 hindsight. Political affiliations which may have seemed very important at the start of the grand jury investigation may not have seemed important at all once the grand jury labeled it a "carefully crafted hoax." Look at the news reports published after the grand jury published its findings.
There are several other NPOV issues that should be discussed with uninvolved editors since we're here. Apostle12 and WLRoss/Wayne have been POV-pushing and it has led to numerous policy violations, as uninvolved editors unanimously agreed at WP:RSN.[16] Violations include WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BLP, three of our most important policies. Any attempt to talk them out of these violations is described as a personal insult.
In particular, the two words "with minors" have repeatedly been added to describe sexual activity. These two words are completely unsupported by the reliable source. They are pure poison. They push conduct far across the line, from merely scandalous (sex between unmarried consenting adults) to a Class X felony. Lawrence King is out of prison now, presumably broke and would welcome an opportunity to sue some deep pockets like Wikipedia's for libel. Any immunity we may enjoy from such liability should not be seen as a license to engage in a smear campaign against him. And of course Wikipedia's usual critics would be given fresh ammunition for a fresh round of attacks. But every time I remove the words "with minors," it seems they are added again.
I regret to suggest sanctions but I have reached the limit of my patience with these two, and I seem to consistently face 2-to-1 odds when trying to protect and enforce Wikipedia policy. Only when I went to RSN was I not completely alone in this. I don't have the time to baby-sit this article and accordingly, I regretfully recommend a 30-day topic ban for both of them. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
An affiliation with the Democrats 20 years before the events of the article is hardly relevant outside the subjects own biography. No one has prevented any mention of Democrat and I myself suggested mention that Democrats as well as Republicans were accused. There has also been no violation of any Wikipedia policies and no use of the source referred to since the RSN despite a very limited consensus (after failing to get consensus Phoenix and Winslow began inviting editors to comment until he got what he could claim was a consensus in his favour) which only applied to the publisher and didn't address the reliability of the author (the actual edits included only the authors claims that were supported by primary sources). I believe "with minors" was added by another editor and then replaced once after P&W reverted it so I dont think "repeatedly added" applies and considering that the Fraklin committee stated that King should have been charged, it may have been them (a primary RS) who used the term. Then of course, the civil case judge found the claim true which should remove any BLP problem but I'd need to find where the term was mentioned and the context so I cant say the edit was right or wrong. P&W is free to "talk [us] out of these violations" all he likes, it is the agressive attitude [we] consider an insult. Is it possible that a discussion can take place without P&W assuming bad faith, making personal attacks, making threats, exaggerating and including material beyond the purvue of the topic being discussed? Wayne (talk) 20:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
That Lawrence King was a "prominent Republican" and a "rising star in the Republican Party" is beyond refute and, in my opinion, relevant. He was invited to sing the star-spangled banner at both the 1984 and 1988 Republican Conventions; he maintained a residence in Washington D.C. where he entertained lavishly, primarily among Republican circles; and he gained prominence only after he switched from being a Democrat to a Republican. His identity as a Republican and his connections to the Washington D.C. Republican elite constitute a large part of King's notability.
I agree with Wayne's analysis above. P & W engaged in repeated massive reverts of good-faith edits, referring to the good-faith edits of other editors as "garbage." He proceeded in a heavy-handed, arrogant manner in violation of WP:OWN, insisting that other editors defer to his impeccable judgment. He talked down to other editors, using condescending phrases like "please educate yourself as to the difference." P. & W. accorded no one even the slightest respect, relying insted on repeated threats and browbeating.
The clause "with minors" was explicitly supported by Bryant and implicitly supported by many other sources; however once P. & W. pinpointed his objection to the inclusion of this phrase (in concert with exaggerated and inflamatory accusations of "plagiarism"), the phrase was readily eliminated out of deference to his concerns. P. & W. writes "But every time I remove the words 'with minors,' it seems they are added again;" this assertion is simply a lie, as any dispassionate review of the the record will clearly demonstrate. There is no question that the allegations against Lawrence King included sexual crimes "with minors," however this phrase will be reinstated only after further sleuthing allows reference to other reliable sources (beyond Bryant) that explicitly support inclusion of the phrase.
P. & W.'s own POV-pushing has in fact been relentless. He seems finally to have backed away from his more outrageous assertions (e.g. that all those who question the propriety of the Douglas Country grand jury findings must be LaRouche followers, or, alternatley, that they must "have drunk a slightly different brand of kool-aid"). P. & W. persists in labeling as "conspiracy theorists" anyone who entertains the possibility that former Senator Ernie Chambers, the Franklin Committee, former Senator John DeCamp, investigative reporter Nick Bryant, and others might deserve a measure of credibility. Despite the fact that 70% of Nebraskans agreed with the dissenting view of the Franklin Committee, and nearly as many considered the Douglas County grand jury proceedings to have been "rigged," P. & W. attacks this as a "fringe" point of view.
The article has emerged as reasonably balanced at the present time, though an aggressive search for adequate sourcing (now that Bryant has been eliminated as an RS) will be necessary to improve it further. The progress we have made has been in spite of P. & W., who has refused to engage in collaborative editing, instead favoring ad hominem attacks on anyone who disagrees with his perspective. Apostle12 (talk) 09:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Leo Prime/Lio Convoy

Attempts have been made by editors to move this page from Lio Convoy, the better-known and more-used title, to Leo Prime. --UnstableBiosphere (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

|}

9/11 conspiracy theories - Architects & Engineers petition (continued)

Dead horse. Editor advised to stop flogging it.

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

Continuation of discussion from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#9.2F11_conspiracy_theories.2C_Architects_and_Engineers_for_911_Truth_petition

I'm sorry, the status quo (i.e. repeated removal of reliably sourced, neutrally worded, factual material from the article by a minority of editors) is simply not acceptable. Leaving these deletions stand is not a solution - it's clearly against WP:NPOV to allow this kind of omission. Any other suggestions for resolution? And if the NPOV noticeboard and the article talk page are not appropriate places to discuss this, can you suggest a more appropriate place? Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

No, for every reason that's been said in the countless previous discussions. GoN clearly has a faulty understanding of NPOV and OR. His repeated attempts to continually bring this up at different venues everytime the consensus is against him is beyond WP:IDHT. Ravensfire (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Strong no. GoN, this is the proper place to raise an NPOV issue (instead of the noticeboard's talk page, which is where you last raised the issue). But this is no longer an NPOV issue, it's issue of you repeatedly beating a WP:DEADHORSE. (There are other subsidiary issues, but I think everyone is tired of hearing them.) You have been advised to GIVE IT A REST. Please do so, for at least six months. If you can't hear that — or are willfully not hearing it? — would some kind of administrative action catch your attention? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A question on weight

How much weight ought to be given to a source which although published in a peer reviewed journal has since has received little to no citations, and which the author himself says is a new way of looking at things? The source in question is "Phillip Deery. The Terminology of Terrorism: Malaya, 1948–52. Journal of Southeast Asia Studies, Vol. 34, No. 2 (June 2003), pp. 231–247." and it is used to support an edit which claims the use of the term communist terrorists during the Malayan emergency was propaganda. The majority of sources I have read do not say this, so is giving one paper which does breaking WP:UNDUE? Tentontunic (talk) 22:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You answer your own question when you say it has received little or no citations. A single paper giving a completely alternative viewpoint to the majority of the literature that is 8 yrs old and has received little attention since is a WP:FRINGE opinion even if it is published in an otherwise reliable source. Journals do publish fringe theories to encourage debate. Being somewhat familiar with the history myself I would agree with your assessment that this is giving undue weight to a fringe opinion. Hope this helps. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I have to ask since I dont have acess was there a rejoinder to it? Those are always very illuminating. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
When posting a request to this board you should refer to the source, providing a link where possible, and explain what claims it is used to support. For example:
In Communist terrorism, the following passage is referenced to Philip Deery's article, "The terminology of Terrorism: Malaya, 1948-52", Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, Vol. 34, 2003:[17]
"In 1948, an anti-colonial guerrilla war, the "Malayan emergency", started between Commonwealth armed forces and the Malayan National Liberation Army. The insurgents were led by the Malayan Communist Party and their their actions were labeled at first as "banditry" then later as "Communist terrorism" in British propaganda."
It appears that this description in the source is presented as factual and is supported by sources. The author does not say that this is "a new way of looking at things", merely that he seeks "to throw some new historical light on the use of political language during the early years of the Emergency" by "charting the shift in the language used to depict Communist insurgents in Malaya". But the Wikipedia article does not report that part of the article.
TFD (talk) 05:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
No you're confusing fact with opinion, that is the opinion of the author, which you present as fact. Not acceptable usually. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
See WP:NPOV: "Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion." There is consensus that propaganda was used on both sides during the Cold War and also that it was used by the British government during the Malyan Emergency. See for example 661 hits for "malayan emergency"+propaganda at Google books. If you can find any serious sources among these that take a different view, then I will change my mind. TFD (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Sigh, see [18]. It is actually referred to above. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Totally different issue. Tentontunic claimed that the connection made by Deery between the use of language and propaganda during the Malayan Emergency was "a new way of looking at things". In fact the topic has been addressed in hundreds of books. Does that make the connection correct? No. What makes it correct is that it is a consensus view. If it is not then it would be possible for Tentontunic to find sources challenging this view. TFD (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Um -- saying that a view which others have not seen fit to decry therefore makes it "consensus" is an interesting sort of argument. Thus if a person wrote an article connecting Gnarphism with Daphne du Maurier, and no one thought enough of it to refute it, then that opinion becomes "consensus"? Nope. Consensus requires affirmative acceptance of the view by others. Ignoring a fringe view does not make the fringe view into the consensus view. Collect (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I did not say that, the papers author did. Were is your source that this is a consensus view out of curiosity? Tentontunic (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Collect, there are hundreds of books that discuss British propaganda during the Malyan Emergency and none that I could find that challenge this view.[19] The British themselves called it propaganda, as is documented in Emergency propaganda: the winning of Malayan hearts and minds, 1948-1958.[20] TFD (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Tentunic, you appear to apply a different standard on whether we can refer to "propaganda" used by the British during the Malayan emergency and whether we can label the insurgents "Communist Terrorists". TFD (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Explain please? Were have I applied different standards? Tentontunic (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
You believe that we can call the Malayan insurgency "Communist Terrorism", despite the fact that this terminology does not have the support of academic consensus. Yet you object to using the term "propaganda" in reference to the British during the Malayan Emergency because "The majority of sources I have read do not say this". What makes your position especially bizarre is that you are arguing to use jargon that was abandoned 40 years ago. TFD (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I believe noting, the sources I have read say communist terrorists, they do nto say they were called this as a propaganda exercise. They were called terrorists becasue they engaged in terrorist activities. And of course they were communist. And as for jargon which was abandoned 40 years ago? Malaya's Secret Police 1945-60: The Role of the Special Branch in the Malayan Emergency Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (15 Dec 2008) ISBN 978-9812308290 what is the date this book was printed? And there are hundreds more the same. Tentontunic (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The source was discussed on WP:RSN and it seemed to be resolved there. It was suggested that weighting was not a question for that board but one for this one. However, it seems that there is still disagreement about the reliability so I am taking it back there. We will try and resolve reliability there, alongside other sources used in the article, and then any weight issues can come here. I hope that people already involved in the discussion will refrain from commenting and some further uninvolved people will give opinions. My opinion, already expressed on RSN, is that this is a normal academic source. It's a paper in a good journal. I see no sign whatsoever of fringe status. If anyone wants to pursue the line of argument that the source is fringe, then we could also ask on the fringe theories noticeboard. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Malaya's secret police deals extensively with British "propaganda" during the Emergency. For example, "This directive [No. 16] ... deals with propaganda.... General Briggs played a significant part in arranging for the government's information and propaganda services to become.... propaganda was the responsibility of the Department of Public Relations...." (p. 155)[21] Also, "The High Commissioner suggested... that such emotive terms as 'war', 'enemy' and 'rebellion' should be avoided, and names such as 'banditry' 'thugs', 'terrorism' and so on be used instead. The true meanings of these euphemisms needs to be understood by the research scholar, for a literal interpretation of their meaning would lead to ill-foirmed conclusions that the British colonial power... was not faced with an outright war.... I was not until...1952 that the British colonial authorities decided to replace the term 'bandits' with 'communist terrorists'."[22]
Your source says that CT was a euphemism used as part of British propaganda. That is what the article should reflect.
TFD (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually no it does not, at least on p13. No mention of propaganda on that page at all. They even got an official legal definition. and on p158 it does not say that they were called CT`s as part of a propaganda operation. It talks of keeping morale up. Tentontunic (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I raised this again at RSN. The notion that "journals publish fringe theories to encourage debate" is not in line with WP:IRS, where academic research articles are treated as sources of high quality. Does it need also to go to FTN? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

If you wish to post at FTN go ahead. This is about weight, how much weight ought to be given to an article which has next to no citations and sank without trace? You have already said you believe it reliable, that is not the issue here, it is weight. Tentontunic (talk) 20:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I will only post at FTN if someone wants to say that it is fringe, as above. Your challenge still is really about reliability. I am alarmed at your formulation "next to no citations and sank without trace". As I already said, very many academic articles are uncited. It does not equate to "sank without trace". You do not seem to be very familiar with the norms of scholarship. I hope we will get some more comments on RSN about reliability. If this source is judged reliable for the article, and some other sources on the same topic are also judged reliable, then we will be in a position to weight them against each other. As you know, where there is a disagreement of scholarly opinion we should reflect both sides. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
In fact the source is used to represent a view that is found in hundreds of sources and is the consensus of writers. Tentontunic, the source Malaya's secret police, which you provided is quite clear and I have no idea why you are writing "no it does not, at least on p13" when I clearly typed out what appeared on that page. Here it is again, and anyone can check it: "The High Commissioner suggested... that such emotive terms as 'war', 'enemy' and 'rebellion' should be avoided, and names such as 'banditry' 'thugs', 'terrorism' and so on be used instead. The true meanings of these euphemisms needs to be understood by the research scholar, for a literal interpretation of their meaning would lead to ill-foirmed conclusions that the British colonial power... was not faced with an outright war.... I was not until...1952 that the British colonial authorities decided to replace the term 'bandits' with 'communist terrorists'."(p. 13)[23]
Itsmejudith, there is no disagreement in scholarly opinion.
TFD (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Do you read past what you need? Perhaps you ought to look at why they avoided terms such as 'war', 'enemy' and 'rebellion' it was to stop insurance premiums going up. There is noting in that book which says the British called them terrorists as part of a propaganda campaign. Tentontunic (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
It says, "At the outset of the Emergency, the British colonial government attempted to downplay the seriousness of the situation so as not to affect public morale. The government was anxious to ensure, too, that commercial insurance rates were not affected...." IOW the government had more than one reason to mislead the public. So what? The first casualty of war is truth. TFD (talk) 21:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. It does not say communist terrorism was used as part of a propaganda campaign does it? Thank you. Tentontunic (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
You appear to be unaware of what propaganda means, and I suggest you read up on it. It is essential that the articles we edit do not repeat propaganda without attribution. TFD (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You will both do better to allow for external opinion if you do not deter it with walls of text, with tendentious arguments between yourselves. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the whole point of these boards is to get an outside perspective, not to perpetuate their disagreement in yet another forum. FWIW, TFD appears to be applying his personal viewpoint and saying this is "propaganda", that's synthesis. --Martin (talk) 21:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Martin funnily enough I arrived at the same conclusion regarding WP:SYN, however, I declined to comment at the time as it seemed doomed to be ignored. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
The word "propaganda" is clearly a judgemental word in context - intended to imply "but anything propaganda is clearly false" or the like. Unless multiple reliable sources use the term "propaganda" in a discussion, the use is undue weight at best, and likely far worse with regard to how we treat the readers (the ultimate customers for the article). We must always be cognizant that pushing WP:TRUTH is contrary to WP policy. Collect (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Nonsense. That governments, especially in violent conflicts, use propaganda, is an entirely unsurprising and ordinary (as in "not extraordinary") fact. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
The sources say it was propaganda, the British government called it propaganda and unlike the U.S. there are no historical revisionists who say otherwise. We go with the consensus of historians - there is not even a fringe element with a different view. If I am wrong, please present a single source that differs. TFD (talk) 03:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
"At the outset of the Emergency, the British colonial government attempted to downplay the seriousness of the situation so as not to affect public morale." -- This is almost though not quite the same as saying that the British colonial government used propaganda. It would be reasonable, though a bit weak, as a source for the claim that they used propaganda. But if I understand the situation correctly this is not the question here: TFD quoted this from a source which Tentontunic claims contradicts the claim about propaganda by not mentioning it. It does no such thing. In fact, as TFD pointed out correctly, it supports the claim, although the other source is still better for that purpose. Hans Adler 09:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
"Almost" = "close but no cigar." If the important word "propaganda" is not directly used in a source, it has attained sufficient current notoriety as a term as to bar it being used as a paraphrase. Collect (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
You might want to read the discussion thread before commenting. The word propaganda is directly used in the source and was acknowleged by the British government. TFD (talk) 05:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Do you never tire of being wrong? Were exactly within the book does it say the term communist terrorism was used as british propaganda? It does not. That is what this is about, were they called communist terrorists as propaganda? If deery himself says this is a new way of looking at things then how much weight ought to be given to it? That is the question at hand. Tentontunic (talk) 09:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I said "the word propaganda is directly used in the source". Please see the excert from the source that Paul Siebert has kindly reproduced below. Before posting again, remember that other editors can compare your comments with the text below. TFD (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
No you said Malaya's secret police said the term communist terrorist was in this book and that this book directly supported Deery. In that it was a term coined by british propaganda. Admit you are wrong and that this book does not in fact say communist terrorism was coined as british propaganda. Tentontunic (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

@Martin. I would say, the aim of this board is to get new arguments, no matter who will provide them. So, let me summarise what I have read. Firstly, the source, (Deery) clearly says:

"The article therefore aims to fill a partial historiographical gap in studies of both the Malayan Emergency and the Cold War generally. I have chosen the Emergency as a case study since it clearly shows the British government grappling with this issue of political terminology within the broader context of anti-Communist propaganda."
"In fact, the Malayan Races’ Liberation Army (MRLA), the military wing of the MCP, was a guerrilla force. It was similar to, for example, the Communist movement in China during 1928-45, the Huks in the Philippines from 1946 to the mid-1950s and the Vietminh in Indochina from 1941. Although historians have readily discerned the strategies of guerrilla in these rural-based rebellions and insurgents have often identified themselves as guerrillas, it was rarely a term used by authorities at the time. Guerrillas are proud to be called guerrillas, but to call them ‘bandits’ is to link them with criminality. A guerrilla is not a bandit; as Eric Hobsbawm points out, ‘banditry has next to no organization or ideology, and is totally inadaptable to modern social movements … [It] was and is inefficient in every way … [and] is incapable of effective guerrilla organization’. This obviously was not the case with the MRLA."
  • * *
"The hybrid term ‘Communist terrorist’ accomplished two objectives. ‘Terrorist’, like ‘bandit’, sought to deny the MCP political legitimacy while ‘Communist’, as A. J. Stockwell noted, ‘located the emergency firmly in the Cold War’. The use of the term ‘terrorist’ was, of course, intended to demonise the MCP. Terrorists’ lack of legitimacy stems from their incapacity to effect change. Due to the disparity between the political aspirations of their resort to violence and the means at their disposal, they are forced to operate clandestinely, out of weakness, so the actions of the MLNA ‘terrorists’ – sabotage, intimidation, murder – were the tactics of the weak against the strong. From a position of weakness, their use of available resources was economical: insurgency is cheap, counterinsurgency costly. In this sense, ‘terrorism’ was more accurate and appropriate than ‘banditry’. Even in the 1950s – before Palestinian plane hijackings, Irish Republican bombings or Italian Red Brigade assassinations (and certainly before ‘9/11’, which unleashed a flood of inconsistent etymological analyses) – ‘terrorist’ was one of the most misleading words in the English language. Universally accepted definitions were and are elusive; there is not one terrorism, but a variety of terrorisms. Walter Laqueur recently remarked that although the search for definitions will continue, ‘any attempt to find a common denominator, a formula as suitable for Irish 19th century terrorism as for narco-terrorism in Columbia or al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, is bound to fail’."

In other words, the author clearly states that the major goal of the article is to analyse the British anti-Communist propaganda, using Malaya as an example. Then the author gives an example of the propaganda term "Communist terrorism" and explains the reason for its invention and usage. Therefore I see neither original research nor synthesis issues here. The sources is reliable (highly reliable), according to the conclusion made on the WP:RSN. However, taking into account that this noticeboard is devoted to the neutrality issues, please, explain, does anybody see any problem with presenting this view as mainstream? Are there any other reliable sources that claim that the term was not propaganda?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any other which says it does? Of all I have read none have said communist terrorism was coined as part of a propaganda exercise by the british. This is not about reliablilty, it is about weight. Tentontunic (talk) 17:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I do not know who coined it. The source states that it was used by British propaganda (which is not the same), and the "Communist terrorism" article also says the term was "used", not "coined". However, I would say, it would be an oversimplification to reduce everything to just anti-Communism. Thus, Nicholas J. White (Capitalism and Counter-Insurgency? Business and Government in the Malayan Emergency, 1948-57 Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 32, No. 1 (Feb., 1998), pp. 149-177) argues that Britain had other serious reasons to avoid using adequate terminology:
"In the event, no scheme was needed: the commercial insurers (and the agency houses who represented them in Malaya) continued to offer cover, but at much enhanced premiums. Both the imperial and colonial governments went out of their way not to provoke the guarantors. For example, the Cabinet's Malaya Committee was careful to ensure in May 1950 that the changed official description of MCP insurgents from 'bandits' to 'communist terrorists' would not have an adverse effect on the insurance market."
"At a meeting between Creech Jones and the RGA in August 1948, businessmen voiced concern that the insurance companies which offered protection against 'riot or civil commotion' might rule that the situation in Malaya amounted to 'rebellion or insurrection' and consequently would reject claims arising from strikes and terrorist activities. To safeguard the interests of its members, the RGA requested that the Malayan authorities desist from using words such as 'rebellion' or 'insurrection' in public statements and official documents. It was made plain that if this approach failed the government would be asked to meet all claims for loss of life and property. The commercial insurance market in Malaya was split between London and New York under so-called reinsurance arrangements. A view had to be taken on both sides of the Atlantic as to the exact status of the situation in Malaya. Neither the imperial nor the colonial government, however, was prepared to define the precise nature of the emergency."--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Well neither of those sources say it was used as british propaganda either, or am I missing something? So you have one source which says these people were called communist terrorists as a part of british propaganda? That`s it, out of hundreds of sources? So back to that question of weight? Tentontunic (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
One good source is sufficient. You yourself should conduct this research - using Google books it`s real easy. Fueridi for example wrote, "The representation of the Malayan guerrillas as criminals required a careful control over the vocabulary of prpaganda, with endless debates on which words to use to characterize them. In the end the term `bandit was dropped in favour of `communist terrorist`. (p. 214)[24] BTW unlike the U.S. where Vietnam still hits a raw nerve, the British are fully able to accept their history. TFD (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Another source:
"To this end, the British were prepared to direct propaganda that met these needs, hence they played down the external support of the communists so as to portray them as isolated, weakened, and therefore within the easy control of the British and local militia.32 They also tried to label communists as “bandits”, suggesting to the masses the clear and present threat to their financial and economic well-being. This term was to be further reified through social practices, and between February and April 1950 an “Anti-Bandit Month” was organized, mobilizing 420,000 people to work with security forces in an anti-insurgent operation. The “month” saw the mass issuance of publicity materials, radio talks, and speeches while participants helped conduct road checks and assist in squatter resettlement. 33 In one of the official Anti-Bandit Month publications, for instance, the image of the communist as a bandit was given characteristics that spoke to different ethnic communities in various ways. In general, the “bandits” were seen as hindering education, the conduct of trade unions in Malaya, and they were also seen to disrupt the financial livelihood for the Chinese, subvert Islam for Malays, and were identified as having become outcasts in India for the Malayan Indians.34 Following criticisms by the British Foreign Office on the myopic nature of “bandit”, the term was gradually phased out and replaced by “Communist terrorist”."(L Yew. Managing plurality: the politics of the periphery in early cold war singapore. International Journal of Asian Studies, 2010, 159-177)
I believe this source will also be useful for the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
And another source which does not say communist terrorist was used as part of a british propaganda campaign. It would appear to me that Deery`s paper ought to be given no weight at all. Tentontunic (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
And the source clearly links the use of "bandits" as being the "propaganda" in an effort to minimize the fact of "communist terrorism" which was the non-propaganda term! The British sought to minimize the problem and used "propaganda" per your own quote to say "bandit". Thanks for making clear that the "communist terrorist" was not the propaganda term! Collect (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
The term "Communist terrorism" is found in the article just one time, in the phrase quoted by me. This phrase states that this term has been applied to communists by the British Foreign Office to replace myopic "bandits". Therefore, I simply do not understand what do you mean: the source does not state that the use of "bandits" was a part of "propaganda" in an effort to minimize the fact of "communist terrorism", it states that the word "bandits", which was later replaced by "Communist terrorism" was used to fight against "guerrilla" (this term is used by Yew to characterise the insurgents). Please, avoid circular arguments in future. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
It is not a circular argument. We have here before us a question of weight, what weight ought be given to Deery`s paper? Given the lack of sources which say communist terrorism was used as part of British propaganda then what weight ought be given to the one source you have found which describes it as such? The answer is of course, none. You have been given ample time to produce a few other sources which back Deery`s paper. All you have provided do not. I would ask you stay on topic and not go off on a tangent. Does any of the sources thus far presented by you (three by my count) state that the term communist terrorism was applied as part of a British propaganda campaign? Tentontunic (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Re: "Given the lack of sources which say communist terrorism was used as part of British propaganda" This statement is false. We have at least two sources that state that it was propaganda, at least one source that states that it was dictated by financial and political needs and no sources that question these claims. Since the search was not exhaustive, I cannot guarantee that other sources do not state the same, however, since the sources already provided by me are quite sufficient, I see no reason in providing additional sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Anyway, the Malayan Emergency is long over, and Collect and Tentontunic are the only two people who are insisting that the British did not use propaganda. I suggest they read about the war. There are two very good novels about it as well: The Virgin Soldiers and And the Rain My Drink. It was a bit like Vietnam, but with one difference - we won. Maybe that is why the British are less sensitive about accurately portraying the history. TFD (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Cannot agree. Reading fiction is hardly useful in this case. I would summarise the thread as follows. Whereas most Cold war time sources use the name "Communist terrorism" for Malayan emergency, recent publications in peer-reviewed journals (I mean the publications specifically devoted to the subject, not the publications that just briefly mention the subject and use a traditional name for brevity) describe emergency as a guerrilla war or anti-colonial insurgence. Therefore, in the absence of alternative viewpoint, I suggest to treat the works of Deery, Yew and White as mainstream. --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Your inability to provide a source to back Deery`s claim that communist terrorism was used as part of British propaganda quite simply means you may not use him at all. Using Deery is WP:UNDUE as was pointed out right at the start of this section. Tentontunic (talk) 07:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I provided two reliable sources (in addition to two sources that are already in the article) that confirm the fact that the term "Communist terrorism" in a context of Malaya reflected the essence of those events incorrectly, and were dictated by political and others motives. Two of them (Deery and Yew) explicitly use the word "propaganda", saying that the CT came from the British authorities. Another sources Stockwell, also confirm the idea that the usage of the term "communist terrorism" served to put the uprising into the context of the global Cold war. If someone believes these sources do not support these claims, they may ask for a third opinion on WP:RSN.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
No other source has been provided to support the claim that communist terrorism was used as a part of british propaganda. Tentontunic (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

as the latter statement belongs to the WP:RSN I posted the question there.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

One good source is sufficient. You yourself should conduct this research - using Google books it`s real easy. Fueridi for example wrote, "The representation of the Malayan guerrillas as criminals required a careful control over the vocabulary of prpaganda, with endless debates on which words to use to characterize them. In the end the term `bandit' was dropped in favour of `communist terrorist`. (p. 214)[25] BTW unlike the U.S. where Vietnam still hits a raw nerve, the British are fully able to accept their history. In order to write a neutral article we must recognize the consensus of informed writing and not use Cold War terminology that has been long abandoned even by the British government, who acknowledge that it was propaganda. (Mind you they called it "good propaganda" at the time, as opposed to the bad propaganda of the "CTs". TFD (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
No, one source is not sufficient. It is giving undue weight to one paper which the author himself says is a new way of looking at things. If no other sources can be provided to back Deery`s claim the communist terrorism was used as part of british propaganda then it is a question of weight, not reliability. Tentontunic (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
No, the issue is RS - are peer-reviewed articles published in Academic journals RS. Deery in fact does not say that viewing the term CT as having been developed as part of British propaganda as a "new way of looking at things". May I suggest you show the article to one of your teachers and ask if they agree with your reading. In any case, I have just provided you with a second source that (Fueridi) that says the same thing. And of course any reasonable reading of the source you provided would come to the same conclusion. Furthermore you are unable to find any alternative account for the use of the terminology. OTOH if you believe there are insufficient sources to write this article, then I suggest you list it for deletion. TFD (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

No it is a question of weight, this is not the RSN board, just in case you had missed that. I have yet to see a source which says communist terrorism was used as part of british propaganda. This is a question of weight. The uninvolved editors who have commented seem to agree that no weight ought be given to deery`s paper. Tentontunic (talk) 16:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The question is in the relative weight. Although no alternative viewpoint has been provided, it is natural to propose that these alternative viewpoints may be:
  1. That this term (in the Malayan context) has been used initially by by some scholar or journalist, and only after that by the British authorities;
  2. That this term was the common term the Malayans themselves used to describe the rebels, and the British authorities just adopted this terminology;
  3. (Provide your own version).
However, no sources in support of these claims has been provided so far. In the absence of alternative viewpoints we cannot speak about weight. The only question is if these views are supported by others. As my quotes demonstrated, they are. However, since it has been claimed that they aren't, we have to continue on the WP:RSN.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
How many times need it be said? It is a question of weight, Deery is the one source you have found which says they were called communist terrorists as part of british propaganda. One source only out of hundreds which says this. This is a question of weight, and given the failure of any editor here to find a source which back this claim then Deery as a source is undue. Tentontunic (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
In the absence of alternative viewpoints this one has a 100% weight. In addition, Yew supports what Deery says. Btw, he directly supports what he is saying by citing him. Anticipating a request to provide the source that quotes Yew, let me point out that it is a very recent article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This is one non-involved comment, would be glad to read others. Deery is mainstream history and his view should be represented in the article. Contrary views should be there too if and only if there are sources of equivalent quality that express the contrary views. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

There are no contrary views. And I will now present a second source (for the fourth time btw, ignored by Teutonic each previous time), "Fueridi for example wrote, "The representation of the Malayan guerrillas as criminals required a careful control over the vocabulary of popaganda, with endless debates on which words to use to characterize them. In the end the term `bandit' was dropped in favour of `communist terrorist`." (p. 214)[26]". TFD (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I have not ignored your source, I have in fact responded every time, your source does not say the term communist terrorist was used as a part of british propaganda. Do you know why they dropped bandit? It had naught to do with propaganda. Tentontunic (talk) 22:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Put your telescope to the other eye, Nelson. TFD (talk) 02:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
One needs to show that the words appear together. TFD (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Care to explain why this reasoning does not work here? Given only one source actually supports the sentence communist terrorism was used as a part of british propaganda. Tentontunic (talk) 08:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
See Fueridi, "The representation of the Malayan guerrillas as criminals required a careful control over the vocabulary of propaganda, with endless debates on which words to use to characterize them. In the end the term `bandit' was dropped in favour of `communist terrorist`." (p. 214)[27]". TFD (talk) 13:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
And no matter how many times you copy and paste that, it does not, nor will ever say communist terrorist was used as part of a british propaganda campaign. In fact the source does not even mention why the usage of bandit was dropped. You can not demand that editors provide One needs to show that the words appear together. TFD (talk 00:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)] this when you yourself choose to ignore it. Tentontunic (talk) 13:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
And I do not think a Professor of Sociology who normally writes, as he puts it, In his books he has explored controversies and panics over issues such as health, children, food, new technology and terrorism notice the controversies bit? I would not call him a good source on a historical subject. Tentontunic (talk) 13:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
The book was published by I.B.Tauris and the description of the use of language in order to win "hearts and minds" is not controversial. If you have a source that challenges this view then by all means present it, but it appears to be how the subject is perceived by all writers. Both terms 'bandits' and 'CTs' btw were part of British propaganda. The insurgents did not call themselves bandits and CTs, and neither did neutral scholarship. TFD (talk) 14:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Eh? [28] appears to be "neutral scholarship." As is [29]. Add in [30]. [31] etc. all belie the claim that no neutral sources used the term. The "insurgents" (quaint term) were indeed "communists" so that cavil fails as well. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
And again no. The source does not say communist terrorism was used as a part of british propaganda. I am rewriting the section anyway using mainstream sources so it matters not that you are unable to admit that you cannot fond another source to support your contention. Tentontunic (talk) 14:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
And are you saying that any source which uses communist terrorism is not neutral? All the sources, hundreds in fact are not neutral? Tentontunic (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
You have it the wrong way round. TFD (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
The amount of sources that use this term is irrelevant. None of them discussed the origin of this term. By contrast, all mainstream and reliable sources cited here confirm that this term was used by British government for political and economical reasons, and had no or little connection with the essence of the state of things in Malaya.
The phrase don't have to appear verbatim in all sources we cited, it is quite sufficient that it supports the current text. If there are any doubts in that, one can go to WP:NORN, the last major noticeboard that has been left unspammed.
Since Deery dissected the propaganda issues in details, there is no need for other scholars (and for himself) to return to this issue again: each scholarly article must contain new ideas, not just repetitions of what has already been said. Some articles cite Deery, which adds credibility to what he says, others sources (e. g. Fueridi) put forward similar, or somewhat different (Yew) ideas, and no sources question the idea that the term "Communist terrorism" was used by British propaganda. In addition, many sources use the term simply because that during the Cold war era it was the common term for Malayan emergency, along with generic "guerrilla war":
  • "malayan emergency" -"communist terrorism" "guerrilla war" 236 results [32]
  • "malayan emergency" "communist terrorism" -"guerrilla war" 23 results [33]
It is easy to see that "Communist terrorism" is just one, and not the most common term, so I see no weight issues at all.
Again, if some wants to continue this (already senseless) discussion further, they can go to the last major unspammed noticeboard (WP:NORN), although I doubt is a success to this enterprise. --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Re "are you saying that any source which uses communist terrorism is not neutral?" As "neutrality" means "means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources", the term "neutrality" is applicable to what the Wikipedians write, not to the sources. In this particular case, that means that it is necessary to write that "the Malayan emergency was a guerrilla war (refs to many sources), which was characterised as "Communist terrorism" (references to other sources), for propaganda(ref to Deery and Fueridi) and financial (ref to Yew) purposes.
PS. If some doubts on that account exist, one may go to the Malayan emergency talk page and discuss the way the ME should be represented in the CT article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Unless you can actually find other sources to support this statement. as "Communist terrorism" in British propaganda then you are giving undue weight to the one source you did find which actually says this. The one uninvolved editor who has commented has also said this. Tentontunic (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
A reliable source says that the term was used as part of British propaganda. Unless you can find sources that provide a different narrative, there is no reason to question that source. In fact using multiple sources for one fact is poor style. TFD (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I stumbled across something of interest today, Robert B. Asprey was of the opinion that the British turned to the "far more realistic term of communist terrorism" War in the Shadows: The Guerrilla in History By Robert B. Asprey pp574

Firstly, the book published by iUniverse is much less reliable than the sources cited by me. To cherry-pick junk sources to back one's POV is not the best strategy.
Secondly, this term was probably more realistic that earlier "bandits", however, that does not mean that it was more realistic than "guerilla war".--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
The proper place toi dismiss any source as "junk" is at RSN. The source does appear to be SPS, but that is a different term from "junk." I suggest you post there if you feel it is junk in order to get fresh eyes thereon. Collect (talk) 11:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Do not see any reason to go there: when I used the Penguin Books' book as a source, it was dismissed as "junk". Even the article published in reputable peer-reviewed journal was dismissed as alleged "junk" - and now the same person tries to use a self-published book as a source - just because it allegedly supports the POV they are pushing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
You do realize this is a reprint yes? It was not self published originally you know. Tentontunic (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Cite the RS publisher. If Paul does not like it, then RSN is the place he must go. I am tired of removal of sources because of IDONTLIKEIT reasoning. Paul does not say the material is not relevant at least. Collect (talk) 13:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, iUniverse is hardly a reputable publisher, much less reputable that the sources I use. iUniverse does not specialise on history publications, and it is not clear if its books are being reviewed at all. Again, to dare to come up with such a junk, after my top quality sources have been attempted to be rejected by the same person under the same pretext is a blatant example of double standards.
Secondly, I still haven't seen the extended quote. If the source in actuality says that the "CT" term was more reasonable than "bandits", that is correct, but irrelevant, because my sources do not contradict to that. They only state that the "CT" was much less adequate than "anti-colonial partisan war".
Re IDONTLIKEIT, since I (by contrast to someone else) always provide concrete arguments, my only recommendation is "Physician, heal thyself".--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Are you blind? The first print from 75 was not self published, and was in fact highly praised. As collect said, I shall cite the 75 version which is perfectly reliable. Tentontunic (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
You should have to provide correct reference. The second volume of this book has been published by iUniverse, a self-publishing company. That is your responsibility to give a full citation, so I am not blind, but you are not accurate. In addition, if the book you refer is a 35-years old book, it is very possible that it reflects the Cold war myths common for those times. Regarding the essence of my objection, I still see no quote from the book your cited, so it is not clear for me what is the context the words were taken from. Without seeing the quote it is hard to judge about relevance.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

No, you do not understand. The first and second volumes were printed in 75, the iuniverse print is not a second volume, it is a reprint of both in one book. Now do you understand? Tentontunic (talk) 07:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, no. You still have provided neither the full citation (to clarify what concretely do you mean) nor the extended quote (to demonstrate what was the context these words have been taken from). Remember, the burden is on you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

POV about LDS Mormons belonging to Christianity

The article The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints describes the religious body to be a restoratinist Christian religion. Renowned references like the Britannica, Oxford English Dictionary, among others don't define the Church of Jesus Christ LDS as a christian religion. Therefore I see the NPOV policy violated and ask other Wikipedia editors to resolve the dispute. --217.5.199.242 (talk) 13:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

While the LDS church is about as theologically distant from Christianity as Hinduism, they are derived from Christianity, they describe themselves as Christians, and so the anthropological approach is to say they are a Christian religion. It's not saying they truely are Christians, though, if you want to look at it that way. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I smell a Scotsman here. LDS is a Christian Church (and, BTW, Britannica agrees, as far as I can figure out from snippets online). Christianity is a somewhat mushy concept. But if we accept Southern Baptists, the Roman Catholic Church, Episcopalians, and the Syrian Orthodox Church, I see no reason to exclude Mormons or Jehova's Witnesses. Of course, the only true Christians are adherents of Platonic Gnosticism. All others will Burn In Hell (tm). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, the Baptists, Catholics, Episcopalians, and Orthodox are trinitarian monotheists who believe in the incarnation, at least; but yeah... And no, the only true Christians (tm) are the Circumcellions. ;P *TWHACK!* "Laudate Deum!" Ian.thomson (talk) 14:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
What a compelling doctrine! And to think I never heard of them before. Rumiton (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
There are a couple of distinct issues here, first the questioner needs to understand that 'Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' is a distinct subset of what are collectively called Mormons. And since the question was specifically about LDS, then we need to restrict the debate to that article. The typical LDS view is that they are the correct branch of Mormonism. Many LDS members describe themselves as 'Christian', but not all. The typical argument I have heard is "'Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' has Christ in the title, so how are we not Christians?" That alone I do not find to be a compelling argument, since anyone can make a religion and include Christ in the name ("Balloon Christ Believers"). LDS Mormons believe that Joseph Smith set them back on the proper Christian path and that other Christian religions were in error. Most Orthodox Christian religions do not regard LDS as Christian. When comparing the set of beliefs of LDS versus Orthodox, there are several significant divergences.
The article Mormonism and Christianity describes these differences in detail. A quote from that article:
Mormons do not accept non-Mormon baptism nor do non-Mormon Christians usually accept Mormon baptism. Mormons regularly proselytize individuals actually or nominally within the Christian tradition, and some Christians, especially evangelicals, proselytize Mormons. A prominent scholarly view is that Mormonism is a form of Christianity, but is distinct enough from traditional Christianity so as to form a new religious tradition, much as Christianity is more than just a sect of Judaism.
As far as the exact proper way to approach this in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article, I believe I would lean toward something like "is described a restorationist Christian religion", just adding the word 'described' maybe. -- Avanu (talk) 15:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
We had a long ArbCom case about a similar topic regarding Jehovah's witnesses. LDS is classified as restorationsist christian in so far as they profess to restore the original form of early christianity. It doesn't matter whether other christians actually accept them as christians or not. Restoriationists are recognized by stating that they restore the original "correct" form of Christianity. Not by the degree to which they are distinct from other denominations.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
"Mormons do not accept non-Mormon baptism nor do non-Mormon Christians usually accept Mormon baptism." - possibly, but the same is true for many other Christian faiths. E.g. most Baptists do not accept Roman Catholic rites at all. See Jack Chick. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Not sure what is meant by 'rites', but Baptists would accept a baptism done by Roman Catholics. -- Avanu (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Depends on the Baptists and it depends on what you mean by "accept". See Believer's baptism. There are all kinds of denominational and sectarian differences within Christianity. At the end of the day Mormonism falls within the Christian family. Don't believe me, then look at the sources. I'm not sure why this is even being argued. If we do what we are supposed to here on Wikipedia, and follow the reliable sources, then there is no doubt. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • comment - Christian theology of course describes itself as a continuation of the religion of the Old Testament, just as Muslim theology (see eg "Messiah#Islam") describes itself as a continuation of both Judaism and Gospel of the Messiah, Jesus, in turn. Yet, because of the distinctions among them from what is normally understood as "Judaism" and/or "Christianity," we classify them both as separate and distinct branches of Abrahamic faith. The Mormon faith(s) are analogous.

    Would it be possible, as a compromise, to classify "Latter Day Saint Christianity" as a distinct branch of Abrahamic faith (actually, Sikhism and Bahai could conceivably be added too) yet keep this use of the self-describing term "Christianity" within the designation itself?

    --Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


People, can you please give your feedback here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#Argument_against_Christianity I would like to see this discussed on just one page, and that is the page where the debate started. --217.50.56.198 (talk) 17:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Mormonism is classified as Christian in reliable sources. This IP appears to be treating the talk page of the entry as a forum to argue against the way that reliable sources classify Mormonism. Notably, in order to do so, s/he claims that sociologists are not reliable in this matter, only theologians are. It's the other way around I'm afraid. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

A Christian religion is one emphasizing Jesus of Nazareth as a central figure and considering his teachings (alleged or otherwise) to be important. By that mark, Mormonism is a Christian religion. — Rickyrab | Talk 01:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Is the % of pages in secondary sources the only indicator to measure due weight?

We're having a discussion about a paragraph in the History section of a summary article. Some editors want to include certain events and some others don't. (If you feel curious, I can tell you that the "events" we're talking about are 1) the widespread rapings, desecrations of all churches but one and the lootings of almost all homes in Gibraltar when it was captured in 1704 and 2) the subsequent exodus of practically all of the inhabitants of Gibraltar -of whom the largest part specifically established themselves in a nearby place called San Roque).

One argument used by the editors who don't want to include the events is that they only add up to a very small % of the total information included in the main sources about the whole History of Gibraltar, and therefore dedicating two sentences to those events would give undue weight to them. On the other hand, they recognize that those events "are included in Hills, Jackson, Francis, Bradford and all major British historical works".

The other editors contend that the sources only can talk about the information that was recorded at the time, and even if it is very important they can not go for pages and pages talking about the events if there was only original information for one or two pages, and therefore the number of works that mention those events is a better measurement of "weight".

My question is: should we use the % of pages dedicated to an event in secondary sources as the main indicator of "weight", or are there other issues to take into account even if that % is not too large? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

For information, Imalbornoz's claims above that editors seek to remove the fact that violence occurred and the fact that the townspeople left are strongly misleading. It is proposed that these points be summarised, not removed (see this RFC, which contains the proposed text).
Also, the argument is not that a raw percentage alone is pivotal, but that the points concerned are given very much less weight in reliable sources than in Imalbornoz's preferred version of our summary. That is to say, no other factors have been found that would convey weight on the details that Imalbornoz wishes to include. Given quite how much weight he wishes to put on these points, this is not surprising.
Imalbornoz has only disputed this inasmuch as he argues that weight can be measured purely on the basis of the number of sources found that mention the information, without any other regard for the content of those sources. On Monday this board did not consider this an appropriate way of measuring the weighting of points in the article - a point that was reconfirmed about an hour ago. It would be useful to know if this has changed since then. Pfainuk talk 22:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Just to address the specific question asked. Such percentages can only give the roughest of indicators. It is the quality of sources that you should be considering. Is this actually a situation where there is a disagreement between scholars? If so, it would help if one or two scholarly sources on each side could be listed. Or is it not that at all, in which case a different question needs to be asked? Itsmejudith (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
To answer Itmejudith's question, I don't think there is any disagreement in the vast majority of sources. No sources deny the widespread rapings, desecrations, lootings, and the exodus, mainly to a place called San Roque (at least, none of the editors in this discussion have found any -and we all have made extensive searches of sources). On the other hand, the vast majority of relevant sources do mention these events.
To give some more specific information, the two sides of the dispute are:
  • Some editors want to keep the current text, as they consider that it is very relevant to the population of Gibraltar, very notable, and is mentioned by almost all relevant sources. The text is:
  • Some editors want to reduce the mention of the events arguing that the proportion of the text in relevant sources is disproportionately low compared to the weight given in the article. The text they propose in order to replace the text above is:
You can check some excerpts from the main sources here.
Thank you for your comments. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Please be aware that these excerpts are taken out of context, for the purpose of promoting Imalbornoz's position.
The points on weight are reasonably clear. The dispute is as to which of the following should more appropriately be the basis for the weight on the points to be made:
  • The weight given to the points by reliable sources, taking into account not just the length and detail given, but the context it is given in and other similarly appropriate factors.
  • The raw number of sources found by certain editors that mention the point, regardless of context and weight given to the point by those sources; taken with statements that events are "very notable".
In judging this, it is worth pointing out that the points that are given massively more weight in Imalbornoz's preferred text than in the sources, and that he describes as "very notable", happen to be exactly the same points as are used by one side of the modern dispute in pursuit of its goals. Pfainuk talk 15:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You folks really are "going around the houses" — and the block, and popping up three places just on this noticeboard. Which isn't getting you anywhere. I think it is time to round up all the chickens an put them back into one pen. So I propose that all further discussion regarding Gibraltar be consolidated and kept on Talk:Gibraltar. Any objections? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for being the one to pop up in the third place... but please understand that us chickens are a bit tired of hearing each others' cacophony (for two years now) and are desperately wishing to hear some fresh outside opinion. Which -I agree- is no excuse for not being able to agree to post just one consensus question in the noticeboard instead of filling it up with our separate questions... We'll go back to our place ;-) and pray for some outside commentators who help us out (not easy, I think we've already bored out of the discussion quite a few mediators and commentators). Thank you very much for your time and your interest. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
For info, I created that example of Bibliometry. For the record, I don't consider that or any other form of Bibliometry at all useful in deciding WP:DUE and have consistently said so for the 2 years I have tried to engage constructively with Imalbornoz. I merely offered a Bibliometric example to show just what a crock of bullshit it actually is. However, WP:DUE is consistently argued by Imalbornoz on the basis of Bibliometry but his chosen "metric" is the number raw hits in Google searches, condemned on this very board as unacceptable, that opinion has been ignored and this is now described as "ingenious" bibliometry believe it or not. Those reading these comments may wish to take this into consideration.
Whilst, I don't claim Bibliometry is at all useful for establishing WP:DUE, it can be useful to illustrate when massively undue weight is given to certain details contrary to the quantity of text and depth of coverage guidelines in WP:DUE. Like when 14% of the history section in an overview is dedicated to documenting a list of crimes and stating a single reason for the exodus (several are noted by historians) and to the exclusion of explaining the geopolitical reasons for the Gibraltar capture. And when most serious histories treat it on the basis of little more than a footnote.
We decide WP:DUE on the basis of weight of opinion attached in reliable sources, this is not established by Google Snippets, selected quotes obtained from 3rd parties or hit counts in searches in Google Books - this is how Imalbornoz has sourced his edit - he doesn't have access to sources of his own and has admitted so in discussions. We will make a lot more progress if some people go to a library. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I would like all of you involved in this issue to take a moment to look at one of the reasons why you all have been going "around the houses" on this (and for two years?!!).
All of the editors concerned here seem to be intelligent, articulate, interested and informed on the topic (some topics are not so fortunate), and care about it to a degree that approaches passionate. Which is the problem! All of you have a great deal to say on both the topic and the issues. So you keep saying it. Witness WCM's last remarks: I proposed that further discussion be consolidated elsewhere, Imalbornoz said (at length, but essentially) "okay", and WCM wants to — discuss the issues. (WCM, please don't take offense here. Everyone here has done this; your remarks were just closest to hand.) So one of you goes flying out of the coop, then another, you keep exciting each other, and pretty soon you are scattered all over and pulling in different directions. Right? (That's a "rhetorical" question, don't have to answer!) Keep in mind that I am not against discussing issues. I am saying that you shouldn't be popping off at any time with whatever is bugging you. As it is, you have one "side" firing off a broadside of points, then the other side responds with a different set of points, and there is so much shrapnel flying around that everyone else is ducking for cover.
I think (for whatever it's worth) you all need a bit more discipline in staying focused, particularly in taking up just one sub-issue at a time, so that you don't choke on them. Let's take this back to the talk page, and I'll try to help you sort matters out there. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 02:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not in the least offended. The thing I think you're missing is the claim that "ingenious" Bibliometry establishes WP:DUE so overwhelmingly, that anyone who disagrees is "suppressing" material because they're "embarassed" by the material and you can ignore them and impose content. The "ingenious" Bibliometry is not a sustainable argument under wikipedia's policy. But hey why bother with the tedium of reading sources when you just have to fire up Google Books? Wee Curry Monster talk 21:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I didn't "miss" it, I am (for the moment, and in this place) ignoring that claim. This is what I was just talking about: you folks just keep going on and on and on. And in the process you raise more claims and subsidiary points, and no wonder your arguments are spread all over the map. To make any progress you need to slow down and spend time on single issues.
Please note that this claim for "bibliometry", or some aspect of it, is being discussed above (at #Due weight and numbers of sources), and I hope we can resolve some part of this claim there. As to various other issues: as I have proposed here, I recommend that you all try to keep them on Talk:Gibralter. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if mediation would work on this one. Underneath it all, there is an issue of how much weight to give to some events that are covered by historians. It has become utterly entrenched. Each side repeats the same arguments; uninvolved editors find it hard to know where to start. Not everyone has access to all the historical texts. Something is needed to break the logjam. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I am having a go (a bit of an experiment) at trying to help these folks at the discussion above, but that will probably drag out for several weeks. In the mean time I hope any further outbreaks of this running dispute might be quelled. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b Jackson, Sir William, Rock of the Gibraltarians, p100-101
  2. ^ Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar. George Hills (1974). London: Robert Hale. pp. 173-174. ISBN 0-7091-4352-4
  3. ^ Frederick Sayer (1862). The history of Gibraltar and of its political relation to events in Europe. Saunders. p. 115. Retrieved 4 February 2011.

Race and intelligence

I need some help on how to address the POV issues that exist from the Race and intelligence article title. Is AfD the only route to fix this?

The article content was originally given a completely different context. From the creator's edit comment copied large section from Racism

  • the article would be more acurately labelled Race and IQ and it should be noted that IQ can be a very crude measure of intelligence
  • title (including race and iq) accepts the premise of the question WP:UNDUE which is inconsistent with the scientific community
  • requires context or interpretation

None of the studies should be used without explaining why they might be statistically misleading and while there are studies that counter point by point other studies this does not give an encyclopedic article. But really the encyclopedic item is the larger Nature versus nurture debate.

I think it should be merged into another article the closest is Heritability of IQ but doesn't quite have the right name. Tetron76 (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree and would welcme your input to the article. It is unfortunately mostly a battleground between Single Purpose Accounts working to promote scientific racism and other editors who disagree but have less dedication to the topic. You should know that the article was the subject of a recent arbcom case and is subject to discretionary sanctions, so only the best behavior is encouraged there. Also you should know that it is part of a larger problem of pov pushing on articles related to race and intelligence in a very broad sense - articles such as J. Philippe Rushton, Race, Evolution and Behavior, Race and crime, Race and genetics and many others have similar problems. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Smooth jazz

Smooth jazz is a subgenre of jazz, however, an editor is trying to push a view that it isn't. Most of the early smooth jazz musicians root their influences to older styles of jazz (i.e. George Benson roots his influences to Wes Montgomery). Is there anything I can do about this? ANDROS1337TALK 22:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I added a disputed about template to warn people that there is currently a dispute (without violating the three revert rule), the only thing I can suggest you or any other editor can do is find numerous sources which both comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines and which also back up the assertion that smooth jazz is a subgenre of jazz. Not easy from when I looked for sources a while ago, although I do believe that smooth jazz is a valid subgenre of jazz. I'd go have a look again for sources now, however it is late in the UK and I have work tomorrow morning, so bedtime is upcoming for me. --tgheretford (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Would this link pass WP:RS? ANDROS1337TALK 15:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
That source could be considered by some as a primary source, considering its interests in the genre. We could really do with a number of links, preferably from organisations which don't have an interest in smooth jazz, such as learning academies, radio measuring organisations or any other third party organisation who meet the reliable sources guideline. That link alone probably in my personal opinion, wouldn't be enough to quantify the statement that smooth jazz is a valid subgenre, particularly so considering it's interests in the genre. --tgheretford (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I've had a look around Google, there are a number of general jazz websites (much better arbiter of secondary source) and newspaper websites which offer a historical view and oversight of smooth jazz, maybe worth going through search results and pulling up sources from the aforementioned organisations into clarifying that smooth jazz is a valid subgenre of jazz. Hopefully then, we can agree consensus across all sides over the definition of smooth jazz. Coincidentally, I'm listening to smooth jazz as I type this! --tgheretford (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
The perfect answer to the initial comment: smooth jazz is not a subgenre of jazz, however, an editor is trying to push a view that it is. Smooth jazz is cited as having evolved from fusion, but not from jazz as it's way too watered down, to the point that the elements that define jazz are no longer present. I saw several comments on the discussion page that hang on to the fact that the name "smooth jazz" contains the word "jazz" and therefore, "must" be connected. By that logic, is there any connection between vanilla pudding, bread pudding and black pudding? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I am not going just by name, but by the real origins of smooth jazz. Please read WP:AGF. ANDROS1337TALK 17:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Is that a subliminal admission of guilt? I never pointed at you, I was actually referring to other editors. WP:AGF goes both ways, you know... Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Criminal black man stereotype

Someone should take a look at this article, it suffers from many of the same problems that caused the recent spectacle about "Jews and Money" - i.e. presenting a racist stereotype as reality.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Certainly not helped by you deleting all material regarding the stereotype having some factual cause due higher crime rates for blacks.Miradre (talk) 13:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Could you please be more specific in describing what kind of help you are seeking? Even better, there are instructions at the top of this page for getting a good response to your concern. Right now I am not sure what the problem is. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 07:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
There is no connection between race and crime. There's definitely a stereotype, though. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
It just needs attention from editors who are not SPA's dedicated to promoting certain ideas regarding race. That is the assistance I seek.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is one of those issues where there do seem to be hard "facts" (factoids?) supporting the position. E.g., it is often argued that more blacks are convicted and/or imprisoned (so there!), which (in the U.S.) is indeed the case. Yet more careful studies long ago showed that conviction and imprisonment rates have more to do with poverty rates (e.g., lack of $$lawyers$$) than ethnicity; the latter is only an indirect correlation. So this is very much an issue where it is not acceptable to merely show sourced "facts" supporting some position. It is necessary to show pretty much the entire range of opinions and critical commentary to provide proper weight. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Weston Price introduction

Currently there is an issue with the lead into the Weston Price article. I want to go with a more descriptive (and IMHO more accurate) lead in (see [[34]] but one editor wants to stick with a less descriptive (and I might add TOTAL UNREFERENCED) lead into (see [[35]])

Who agrees that Yobal's version is the better one?

Also who agrees with Yobol that putting in direct quotes from Weston Price himself presented in peer reviewed material can be kept out just because Yobol claims they are "selective quotes" with NO PROOF to support this claim all the while Yobol avoids the focal infection theory article which has these exact same quotes and has to meet the higher WP:MEDRS bar?--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You are the one who seems to be pushing a point of view and WP:OWNing the article. The kind of detail you have added to the lede is unwarranted, as the lede should reflect the main body of the article. That seemed to be true of the statements, "These ideas formed the basis of focal infection theory during this period and led to the mass extraction of teeth rather than the use of root canal therapy. This application of focal infection theory fell out of favor starting in the 1930s, and it is not currently considered viable in the dental or medical communities." Mathsci (talk) 16:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Given the conflicting nature of the WP:MEDRS noted in the focal infection theory article how is the above version better than "However, research in the 1930s raised questions about the quality of this and similar evidence and despite a cautious resurgence in interest in oral FIT there is still no scientific evidence for it working to the degree supported by Price and his contemporaries" which has Pallasch's 2003 article as a reference which Ingles (2009) PDQ Endodontics called recommended reading and talks about Weston Price in more detail than Grossman does (though admittedly not by that much)?
I noted you ignored the fact Yobol removed the "Noted in the dental profession for his work in the relationship between x-ray and cancer, the invention and improvement of a pyrometer dental furnace, and the development of radiological techniques expanded on in the 1940s" part which is in the main body of the text having no less than seven reliable sources including Ingle's Endodontics (6 ed.) (I have added those as references in my restore)
I also found this little gem: "The last paper was read by Weston A Price DDS of Cleveland, "Focal Infection" tracing the source of infection to the gums, tonsils and accessory sinuses, showing the intimate relationship between the nose and threat surgeon and dentist" ((1915) The Lancet-clinic, Volume 113; pg 508) If you have reliable sources that address the "gums, tonsils and accessory sinuses" part of Price's FIT I think we would love to see them.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
You asked for an opinion. You seem to be advocating a minority point of view in that article and related articles; it differs from the mainstream point of view. I also find it odd that the biography of someone who died in 1948 is being used as a WP:COATRACK to discuss current practices in dentistry/nutrition. Mathsci (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
The reason for that has to do with the Weston A. Price Foundation's claims about the continued relevance of Price's work and the resulting recent critiques of Price's work by professional skeptics (e.g. Stephen Barrett). Had no one resurrected his theories he'd simply have been a figure in the history of dentistry, and perhaps also the history of nutrition, but now his very dated research is the center of controversy. I would personally prefer it if all of that stuff went into the entry for the foundation instead, but what happened some months ago was that a couple of editors insisted on adding Barrett's critique into the entry. Ever since then Bruce has been arguing to include all kinds of other materials, which IMO also do not belong in the entry.Griswaldo (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
It not just the Weston A. Price Foundation but as user:Ocaasi showed in Talk:Weston_Price#Price_and_FIT-inspired_.27holistic_dentistry.27 a lot of other people using his work with George E. Meinig being the main lightning rod according to Ingles 6th ed. I agree that the article should be on the man himself and not what others have done with his work but the lead in Yobol supports fails to explain why Price is important now while mine (as flawed as it is) at least tries to deal with that issue. IMHO too much is on what others are using Price's work for rather than what the man himself said.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

You know, I've tried multiple times to get Bruce either to take this over to the Focal Infection Theory page or elsewhere, because it doesn't belong on Price's Bio. I don't understand why he doesn't get that, and I'm tired of arguing about the issue with him. If he wants to say stuff about modern applications of FIT, he should do it somewhere where they talk about modern applications of FIT, not on the article about someone who was long dead before FIT started to be reconsidered. --Ludwigs2 19:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
The problem as I keep pointed out is the biography keeps making a medical statement about the current status of FIT. Administrator User:Will Beback stated that "(h)owever articles that appear in scholarly journals are considered to be reliable for most purposes. If we're using it to make medical claims, then it would have to meet the stricter standards at WP:MEDRS, but I don't have enough information to tell if it does."
Personally I think the only way this article can truly move forward is if we go back to Price's contemporaries and see how they summed up his ideas. The one sentence in Pallasch 2003 Yobol harps about is actually referenced to Price WA Buckley JP. "Buckley–Price debate: subject: resolved, that practically all infected pulpless teeth should be removed." J Am Dent Assoc 1925: 12: 1468–1524 and rice WA. (1925) "Fundamentals suggested by recent researches for diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of dental focal infections." J Am Dent Assoc 1925: 12: 641–665. or some 47 pages worth of material including a debate. And as I have repeatedly stated it is not me who makes the connection between Price and his contemporaries and what is going on with regard to modern FIT but the reliable source Pallasch (and a whole host of non RS)!
"Little attention then as now was paid to the observations that temporal associations are the weakest of epidemiological links and that many of its proponents were infected with the concept of ‘after it, therefore because of it’ for which even today there is no preventive vaccine." Pallasch set up the rabbit experiments of Weston Price and Rosenow as an example of the "then" and and spends the next six pages on the "now". If you go back to Grossman you will see he put Price and Rosenow together just as Pallasch does.
Strangely a 1935 Journal of the Canadian Dental Association article cited Price's 1923 book as an example of conservatism with regards extraction of teeth due to FIT which is puzzling for a man Pallasch says "asserted that ‘practically all’ infected non-vital teeth should be removed rather that endodontically treated to prevent or cure focal infections."
Furthermore Price's comments in his 1939 book "The evidence seemed to indicate clearly that the forces that were at work were not to be found in the diseased tissues, but that the undesirable conditions were the result of the absence of something, rather than of the presence of something" make you wonder if he still supported FIT in 1939. We can't say but we can put his exact words on the matter in his bio and let the reader decide.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Bruce, there should be no discussion whatsoever of FIT as a theory on Price's bio. It's not the place for it. I would be happy to discuss removing any claims that are made about FIT that are currently in the article - I could support that - but do not try to argue it out in the article, because it is not the correct place to do that. --Ludwigs2 22:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Ludwigs2, with all due respect how on Earth did you come up with this idea? There are dozens of RS articles that mention Price's work regarding FIT including the The Journal of the American Dental Association, The Dental cosmos, Pickett-Thomson Research Laboratory, Canadian Dental Association, Dental summary, Dental journal of Australia, Endodontic Topics and Ingels as far back as 2002 (who now has a 7th edition-2010 out). This is ignoring all the non RS people using Price's research to push their own views.
This is not like the idea that Louis Pasteur might have seen penicillin but didn't realize its impact--like or not FIT was a major part of Price's work. I have already pointed the third party 1916 Lancet-clinic article showing that Price application of FIT included "gums, tonsils, and accessory sinuses" and so wasn't just limited to teeth or root canals. FIT clearly belongs in Price's bio but the question is what is being presented actually Price's views rather than those who use his work. That is why IMHO we need to go back to the old material of Price's time and see what his contemporaries said and note how it disagrees with the more recent source material. After all isn't noting when sources conflict at the heart of NPOV?
That is why I say IMHO neither the Stephen Barrett or Weston A. Price Foundation rebuttal really belong in the page as neither is really reliable with regards to the biography. As I showed in Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_21#Burn_Barrett_Bandwagon.3F Stephen Barret had NO IDEA what he was talking about with regards to Price.
To paraphrase Yobol: "One last time: this is an article on Weston Price." This is not the article on holistic dentistry. So why is this holistic dentistry nonsense in Price's biography? What reliable sources show that Weston Price was a holistic dentist?--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


I should note that these issues have been discussed ad nauseum over months on the article talk page, so I feel no need to repeat myself here, except to note that Bruce's approach, which is to delve into 80-100 year old primary sources to build this article rather than use reliable more current secondary sources flies in the face of most Wikipedia policies, and no amount of discussion has been able to get this across to him. I would also like to thank Bruce for showing me these problems exist also in the Focal Infection Theory article (which I had not looked at all that close)...I will be addressing the problems there soon as well. Yobol (talk) 02:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
A 2003 article is a "80-100 year old primary source"?!? Yobol's claims are not born out by reality. Right now the entire basis of his version of the lead is based on an now out of date version of Ingles and given his efforts to push a unsupported idea that there were two theories and if he takes that nonsense to a page that have very good MEDRS references he is going to have issues.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I should mention true to his word Yobol is now doing his nonsense in the focal infection theory article as well and so I have opened a NPOV thread on that mess. This is starting to look like the kind behavior we saw with User:Ronz (see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive97#Noticeboards.2C_source_criticism_and_claims_of_BLP_issues as well as a repeat of the Wikipedia:Recentism issue brought up in Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_21#Weston_Price_and_Quackwatch for the fun the editors had there) to exclude relevant material.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

New lead in still being blocked

I came up with a largely third party referenced lead in that even uses Ingels (see [[36]] which has already been determined as a reliable source and Yobol true to form reverted it back to the unreferenced stuff (see [[37]]

A) I sure you all agree that the first part of the first paragraph with four third party references is well referenced and there are sources that can back up the second part so WP:OR can NOT be put out as a valid argument. More to the point the first sentence establishes why Price is important outside of all the current use of his work.

B) The second part has two references--both third party.

C) The third part is simply a reworking of what already exists.

Who here agrees with Yobol keeping in a unreferenced lead in that has nothing to support anything it claims and more importantly why? Please, no vague unsupported claims or references to previous versions; you must explain why Yobol's unreferenced version is better than my third party referenced on.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

NPOV issues in the Focal Infection theory article

True to his word User:Yobol is engaged in his "quote out of context" nonsense in the focal infection theory article now. He is using his claim to remove direct quotes by Price from the Journal of the American Medical Association and a book published by by the Medical Book Department of Harper & Brothers. As a trip to the "The progressive decline of modern civilization" chapter of Nutrition and Physical Degeneration shows that I am quoting nearly the entire paragraph. The sentence before this Price states "Our problem of modern degeneration involves both individual and group destiny. Our approach to this study will, accordingly, involve first a critical examination of the forces that are responsible for individual degeneration."

IMHO Yobal's behavior is bordering on POV pushing with regards to Weston Price.

Who agrees with Yobal that a near full paragraph in a book published by the Medical Book Department of Harper & Brothers with a reference to the entire chapter is being "quoted out of context"? Who says that Price stating

1) "(i)n my search for the cause of degeneration of the human face and the dental organs I have been unable to find an approach to the problem through the study of affected individuals and diseased tissues.

and

2) "The evidence seemed to indicate clearly that the forces that were at work were not to be found in the diseased tissues, but that the undesirable conditions were the result of the absence of something, rather than of the presence of something."

while referring back to his 1923 Dental Infections is not relevant to his position regarding focal infection theory?

Sure we can't summarize what Price meant by this so why not use the quote? If anyone agrees this is out of context please have them explain what else "The evidence seemed to indicate clearly that the forces that were at work were not to be found in the diseased tissues" could apply to.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Consensus above suggests that modern focal infection theory should not be discussed in the biography of Weston Price. Please keep the discussion of Focal infection theory on the talk page of that article. If you have complaints about the conduct of particular editors, WP:ANI is a more appropriate venue, provided the complaints are well-founded. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Mathsci, did you even bother to READ what I said? This is about the focal infection theory article and NOT the Weston Price article. It even says that in the title.
Also there is no real consensus in the regarding Price's quotes. Ludwigs2 feels there should be "no discussion whatsoever of FIT as a theory on Price's bio" (which has its own set of issues as even his obituaries and memorials talk Price's work in focal infeciton clear into the 1950s), and Griswaldo is not clear about the material he has issues with (most likely the general FIT stuff that the quote)--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
There is no need to use capital letters or coloured/bold fonts: please do not shout. You have opened up two threads here which seemingly only attract editors already active on the articles. Even here you mention Weston Price, so the issues remain unchanged. Long threads have been generated elsewhere (eg on WP:FTN). Posting here does not seem to be an appropriate way to resolve disputes on either article. If you have complaints about another editor's conduct, WP:ANI is the right noticeboard. From my perspective, it is you who appear to be pushing a minority point of view. Mathsci (talk) 07:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
We already had one of those (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive675#Weston_Price.2C_NPOV.2C_and_MEDRS) and nothing was done. The issue of putting misleading and out of date medical claims was never addressed by the other editors.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
That was a thread started by you and no administrative action was considered appropriate. Which medical claims are out of date? The statements by Weston Price, or something more recent than 1939? Mathsci (talk) 08:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I explained that fully in the above link. "This application of focal infection theory fell out of favor starting in the 1930s, and it is not currently considered viable in the dental or medical communities." is the problematic passage.
"Additionally, recent evidence associating dental infections with atherosclerosis and other chronic diseases has also helped resurrect the focal infection theory." (Silverman, Sol; Lewis R. Eversole, Edmond L. Truelove (2002) Essentials of oral medicine PMPH usa; Page 159) This book is now published by the same people that put out Ingles.
The Pallasch 2003 article expresses concern that given focal infection theory's easy explanation and economic incentive to use it one could easily see the same application as seen in Price's time. As I stated before the Pallasch 2003 article 1) Defines FIT, 2) talks about Weston Price while going into the history of focal infection theory, and 3) goes into the current situation regarding focal infection theory. It also make several connection between the enthusiasm in Price's time and the current situation.
PDQ Endodontics (2009) by Ingles clearly states "And even today, cancer and neuropsychiatric disorders are blamed on focal infection" making the statement supported by Ingles 2002/2007 (the 5th and 6th editions are nearly identical in this regard) statements out of date. In fact Ingles 2007 states the revival of FIT is "based on the poorly designed and outdated studies by Rosenow and Price" and no mention of the modern revival triggered by the work of Mattila (Fowler, Edward B "Periodontal disease and its association with systemic disease" Military Medicine (Jan 2001)) is made. PDQ Endodontics by contrast does comment on the revival thanking Pallasch for his information and so does NOT make the "not currently considered viable in the dental or medical communities" claim that the older versions did and even recommends the Pallasch 2003 article for additional reading.
Heck, Pallasch in 2000 was stating "The resurgence of the focal infection theory of disease has been greeted with great enthusiasm in some quarters" citing three papers from 1998 including Meskin's "Focal infection: Back with a bang!" in no less than the Journal of the American Dental Association so the Ingel's piece was already out of date in 2002 (which was my point)
A more NPOV sentence would be "Idea that focal infection was a primary cause of systemic disease fell out of favor starting in the 1930s, and despite a cautious modern revival "Focal Infection Theory fails to pass scientific scrutiny" (Pallasch 2003)--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Metapedia

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

Ongoing whitewashing attempt by a single purpose account on this article about a white nationalist and far right website purporting to be an encyclopedia, more editors keeping an eye on this would be helpful. 81.147.155.12 (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

"Considered a legend"

Google currently lists 64 uses of "considered a legend" on Wikipedia, and most — if not all — of them are uncalled for. Someone wants to clean it up? --Damiens.rf 16:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Great! Well, I have to say your exposure of this unacceptable phrase everywhere in Wikipedia is umm legendary? Is there a bot that can fix this?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I know I'm the best! [citation needed]. --Damiens.rf 02:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
When reliable sources refer to the individual as a legend, it's appropriately used in the article. You might want to actually check the sources before tagging or altering the language, certainly not all of them are appropriately used, however of the first 7 on that google search 2 of them were linked to reliable sources using the word "legend".--Crossmr (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Not really. Considered is weasel wording and legendary is non-neutral language. We do not allow not-neutral text just because we know whose opinion it is. Still, some of them may be justifiable. --Damiens.rf 02:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
The first hit I got was from the Simple English Encyclopedia, "[ William Tell ] is considered a legend". The English Wikipediqa articles says that he is a legend. How would you re-phrase this? TFD (talk) 02:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
That's where "considered mythical" might work better. Most of the entries appear to be hype, and not many of the "legendary" comments actually are from quotes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Legends tend to be about humans, while myths are about supernatural characters. TFD (talk) 03:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Then keep it as "legend" where it really is a legend, and dump it elsewhere unless it's an integral part of a quote. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree as "myth" and "legend" are used interchangeably. Bulfinch's Mythology or John Remsburg's The Christ give more detailed descriptions how "myth" is used.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Weasel words and non-neutral language is usually only a concern when we don't attribute it. In fact we have a section exactly on that Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Attributing_and_specifying_biased_statements. If reliable sources refer to a subject as a legend, especially multiple sources, there is no reason that that shouldn't be included in the article.--Crossmr (talk) 05:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Most of them are unattributed. So they're either hype on the part of the editor, or they were lifted from another source without attribution. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
If they are sourced by the attributed language is missing "according to.." that can easily be fixed rather than running around blindly tagging sources as failing verification as he did when the language is present in the source. That kind of editing is bordering on pointy and disruptive.--Crossmr (talk) 09:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Who did it? --Damiens.rf 01:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Better yet give us examples.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
You did. Right here [38]. You tagged the source as failing verification for the term "legend". Yet, the article in question clearly makes the statement about the individual. For several seasons, Anyang Halla has been coached by Otakar Vejvoda. A legend of Czech hockey as both a standout defenseman for HC Kladno and a successful coach, Vejvoda is now in his third season behind the Anyang Halla bench.. When the NHL correspondent refers to an individual as a legend in hockey, I'd say that's a rather authoritative classification.--Crossmr (talk) 08:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
No. As said above, this is inherently non-neutral language, and Wikipedia should not parrot that kind of statements. NHL texts are written for fans and contain a certain amount of hype. Reader discretion is advised. --Damiens.rf 14:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia specifically has policy addressing that kind of text. It specifically discusses how to word them and does not prohibit their use. It's your opinion on how NHL news stories are written and what degree of hype (if any) they contain. You've failed to provide any any evidence that these kinds of statements shouldn't exist at all, nor support your claim about NHL news stories, in addition you seemed to have no recollection of even making the edit, nor the fact that the text you were objecting too appeared directly in the cited article. My original comment stands that your edits seem borderline pointy and disruptive.--Crossmr (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
We had such WP:PEACOCK issue over in Weston Price article regarding him being a Charles Darwin of Nutrition and to use it we had to state just where it came from in the text itself. The Czech hockey example above does not do that. Per WP:PEACOCK the material should read something like "According to Meltzer in a NHL news story Vejvoda is considered both a standout defenseman for HC Kladno and a successful coach."--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
"standout defensemen" is no less of an opinion than legend, and both terms appear in the text. My point was the false tagging of the passage rather than adding the attributed language. Tagging it as failing verification would indicate the text did not appear in the citation when it in fact did.--Crossmr (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Not so much false tagging as incorrect tagging. [vague], [who?], or [neutrality is disputed] would have been more appropriate.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
There was nothing vague about it. His legend status was attributed to his skill as a player and coach, and it was cited. While it was unattributed in the article, it could have been attributed if he was so inclined, but it was clear he was just going to tag things rather than actually check the citations. Had he bothered to check it, he would have seen the text appearing there, and thus his edits were borderline pointy and disruptive. If he's got some kind of argument to make, he needs to far more careful with his edits. Especially for someone who was just blocked for trying to force uncited text into an article. It puts it in a far more pointy context. As far as being point of view, there is nothing inherently wrong with it being point of view so long as it's attributed in text. Your version is no less point of view, as "stand out defenseman" is just as much opinion as "legend" is.--Crossmr (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_22&oldid=1136086452"