Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 50

Archive 45

←

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

→

Archive 55

Is edit #641543166 at Bitcoin article neutral?

The neutrality of Bitcoin#Ponzi scheme dispute section contents has been disputed at Talk:Bitcoin#Ponzi scheme dispute. The dispute was announced using the "NPOV-section" template, started on 2 December 2014 and ended up finding a consensual wording of the section on 9 December 2014. After the dispute ended, the wording of the section was updated, deleting the "NPOV-section" template.

On 8 January 2014 an edit #641543166 changed the consensual wording of the section. The problematic and nonneutral aspects of the edit:

• The edit "classifies" professor Eric Posner as (a member of) "Various journalists" group.
• The edit reinterprets the opinions of professor Posner, economist Nouriel Roubini, and head of Estonian Central Bank Mihkel Nommela as if they were identical, which is both untrue and unnecessary, since the correct citations of their opinions are present in the section.
• The edit changes the order of claims in the section, the consensual order was based on source dates.

Proposal

The proposed action is to revert the edit #641543166. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion involved a separate sentence in that section, your edit went beyond the scope of the discussion and removed a wording that was the result of a previous consensus. There is a discussion on the talk page explaining this and specifically why it was reverted beyond the lack of discussion, which you have not responded to. "the consensual order was based on source dates" is inaccurate and makes no sense for an NPOV wording, starting the section with no context and defending bitcoin against a claim without first explaining what the claim is, that is a POV edit. Starting a section explaining what the claim is and who made it, and then following up with detailed sources explaining why it's not the case is hardly a violation of NPOV. - Aoidh (talk) 08:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

"The discussion involved a separate sentence in that section" - the discussion established a complete consensual wording of the section.

"starting the section with no context and defending bitcoin against a claim" - this is a misrepresentation of the claim. The claim is a citation of a report written in 2012 by the European Central Bank. A characterization of it as "defending bitcoin" is rather subjective, why should the European Central Bank be accused of "defending bitcoin"?

The claim is providing the necessary context presenting a fact that there are sources finding it hard to determine whether bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme or not. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Unless there's some archived discussion you're referring to, no, the discussion currently on the talk page did not involve the changes I reverted, please provide a diff if you believe otherwise. "The claim" is not a citation, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here especially with ECB defending bitcoin part, so I don't know how to respond to it. ECB is defending nothing, but placing the quotefarm (which is another issue entirely) in the order you did created a number of issues as was explained on the article talk page. The current wording, which was arrived at by consensus, is not a violation of NPOV, as I explained above. Your edit starts the section with zero context; the section should not begin with a favoured conclusion before even explaining what the issue the section details even is. The current wording essentially boils down to "This very prominent economist accused bitcoin of something, but a prominent financial institution and others have investigated these claims and concluded otherwise." In no way is that a violation of the NPOV policy. The tag you alluded to was for a separate issue was questionable in terms of NPOV, and was addressed. The content you're referring to does not create an NPOV violation, and your claim about "reinterpreting the opinions" holds no water when you actually look at the content in question. - Aoidh (talk) 08:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

No NPOV question. This doesn't seem to be stating an WP:NPOV concern for input, and the edits seem to have reasonably conveyed content of cited sources. What order it appears in or arriving at consensus phrasing is not NPOV. Please clarify what is the WP:NPOV question if any. Markbassett (talk) 03:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Expert commentary on risks of living in a household with guns

Sources

1. Anglemyer, Andrew; Horvath, Tara; Rutherford, George (2014). "The accessibility of firearms and risk for suicide and homicide victimization among household members: A systematic review and meta-analysis". Annals of internal medicine. 160 (2): 101–10. doi:10.7326/m13-1301. PMID 24592495. Free full text; abstract excerpt: "Conclusion: Access to firearms is associated with risk for completed suicide [odds ratio: 3.24; 95% confidence interval: 2.41 to 4.40] and being the victim of homicide [OR: 2.00; 95% CI: 1.56 to 3.02.]" (This is a WP:MEDRS-grade WP:SECONDARY reliable source, the fact of which is not in dispute.)
2. This question is about an accompanying AIM editorial which makes a strong case that the risks are actually substantially higher because of clear flaws in studies finding low risk. The author is David Hemenway, the Director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and the author of a monograph on the topic which meets the WP:MEDRS criteria in its own right. Hemenway's opinions are congruent with the conclusions of the MEDRS-grade review of U.S. statistics at PMID 19606921.

Article

Gun politics in the United States, as discussed at Talk:Gun politics in the United States#New WP:MEDRS-grade systematic review and meta-analysis

Content question

Does Hemenway's opinion, that the risk of living in a household with gun(s) is actually greater than indicated by Anglemyer et al's WP:MEDRS review and meta-analysis because studies which find less risk are methodologically flawed for the reasons he indicates, carry enough weight to be noteworthy and included alongside the MEDRS source's results? EllenCT (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The editorial clearly fails even WP:RS. I've stated my opinion that the article also violates WP:RS, but that is disputed. Others will have to comment on weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs)

On what grounds and where has your opinion about the article been stated? EllenCT (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I've commented on the article talk page; the authors and the journal are experts in epidemiology, but there is a real dispute as to whether gun violence can rationally be analyzed by those methods. (It can obviously be analyzed; the question is to whether the results of the analysis have anything to do with reality.) We might as well discuss whether an article in a mathematics journal which covers language propagation and diffusion could be considered reliable without evidence that historical linguists were on the peer-review board. (I've read one recently; I have no intention of using it as a source without verifying the review.) In particular, there are various confounding factors which are almost always ignored by epidemiologists, although obviously relevant. Among those factors are whether the victim is a known criminal, whether he had been previously threatened, and, if the perpetrator is known, whether she had previously been threatened, whether he and she knew each other, whether one had previously threatened the other—and that's just the factors I can think of with a couple minutes thought. (I use he for the victim and she for the perpetrator, so I can use pronouns in the sentence.) Even if the experts here would use those factors if they were to do their own study, they almost certainly would not consider a failure to use those factors a weak point in a study. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

How could a study measuring the risk of completed suicide and homicide (dependent variables) in relation to whether there is a gun in their household (independent variable) use factors such as victim's legal status, history, or the perpetrator's history? How could those factors affect the numeric relationship between the dependent and independent variables? EllenCT (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

By confusing people. Formerip (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

(to EllenCT) those factors affect both the supposed independent variable (possession of guns) and dependent variables (possibly "suicide", but certainly "victim of homicide"). For what it's worth, I have little doubt that actual access to guns increases the probability of a suicide attempt being successful, and any other factors are unlikely to reduce that effect on suicides overall. However, there are a number of correlative factors for homicide which are almost always ignored by epidemiologists, as they are not used to working correctly with situations where the "independent factor" is a decision by a person. I seem to recall a correlation between weight and general health which turned out to be more than 100% accounted for by a correlation between exercise and general health, weight being a dependent factor. In this case, gun possession is likely a dependent factor, and a competent statistician would attempt to determine independent factors. Correlation does not imply causation, and when the "independent factor" is a decision which is affected by the "dependent factors", it is a particularly bad situation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

A particular correlative factor would be if a neighbor was recently a victim of homicide. That would, assuming rational behavior, cause gun ownership, and would likely be correlated with the person being a victim of a homicide, due to other common factors. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source which critiques any epidemiological reviews, saying they are flawed because they don't include victim, perpetrator, or neighborhood histories or legal status? EllenCT (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The 1993 NEJM study was discredited except in the opinion of gun-control advocates. I don't know if the misapplied methodology is still in use. I would hope not, but I don't know. Because of that, if a study is mentioned in a pro-gun-control, but generally reliable, publication, the study must distinguish itself from that 1993 study, or it is almost certainly too biased to use. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Requesting additional parties to weigh in on abortion-related article

R v Morgentaler is a 1988 Canadian Supreme Court case which ruled unconstitutional the part of the criminal code concerning abortion. Back in June I noticed that someone had changed the lead from

R. v. Morgentaler was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which held that the abortion provision in the Criminal Code of Canada was unconstitutional, as it violated a woman's right under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to security of person. Since this ruling, there have been no criminal laws regulating abortion in Canada.

to:

R. v. Morgentaler was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which held that the abortion provision in the Criminal Code of Canada was unconstitutional, as it violated a woman's right under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to security of person. None of the seven judges held that there was a constitutional right to abortion on demand. All of the judges acknowledged the state has a legitimate interest in protecting the unborn. Since this ruling, there have been no criminal laws regulating abortion in Canada.

This struck me as quite POV. Included as a citation is a letter to the editor at The Guardian. The author of the letter is a legal authority, but nonetheless written as a letter to the editor, arguing against what for the purpose of our article seems like a strawman (i.e. there is no claim that this decision means "a constitutional right to abortion" nevermind "abortion on demand", nor is there any claim that the court had "no interest in protecting the unborn").

The text was originally added in May by 99.224.218.198 and since my first revert the same user has periodically restored the same text another five times. I hoped being a contentious subject that others would get involved, but nobody has. Uncomfortable continuing a months-long edit war, I turn here. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

It is not neutral. Spumuq (talk) 14:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

First question - why is this particular SC decision notable? Was it a landmark case in Canada? Second question: Is the text that was added from a RS, or is it an editor's "interpretation" of a primary source? WP:NOR states: Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; I don't think this is an issue of NPOV as much as it is NOR. Atsme☯^Consult 19:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused. It seems both of these questions are answered above (though I admit my original post is rather long). It's indeed a notable case as a supreme court case (i.e. the highest court in Canada) ruling particular laws unconstitutional (both of these factors are typical indicators of notability in their own right, but there are also plenty of sources). And the source provided is linked above along with the context of its use. There's no original research involved. It's most definitely an NPOV issue (and perhaps a RS issue). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Rhododendrites Seems reasonably NPOV about conveying the item. The Guardian article subheader reads "All judges in 1988 Morgentaler decision acknowledged state has legitimate interest in protecting unborn", so editor 99.224.75.219 "All of the judges acknowledged the state has a legitimate interest in protecting the unborn" is faithfully conveying that and properly cited it. It seems to belong in the body not the lead though as it is not frequent or major part of article itself. The lead has other NPOV issues in lead like "violated a womans right" as not summary of the article and not supported. The phrasing 'violation' and as a 'womans' right seem neither from the article nor accurate. Markbassett (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@Markbassett: The question, as far as I'm concerned, isn't whether the source is properly conveyed -- it clearly is, to the point of possible copyvio issues. It's more about whether it's appropriate to include using that language from that source (an interpretation via Letters to the Editor section). That it's in the lead is all the more problematic, indeed. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Rhododendrites - It is satisfying WP:NPOV when it presents fairly the views published by reliable sources, and that language was specifically highlighted by the source publisher making it the subtitle, not by the wiki editor or by the supreme court judge who provided the text. NPOV here is just to show that language fairly which to me seems to be well handled by including the text the source highlighted and have it cited. Interpretations in RS do seem to vary to significant amount. A check of google books shows me thoughtful books stating the decision is is narrower than generally reported and not 'right to abortion' or 'freedom of choice' [Federalism and the Charter, Leading Constitutional Decisions] and problematic role of Charter in judicial usage; or as the outcome making 251 unconstitutional yet having fragmented set of opinions [Canada's Courts] and saying that a minor rewording would be constitutional block to abortion. So yeah, put in Globe and Mail or Guardian and simply note different interpretations about the outcome exist in notable amounts -- which should be no surprise to anyone. Markbassett (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't 'the decision is is narrower than generally reported' imply that this perspective is actually a minority one? And wouldn't it be preferable to cite a better source than the letter page of The Guardian if it is available? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and yes. Ten points for Andy! :) MastCell ^Talk 17:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

No Andy, it does not. The book saying the decision is narrower than generally reported was referring to over-claiming it, particularly the Globe and Mail, and the Guardian material from legal expert is basically in line with clarifying that situation. No statement was made about percentages or polls, just that fragmentation of views is a common theme starting with the transcript itself. Markbassett (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

If you are going to bring other sources into this discussion, please cite them properly. The material being discussed here is sourced to the Guardian, and nobody can respond to vague assertions about things found via Google. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@Markbassett: - NPOV is most certainly not just about fairly representing the text in a given source. That's a single component -- an important one, but an irrelevant one here.

The goal is to present different viewpoints or different aspects of a subject with respect to their weight/presence across the body of reliable sources. The decision struck down a particular law, and that's what sources have talked about, by and large. The reason the source at hand is a minority viewpoint is because it's talking about what the law doesn't do as well as aspects of the case that are not the actual impact of the case. That judges said something to the effect of "the court has an interest in protecting the unborn" might be worth mentioning if that aspect of the case received attention from a reasonable number of reliable sources, but it would be presented with proper weight somewhere in the body of the article; certainly not in the lead offsetting that actual significance of the case.

That it's a letter to the editor does matter, even if in the Guardian. That doesn't mean it's necessarily unreliable, but does mean the language used will be appropriate for a letters to the editor section or an opinion column rather than an actual piece of journalism. More specifically, those parts of the paper are assumed to not be neutral and it's accepted to use non-neutral language for the purpose of making a point. It's fine for a polemic, but not fine for an us. We have to use encyclopedic writing, not opinion column writing. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

following on Andy's message above - there are court cases that are widely misunderstood, especially within activist communities. In my world, the decision in India about Gleevec was touted by anti-pharma activists as a huge blow when it was a very narrow decision that grew out of weird timing (patents filed at the same time that the law was changing), and the Monsanto v Schmeiser case is widely described by anti-GMO activists to be about genetically modified seed patented by Monsanto blowing onto a farmer's field, when in reality the farmer had intentionally planted a bunch of GM seed he had intentionally saved. Court cases are "used" all the time in inappropriate ways. But the point that there should be responsible reporting in reliable sources that accurately describe the decision, and perhaps even mention the decision being widely misconstrued, is great - if those sources don't exist, that is a sign that the claim of mis-construing is not accurate, or is a fringe view. A letter to the editor is a lame source. Jytdog (talk) 19:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The second version distorts the case. Legal precedents are important for the precedents they set, not for commentaries that have no bearing on the outcome of the case. Ironically, the only use of the term "legitimate interest" was a reference to the finding in Roe v. Wade, a U.S. Supreme Court decision that overturned U.S. abortion laws.[2] TFD (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree - a comment on a newspaper letters page, even if coming from a legal expert, is of very limited relevance when assessing balance. If this is the best source that can be found making this point, it is entirely undue to give such commentary such prominence in the article lede. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• User:Rhododendrites my input for you on the topic is still in vein of accept this is a significant aspect that belongs here somewhere and is not a POV creation of that wiki editor, it actually looks like part of larger legal expert consensus runs other ways. If you'd rather have book cites like I mentioned then I suggest you add them to the other editor material. If you feel the paper did inflammatory headline then I think that's in line with the whole 'decision is narrower than commonly portrayed' bit and you can wordsmith that aspect in as well as wordsmith something else if it conveys the position fairly. I already gave things a try by moving it to a line near bottom. Markbassett (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I just want to note, that the source being discussed was used as follows:

"The extent and nature of the Morgentaler decision remains in popular discussion, e.g. in a recent Guardian letter by Gerard Mitchell.

Content says nothing (and even that nothing is unsupported by the source) and appears to be just some kind of WP:COATRACK to bring in the source. I removed it. Jytdog (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Yup, The assertion in the latest edit, that "The extent and nature of the Morgentaler decision remains in popular discussion" is unsupported by any source. And Markbassett, please cite books here so we can all look at them - this isn't a private conversation between you and another contributor. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

what is confusing to me in this whole discussion, is that I read our article, and it very clearly describes, that all the decision did was invalidate a piece of Canadian national law that criminalized abortions done outside of some committee approval. That's it. The article no where leads the reader to believe that the decision was broader than that, and only just now was any content introduced that said that the case was ever construed more broadly than that (and that is based on a single line of a book from 1989). I don't even get what our retired judge is railing about in his letter to the editor. Jytdog (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Going back to the top, to the purpose of this thread, I agree with Rhododendrites that the insertion of the content based on this source violates NPOV - it is essentially stuffing an "right to life" view into the lead, by arguing against some supposed misconception. There is insufficient support in the body of the article for the misconception, that would rise to this being discussed in the lead. And really importantly the content being added about what the judges wrote, is not found in the in the body of the article, in the detailed discussion of the various opinions that were part of the decision. As far as I can see, who ever keeps adding this is both a lame and lazy WP editor, and a POV-pusher just interested in seeing "right to life" issues in the lead of the article. Jytdog (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Economic growth#Income equality

Could we please get some more eyes at Economic growth? People have over the past four or five months been slowly trying to include obscure primary source studies of relatively tiny datasets to try to imply that inequality causing economic growth is still a viable theory. These studies have huge caveats that went unmentioned in the inclusions. And now User:Volunteer Marek is trying to claim that Li and Zou (1998) and Frank (2009) aren't primary source studies, and that my insistance on agreement with secondary sources is against consensus because "at least one other user objects" to my edits. EllenCT (talk) 06:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

These are neither primary sources nor are they "obscure". They are regular academic studies published in top economic journals. If these were "primary sources" then something like 80% of cited papers would have to be removed from the article, including most or even all of the ones that EllenCT added. And if you want to see "obscure" than a much better candidate (than papers published by NBER or Economic Inquiry) would be this paper. Economic Inquiry is ranked 107, Investigaciones Regionales 857 [3]; personally I actually think that mid and lower tier journals often publish more exciting and noteworthy research than the top ones, but if we're going to use "obscure" as a criterion, then EllenCT has it exactly backwards.

Looking over the edits it seems to me like EllenCT is just labeling studies which reach conclusions s/he personally disagrees with as "primary" (and throws in "obscure" with a few other false adjectives in there too) while ones she agrees with are "secondary".Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not proposing removing primary source studies (i.e., studies which do not reach their conclusions based on literature reviews) when those studies agree with the consensus of recent literature reviews. I would not object to them if they were empirical studies based on datasets even half as large as those which contradict them. But I can not abide by including studies which say "oh by the way, if we could get the rest of the data we requested from the IRS, our results would be negated." EllenCT (talk) 07:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

One more time, these are not "primary source studies". They're regular academic studies published in top ranked journals. The idea that they contradict something or other, is entirely your own. I.e. "original research". As is your interpretation and evaluation of the conclusions they obtain. So you're trying to have your cake and eat it too, by labeling studies you don't like as "primary" and those you like as "secondary" even when there's absolutely no difference in their quality, and by trying to exclude some working papers (even though published later) because some other working paper reached a conclusion which *you personally* think contradicted it (actually in this particular case, the methods really aren't comparable).Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

And by the way, you do realize that IMF Staff Discussion Notes are not anymore "peer-reviewed" than NBER Working Papers, right? They are published "to elicit comments". You are trying to remove another paper, an NBER Working Paper, based on the fact that it's not "peer reviewed" even though the same paper was shortly later published in another top journal (nevermind the fact that NBER is a highly prestigious organization, and one NBER working paper is worth a dozen published papers).Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that it's easier to get published by the NBER than the IMF? What is your source for the statment that "one NBER working paper is worth a dozen published papers"? Berg and Ostry have been treated favorably in reviews. If you are so determined to include something implying inequality causes growth, then you need to find a paper with a larger data set or favorable treatment in a literature review. EllenCT (talk) 08:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm suggesting the other way around. Most likely NBER is harder, but there's a lot of overlap between these folks. But virtually all NBER WPs end up in top journals while a lot of IMF papers stay IMF papers, often for internal consumption. My own impression is that there's a lot more variance in quality in the IMF publications than the NBER ones. Anyway. That paper was published in a top journal so the issue is moot. And I am not determined to "include something implying inequality causes growth". The Barro paper in particular, the NBER one, later published in a top ten journal, doesn't imply anything of the sort (you seem to be a bit confused on this point). The other two papers might, but I wish to include them not because of the conclusions they reach, but because they are legitimate, secondary, sources published in top journals. I have no idea where you've gotten this "larger data set" criteria from, certainly not from Wikipedia policy (and outside of Wikipedia, larger data sets are only better other things equal).Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Has it occured to you that IMF Staff Discussion Notes are only authored by IMF staff? The NBER puts out something like 200 working papers per month. EllenCT (talk) 08:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes it has occurred to me but I'm not sure what your point is, and like I said, the issue is moot (unless we want to argue about excluding the Berg and Ostry paper) since the Barro paper was later published in a top journal.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

“studies which do not reach their conclusions based on literature reviews” ← that seems like a quirky definition of what a primary source is. What (if anything) in economics is a primary source? ... if some authors produced a dataset and then did an analysis of it maybe? Or some microeconomic theory proposed from scratch? If sources are drawing on third-party material and offering commentary and analysis, then they are secondary. How much weight they should be accorded is a different question, and should be determined in the usual way (prestige of publishing venue, impact, etc.). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Have you asked an economist what they consider a secondary source? EllenCT (talk) 08:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, you've asked one. And you got the answer. Just not the one you wanted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Secondary sources in economics have literature reviews, or are literature reviews. Li and Zou (1998) and Frank (2009) do not have literature reviews. They are primary theoretical speculation and tiny dataset results with huge caveats which were missing from the article. EllenCT (talk) 08:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, I have no idea where you got this idea from. Secondary sources in economics are regular published papers. Primary sources are things like data sets or methodological contributions. The stuff about "primary theoretical speculations" and "tiny dataset" is your own idiosyncratic evaluation of the works. I.e. original research. Both these paper cite the literature extensively. They just don't have a section entitled "Literature Review". So what? That has no bearing on their status as sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

What is your source for those assertions? What is your source for the implication that secondary sources in economics don't need to include or be literature reviews? EllenCT (talk) 09:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

What is YOUR source for the idea that an article from a top journal needs to have a section explicitly labeled "literature review" or it isn't secondary? That one is just completely pulled out of thin air.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure it'd be worthwhile, they'd be bound to disagree. What matters here only is what Wikipedia considers secondary sources. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you arguing for inclusion of Li and Zou (1998) and Frank (2009)? With or without their caveats on including public sector spending in the utility function and their results being negated if the IRS would give them information on people who don't make enough money to file a tax return? EllenCT (talk) 08:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

No I'm just responding to the query brought to this NB. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek is wise. bobrayner (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

None of the above? Third party just weighing in, and what strikes me is the whole subsection seems undue weight, going off to topic too much and put too high in presentation. Suggest that it be reduced to scale of other factors, circa 200 words, and similar nature of just say WHAT it is rather than trying to detail out all research, then maybe this question would not even come up here or could be at the main article of Economic Inequality. For level of weight here -- I typically see Economic Growth mentions interest rates, resource costs (e.g. oil price), government policy (taxes, regulation, stability), or aging population. Or I see heirarchy types of determinants, breaking factors to Economic (Capital, Resources, Agri Surplus, trade conditions...) and Non economic (Education, Freedom, Corruption, Social Organisation...). Just sayin Markbassett (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I actually agree with that and that would be my preferred solution. While there might be some relationship between inequality and growth, generally that is not one of the major factors that is stressed. I would like to see the whole section reduced to a discussion of, say, five or six, main sources, and/or about two paragraphs.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I had a quick look at the section. You need sources that explain the literature, how it has changed, which studies were most important and how modern economists view them. Choosing a number of studies and reporting what they said will inevitably go against neutrality, because it means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

Often btw research papers will begin by explaining all these issues before presenting the authors' personal views, and can therefore be helpful. TFD (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

We could really use more eyes and help on the article. I find the situation intolerable and the other editor simply impossible to get through.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Matthias Kuhle's Tibet glaciation hypothesis

A couple of users, namely Tigona (talk · contribs), Zeog (talk · contribs), and several IPs, some or all of which may be Matthias Kuhle himself, are pushing this academic's obviously controversial idea that the Tibetan Plateau was covered almost completely by an ice sheet in the last glacial period (and probably earlier glacial periods), and that the Tibetan Plateau is itself the cause of the glacial periods, or the current ice age, on the pages Ice age, Geography of Tibet, Matthias Kuhle, and possibly elsewhere, by presenting the hypothesis as accepted, or even majority consensus, and the opponents as mere dissenters. The glaring (and formerly, when Geography of Tibet contained virtually Kuhle's whole bibliography, clearly extreme) over-reliance on Kuhle's own (numerous) publications, together with the quite apparent fact that there are numerous opponents, makes me almost certain that this narrative is wrong and biased. If it were true, it should be easy to cite supporters, instead of citing Kuhle himself dozens of times (note the borderline citebombing in Ice age#Uplift of the Tibetan plateau and surrounding mountain areas above the snowline, where all footnotes are citations to Kuhle's own publications). It appears that Kuhle is using Wikipedia to promote, and defend against criticism, his pet hypothesis to laypeople after it has been rejected by the relevant expert community (compare this dissertation), trying to short-circuit or circumvent the scientific process. This pattern is, unfortunately, all too common with cranks in academia. In this case it is difficult to see who else would have an interest in promoting this particular hypothesis – it appears too obscure and unexciting to garner much attention and fans compared to other fringe hypotheses, and outsiders would find it difficult to assemble the man's whole bibliography, so I'm hard-pressed to assume good faith. This looks like a classic case of WP:SELFPROMOTE, with the tell-tale sign being the liberal use of WP:SELFCITE. I note that Talk:Matthias Kuhle lacks a COI note currently, even though it is pretty much obvious that some Wikipedia editors have an undisclosed personal affiliation with Kuhle. (Also note that Kuhle's page has only narrowly escaped deletion, due to lack of any clear consensus on his notability.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 05:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

After seeing this I took a look at the Matthias Kuhle page and indeed noticed some problems. Firstly that his ideas are presented, many sources are cited criticizing them, and it appears there's a back and forth over rebutting those criticisms matter-of-factly ("These doubts, however ignore earlier geomorphological evidences and are mainly based on numerical datings, which up to now lack a reliable calibration technique") by citing Kuhle's own work (my revert just now). Unless, of course, those many citations cited as criticism are presented without proper context or are otherwise misrepresented (i.e. assuming there's a legitimate basis for including it -- which is to say that it's due, without issuing a scientific judgment), we'd likewise need secondary sources to counter the criticism. I also removed a glut of journal publications and conference proceedings per WP:PROMO and WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a CV). Also tagged the article for expert attention, etc. because I'm not at all equipped to parse the factual content. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 07:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

After reading this section I searched for secondary literature dealing with the Tibetan glaciation theory. I found many textbooks, which described this theory as well (i. e. J. Ehlers 2011: Das Eiszeitalter, cf. http://www.springer.com/popular/book/978-3-8274-2326-9.; Anderson, Goudie, Parker (2013): Global Environments Through the Quaternary: Exploring Evironmental Change, page 86-87, cf. https://books.google.de/books?id=lFP1CdFDkIMC&pg=PA87&lpg=PA87&dq=Global Environments through the Quaternary kuhle&source=bl&ots=Qrz9AuLgzQ&sig=_22DYGYmK1VJ1UqxvBDCZdnLGd8&hl=de&sa=X&ei=_fCzVP7vBYnyPPLxgNAJ&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Global Environments through the Quaternary kuhle&f=false) and Nesje, A. & Dahl, S. O., 2000. Glaciers and Environmental Change. Arnold, pp. 1-203). Furthermore I found several articles which described the lack of calibrated numerical dating samples in High Mountain Areas (also Tibet) (i. e. Chevalier et al. (2011): Constraints on the late Quaternary glaciations in Tibet from cosmogenic exposure ages of moraine surfaces, cf. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379110004014; Schröder, N. (2007): The discrepancy between the method of Cosmogenic Nuclide Exposure Dating on moraines and morphodynamics, weathering, glacierdynamics, erosion and global climate, page 369 cf. http://palaeoworks.anu.edu.au/pubs/INQUA2007abstracts.pdf). Consequently the last sentence of this author page should be corrected into: These doubts, however ignore earlier geomorphological evidences and are uncalibrated numerical datings, which up to now lack a reliable calibration technique. --— Tigona ^talk \\ 17:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

AFAICS, even if this may be so, it does not follow from this that Kuhle's hypothesis has any merit. Also, you seem to be engaging in WP:SYNTH to defend it. Moreover, some of these sources are poor (Spiegel Online? Seriously?). We should use only high-quality academic sources for a controversial scientific topic like this, not journalistic pop-science portrayals, which are often insufficiently critical. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Inspecting Tigona's edits, I remain convinced that this is a WP:SPA used to promote Kuhle's highly idiosyncratic or controversial (or both) hypotheses on Wikipedia. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

yes while I approve of Tigon's signature :) and appreciate efforts to pull together secondary sources, it does seem like he/she is only interested in promoting Kuhle to the point of edit warring. Perhaps he/she could comment as to any possible conflict of interest and engage in discussion without editing until a consensus emerges. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your information. I am not in any conflict of interest dealing with the site of Kuhle, but sometimes I am dealing with the topic of science and "Against Method" (see: Paul Feyerabend). Florian Blaschke please specify and prove your assumption (see: "highly idiosyncratic or controversial (or both) hypotheses"). As a wikipedia user you should know: Sometimes theories affected by scietific revolutions (Thomas Kuhn: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.) and sometimes they are affected by political motivations of scientists (Paul Feyerabend: Science in a Free Society). All kind of these processes we find in every scientfic community, especially in some well known scientific journals. You wrote "it has been rejected by the relevant expert community (compare this dissertation), trying to short-circuit or circumvent the scientific process". I do not understand what you mean with the "relevant expert community", please specify the experts of this community.Tigona (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

"I am not in any conflict of interest dealing with the site of Kuhle" – and I am the Emperor of China. Why should I put any trust in such a bald assertion when the evidence rather suggests otherwise?

The relevant expert community is, of course, glaciologists. I have also checked QEN and it is not favourable either. That tells me that Kuhle's ideas are not widely accepted in glaciology, and typical fringe hypotheses. Your name-dropping of Feyerabend and Kuhn is irrelevant in this context. Fringe hypotheses are not necessarily useless; Wikipedia acknowledges this by allowing them to be mentioned (and even to have their own articles if they have been discussed widely). However, WP:UNDUE emphasis is considered POV-pushing. Opinions need to be placed in context and the reader must be made aware in no uncertain terms that Kuhle's views are not in good standing and rather isolated in the scientific community. Although they seem far-fetched considering the way glaciers work in reality, Wikipedia's policy does allow readers to learn about Kuhle's views after all, just in case there should be some substance to them against all probability. But not without some kind of warning. This is what NPOV is all about. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Please be so kind and compare the maps of different authors dealing with the glaciation of High Asia during LGP (free available see: http://booksite.elsevier.com/9780444534477/). Furthermore you can find a summary and discussion about the former glaciation in High Asia in J. Ehlers (2011): Das Eiszeitalter (see. page 169 - 173 in http://www.springer.com/popular/book/978-3-8274-2326-9).Tigona (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

ETA

An i.p. is constantly adding to the lead of the article that ETA is a group "known for targeting civilians." A statement like that, besides being unsourced, is questionable. The group, I would argue, is better known for waging a violent struggle for Basque independence, during which, as always occurs in conflicts involving paramilitary groups, civilians died. In some cases, these were after explosions targeting infrastructure, where there were disputes over the customary telephone warnings given. Those attacks, while criminally reckless, are not the same as "targetting civilians." Others were politicians, members of political parties or people working on military bases, who supporters of such groups would argue were "legitimate targets" rather than "civilians." Either way, the vast majority of those killed were not civilians, using either definition. Ultimately, it's not our job at Wikipedia to decide whether they were or not, we simply state the facts and let readers draw their own conclusions. In the ip's edit summary, they say: "a non NPOV editor is making a concerted effort to whitewash this article as compared to the more official Spanish language version." As all I've done is revert to the longstanding consensus version of the lead, this is not correct and besides that, the Spanish language version of the article is no "more official" than ours and says nothing in the lead about the group being known for targeting civilians. Valenciano (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The ip has now made further additions, totally misrepresenting a source, which seems to conclude the opposite of what they've said, as I've detailed at Talk:ETA#Changes_to_lead. Valenciano (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Jim Webb, current U.S. political candidate

This article on a 2016 presidential candidate in the U.S. has been a long-term problem with NPOV. The lede read like a campaign bio, one editor using the name Webfooter has been editing at length (including changing "politician" to "statesman"); etc. I would like some eyes on this, preferably including some that admire Webb more than I do. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I posted a link to here, at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Jim_Webb. Jytdog (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Here I am with my hands up. Don't shoot! I left a message on the Conflict of Interest/Noticeboard. I am now concerned that there may be a conflict of interest, since you say that you don't care for him, OrangeMike, and Jytdog describes himself as a "Clinton Democrat." Is there anyone who may be more neutral who could handle this? You have all the power, of course, and I'm just a person trying to accurately portray an individual. (By the way, I said "noted author" because it was less puffy than "Pulitzer Prize" nominated author. I said "statesman" rather than "politician" because of his career path, entering politics later. However, I can see that politician would fit at this time.) I used Hillary Clinton's Wikipedia page as a guide. Today you deleted all but a small paragraph in his introduction, Orange Mike. Hillary's introduction contains five well developed paragraphs. Nothing you deleted was fake or puffed up. He just happens to be a man who has had many accomplishments, which should noted in an introduction and then in more detail in the article. (Webbfooter (talk) 03:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC))

Thanks for voicing your concerns here. Just a point of clarification regarding Wikipedia, though: Although people with strong opinions on a given subject are advised to keep in mind Wikipedia core principles like those related to neutral point of view and to be mindful of the extent to which their own beliefs may be influencing their editing behavior, it's not reasonable to prevent editors with opinions from participating. Most people interested in a subject to the extent that they're editing the article are going to have an opinion of it, so in a way it's better to have those opinions on the table for the sake of transparency rather than make people afraid to disclose their opinions. Conflict of interest (see WP:COI for a more thorough explanation) is more about having a connection to the subject rather than having an opinion. That means people who stand to benefit or anyone with a personal or financial connection to the subject (personal as in a friend, co-worker, family member, etc.). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Webbfooter declared at COIN that he is related to Webb. And Webbfooter - newbie mistake to "counter-attack." The problem here is your behavior. Per the note I left at COIN, please do not directly edit the article going forward, but instead suggest changes on the Talk page using the "edit request" function. And I haven't touched the article other than to tag it for your COI - I generally stay out of articles about politics on Wikipedia. I do care about COI in Wikipedia, so please follow the rules going forward. Jytdog (talk) 05:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Controversy of Baby It's Cold Outside

Content:

In recent years, there has been criticism of the song, stemming from a modernistic reading of the wolf/mouse dynamic as being sexually predatory. While traditionally interpreted as the mouse wanting to stay and putting up only token protests for the sake of appearance, some commentators perceive the lyrics as the "mouse" as genuinely wanting to leave but being stopped by the "wolf" being coercive in his pleading. These readers cite certain lines as being questionable, including "I simply must go", "The answer is no", "I've got to go home". There is also the line "Hey, what's in this drink", which is seen as implicative of alcohol affecting the "mouse's" judgement or that they have been drugged. However, many movies, at the time the song was written, used a similar line to refer to someone behaving in a different manner than they expected and blaming it on the alcohol.

"‘Baby It’s Cold Outside’ was once an anthem for progressive women. What happened?". The Washington Post. Hannun, Marya (11 December 2013). "'SOUTH PARK' Takes on Bill Cosby ... BABY THERE'S AN ASSAULT OUTSIDE". TMZ (11 December 2014). "8 Romantic Songs You Didn't Know Were About Rape". Cracked.com (13 February 2010). "“Baby It’s Cold Outside” Isn’t About Date Rape!". Salon (website) (19 December 2012). "Is "Baby, It's Cold Outside" a date-rape anthem?". Salon (website). Deusner, Stephen (10 December 2012). "Baby, It’s Just A Song". The Federalist (website). Magness, Cheryl (3 December 2014). "Christmas songs that illustrate the worst in humanity". George Ouzounian (19 December 2012).

These are some of the proposed sources for and against the date rape implications surrounding Baby, It's Cold Outside. We are determining if these are propaganda or satire, and if so, which ones fit RS guidelines. Timeraner (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The sources all appear OK, especially WP and Salon. Doesn't this more belong at WP:NPOV/N?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll move it. Timeraner (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Moved from WP:RS/Noticeboard. Timeraner (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

per WP:UNDUE we represent the various views as best we can in proportion to how those multiple views represent significant groups. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, TMZ The Federalist and Cracked are not generally valid sources. TMZ is just gossip and prurient rumormongoring, Cracked is humor and Federalist is hot air blowhards. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

There are a number of other sources being discussed on the article talk page. IMO the standard for inclusion here is (correctly) pretty low. We are not talking about any BLP issues, or statements of fact. Its "What are the opinions about this song". Interestingly for the federalist, their article largely argues against the "rape" interpretation, so removing them removes one of the better soured counterpoints to the controversy. This hasn't gotten "Tier 1" coverage like the other controversial Christmas song Do They Know It's Christmas which has been covered by NPR and BBC, but its still a pretty notable controversy, and there is not a really widely discussed counterargument Gaijin42 (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Not really relevant to this discussion board, but there is no exception to WP:RS for items that dont receive coverage in adequately reliable sources to use non-reliable sources instead. That would kind of make WP:RS pointless. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I take that back, here is an NPR story http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2009/12/baby_its_cold_outside.html Gaijin42 (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

While these are mostly "reliable sources" in the strict sense, WP:DUE would require that their opinion not be dealt with too extensively. For example, while an article in Salon is just fine as evidence for criticism, who really cares? It does not say much about the overall reception of the song. More than a short note, then, is not warranted. Broad coverage of an opinion generally requires better sources. Knight of Truth (talk) 04:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC -- Debate over claims of discrimination in academia

You are invited to participate in RfC -- Debate over claims of discrimination in academia–GodBlessYou2 (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

American Left

The main issue I see with American Left is that it deviates from the existing left wing and left right politics articles. It defines "The left" in a different way to exclude pretty much everything but socialism, Marxism, and communism - something that deviates from the normal American sense what is left of center. It appears that it might be better titled as American Socialism since that is it main focus.

I think it would fall under POV-lead or POV-title. I haven't put up the templates but posted here first. Dairyfarmer777 (talk) 06:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

In fact it is consistent with both those articles. On the talk page, you presented American Dreamers: How the Left Changed a Nation as a source.[4] Your source says, "If Barack Obama and Noam Chomsky are both on "the left," then how does one make sense of their opposing views on U.S. foreign policy, and a good many other subjects? So I adhere to the classical definition. The left is that social movement, or congeries of mutually sympathetic movements, that are dedicated to a radically egalitarian transformation of society." Could you please explain why your source is wrong and why you presented it in the first place. TFD (talk) 07:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

"left-wing politics are political positions or activities that accept or support social equality, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality"

"The spectrum of left-wing politics ranges from centre-left to far left (or ultra-left). The term centre left describes a position within the political mainstream. The terms far left and ultra-left refer to positions that are more radical. The centre-left includes social democrats, social liberals, progressives and also some democratic socialists and greens (in particular the eco-socialists). Centre-left supporters accept market allocation of resources in a mixed economy with a significant public sector and a thriving private sector." Left-wing politics

"The left" in American, is it left wing or or only a subsection of left wing? Dairyfarmer777 (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Any article on American Left must pretty much be expected to be in line with "left" in current American usage - which is your issue? Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Here are links to "american left" in Google books[5] and Google scholar.[6] TFD (talk) 06:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Does inclusion of contemporary liberalism in the US dilute American Left? Dairyfarmer777 (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The only thing the Left and the Right have to do with being on opposing ends of something are the words. There is no center. There is no spectrum. These are mind tricks played on symmetrical beings. Unlike accounting, see-saws and the Zoroastrian world, nothing that happens on one "side" affects the other equally. Or should. Likewise, what one person, nation or media mogul thinks Left means doesn't affect what another does. Or Right. There's absolutely no need for consistency or balance among these different articles. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

That makes little sense.

"The only thing the Left and the Right have to do with being on opposing ends of something are the words."

This post isn't about opposition. Nothing to do with "right."

"These are mind tricks played on symmetrical beings."

The term is pattern recognition. We categorize things to make sense of the world. The left, left-wing, liberalism can be put on a spectrum.

One side affect the other? What? There is not need for it to affect equally to be put on a spectrum and to distinguish between differences.

"Likewise, what one person, nation or media mogul thinks Left means doesn't affect what another does."

This goes without saying. However this is an encyclopedia and we have to be able to write about things even when there's a gray area, and include that grey area. Your sentence following this one implies that the current lack of modern liberalism in the article is fine unlike the second to last which would be open to the inclusion of liberalism to American Left. They appear to conflict with each other. Dairyfarmer777 (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Amazingly enough- this has absolutely nothing to do with WP:NPOV and thus has no place at WP:NPOV/N either. Go to mediation or the like - but the folks here can not possibly do anything as a NPOV matter. Collect (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The complaint seemed about American Left deviating from Generic Left and Generic Right, like that would be something unfair or contradictory. Some Lefts can be a lot like other Rights. Basically, like you said, it's not a neutrality problem. It's a semantics thing.

Didn't mean to imply anything in any article should change or stay the same, only that no edit should be made due to what another article does. That's FOX and CNN's bag, not Wikipedia's. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I seem to have confused the two of you with one of you. I think my response still makes sense, though. Sorry. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Prager University

You are invited to participate in the ongoing discussion at WP:ELN#Linking to Prager University, which addresses the allegedly non-neutral creation of external links to Prager University, a website associated with radio host Dennis Prager. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

As the discussion has not reached a close I have started an RfC. You are more than welcome to participate if you have not already done so. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Big Bottom Massacre bias

146.23.68.40 Posted to this Talk page in 2011. I responded a few days ago, but it appears this contributor is no longer active. I would like to get the Neutrality issue resolved. Any help here, or am I in the wrong place. Doesn't seem like a big problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinsonbill (talk • contribs) 00:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa

Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I was reverted

Do you think my version or the version to which the article was reverted is more neutral?

jps (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

jps Caveat reverting on basis of Talk is working seemed reasonable, and it has to say the same thing to be more NPOV. NPOV is asking you to find a way to present that viewpoint fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias. You might find it useful to try looking into the wording of a RS and TALK to what this line meant. Word what it is better -- maybe as a POV item (e.g. 'Said by members'), tie to the para start ("This focus on the holy spirit'), or as an assertion instead of as a fact (e.g. 'Attributed to the stirring') would be more neutral and fidelity than the shorter 'This stirring'). Markbassett (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Does the "neutrality dispute" notice mean what it says?

The "neutrality dispute" notice reads: "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." I placed the notice on the article "2 May 2014 Odessa clashes" on January 10, and provided an explanation on the talk page. The neutrality notice was reverted slightly over an hour later [7]. It was restored today by someone else, at which point an edit war began.[8][9][10] It seems to me that the wording of the notice ought to be either obeyed, or the wording changed. Also, I would appreciate it if people would take a look at this article, because it seems to have a really severe neutrality problem. 55 Gators (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

looking at the talk page... I am not sure that there is a real "dispute" to be resolved here. Blueboar (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I appreciate that you posted here. I wish you had asked a question instead of making an assertion about how to use the template. You used it wrongly.

If you read the template instructions, Template:POV (please do so), you will see that the instructions warn against "drive-by tagging", which is what you did. (you tagged the article, then opened a pretty sharp discussion on Talk (didn't ask a single question), and then vanished) The instructions also make it clear that in Talk, you should "point to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies" and it says that the "template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public.".

In your comments on Talk, you didn't say a single word about policies nor about what sources say. You just gave your opinion.

The tag was therefore rightly removed.

In my view, you acted badly here. On an article on a very controversial topic (a shooting war) like this, it is much better to take your time, read the article carefully, read the Talk page carefully, make sure you have a solid grasp of policies and guidelines, and enter the discussion on Talk by asking a question instead of coming in with accusations. There are very experienced editors working on that article, and if you had actually asked why things were as they were, and listened to the answer, and thought about it, you could have learned something and been in a much better position to actually raise a neutrality dispute. Too many times, inexperienced editors jump into controversial articles and don't understand what is going on - and just end up making difficult situations worse. Please do read WP:COMPETENCE. I hope that you are open to feedback like this and I hope you stick around and grow as an editor. Good luck. Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

You did not identify a neutrality dispute, merely that the article is more favorable to one side than another. TFD (talk) 19:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

55 Gators - in response to your question, this seems de facto definition, an example that removers ignore the process and then victim-blaming happens over the claim of you didn't do it perfect as judged by ... Yah, it's a largely malfunctioning process. Nobody gave acknowledgement that you posted to TALK and the deletion did not participate in TALK, it's more assertions the other way and that you didn't do everything perfect which to me reads like evidence a tag is needed and they should TALK but that behaviour is not motivated. Removal might work closer to basis of talk use if a tag was semi-protected and criteria set for admins to meet before applying or removing but that's not the way it is. Annnnnnd I expect to see complaints about the 'but he poked me first...' flavor and red herring type. You raised the issue, but should not expect all parties to play fair when they really care. Markbassett (talk) 00:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Lincoln's habeas corpus suspension

You are invited to participate in an RfC on Lincoln's habeas corpus suspension (Talk:Abraham_Lincoln#habeas_corpus_section) pertaining to the section of the Lincoln article (Abraham_Lincoln#Beginning_of_the_war). Piledhighandeep (talk) 08:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair Partisans?

[This is copied verbatim from a query initially at the Help desk, moved per the suggestion of a fellow editor]

Now, I've been editing Wikipedia for a long time, but I've always wondered this:

What is Wikipedia's stance on partisans?

I've read WP:REP in the past, but I've always wondered what the general community thinks of this.

(Note that the partisans that I speak of are the ones that follow the rules for the most part, but do still obfuscate information that they find unfavourable from their own edits.)

If a partisan were to edit Wikipedia within the general rules, but yet obfuscate some information or otherwise "shadow" an article, and then in the long term the information that they added ended up being reworked by future editors so that the page turned out quite well balanced, could the presence of such a person truly be seen as a problem? If the partisan added legitimate information, and then the pages were later improved upon by others to add the information that they had left out, then wouldn't "the (first-version-writing) partisan" just be another step in the life of the general creation and improvement of an article? Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 11:56 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)

every editor in WP is obligated to follow the policy WP:NPOV. Each time you or anybody edits WP, under a username or without signing in, you agree to the Terms of Use (linked at the bottom of every page) which obligates you to abide by WP's policies and guidelines. So yes it is a problem, at a basic level. It is also a practical issue. While WP self-corrects over time (hopefully) that doesn't always occur quickly, and during the time when the partisan information is in WP, readers are harmed. Jytdog (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC) (striking per my comment below Jytdog (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC))

True enough, but do you believe that there have never been any partisans that have ultimately added good information to Wikipedia? I mean, some of what makes many of Wikipedia's articles the least biased on certain subjects is that so many people are working on it that the biases tend to balance out over time, and some articles only have the sources cited and information that they do because people were compelled to add their sides' informations, and then someone else came in and balanced it all out later; retaining the good parts of what the partisans added. Is that not one method in which a neutral point a view can be achieved? Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Everybody is obligated to follow PAG. You seem to be trying to create a general justification for behavior that violates PAG and that is not of interest to me and I think it is bad thing. I will say that people come edit for many reasons, but one of the main ones is that they are passionate about something. That passion is a double-edged sword. It drives people to contribute which has the potential for productive construction, but it can also lead to WP:TENDENTIOUS editing, which in my view is really destructive. WP:ADVOCACY is one of our biggest bedevilments. All editors are meant to check their POV at the door when they start to edit, and to strive to provide NPOV, reliably sourced content, for the public good. Jytdog (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC) (striking per my comment below Jytdog (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC))

I am trying to do nothing of the sort. All that I am merely doing is generally remarking based on my own observations on how several pages were constructed, developed, and have come to be now. I don't approve of biased editing of Wikipedia, but I have seen instances where it actually ended up all working out in the end. That's all that I was saying.

Indeed, I agree with your analysis there. Everyone should most certainly strive for every article on Wikipedia to be written in a neutral point of view. I never said otherwise.

What I am saying is basically this: you have said that passion is a double-edged sword. Can the bad end of that blade not be made dull by the well intentioned editors of a page so as to not leave a page in a biased state?

Wikipedia is a work in progress, and as such we will always be striving to be even better than we are at the moment. As such, is it not unreasonable to say that some articles, perhaps ones on debates, arguments or whatever (I don't read those kinds of articles, so I don't know how exactly to categorise them) are only at their current states due to contributions from many different kinds of people that have been ironed out to become the product we now see today? Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. Everybody is different, and there are often different perspectives on what an article should say, and also on how to interpret WP policies. That is normal and every WP article is the product of people working out reasonable compromises. Things tend to get very ugly when people come with axes to grind on top of that - partisan editors tend to behave tendentiously (please read that). That behavior is destructive to the community, as well as to article content. Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC) (striking per my comment below Jytdog (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC))

Fair enough. I see your point. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

. . .

Tharthandorf Aquanashi, Jytdog - wow, I think that went strongly wrong in four ways

* WP:PAG says make exceptions - observing wording carefully is limited "should" and "normally follow" and goes on to "apply using reason and common sense" which wikilinks to "there are times when it is better to ignore a rule"

* WP:NPOV says include fairly all significant views published by reliable sources. That's not exclude all partisans, it's to channel their views to a fair presentation.

* False basis re WP:Terms of use -- that has the legalese on copyright and lawsuits, but I see no such words to match the attributed. Welcome a specific quote if there is something, but I think that was just a false basis and best to be trying to restart focused to the concern than to try and force that to work.

* Censorship effect - allowing judgmental or accusatory WP claims without any explanation how it applies or a constructive criticism try of suggesting improved wording or placement seems just an invitation to one POV censoring another. We're basically talking what's good or necessary censorship and what ways censorship should be done here, so I think about such needing to be seeking goodness in nature and even in TALK trying to be consistent to WP:W2W, specifically WP:LABEL and WP:WEASEL and WP:CONSENSUS.

... Markbassett (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Mark we seem to be interpreting the question differently. I took it as asking if it is somehow OK if people come and edit with an ax to grind. (The answer to that question is a profound "no", per WP:SOAPBOX) and WP:NPOV (policy). Each of us are obligated to understand the relevant literature on a topic and to represent the literature in WP articles, as best we can per NPOV. We follow the sources, not our own POV.) What do you understand the question to be? Jytdog (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC) (striking per my comment below Jytdog (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC))

I very much agree with Markbassett. He sees what I was trying to say more so than you do, I feel, Jytdog. His points anent WP:NPOV are on the very same wavelength as mine: isn't the point of having NPOV to give just weight to all points that are deserving of that amount of weight and that are sufficiently cited, and also to not go and take sides so long as all published citation-worthy sources do not ultimately take sides to the extent that it would be citationally unavoidable to do so?

"allowing judgmental or accusatory WP claims without any explanation how it applies or a constructive criticism try of suggesting improved wording or placement seems just an invitation to one POV censoring another" Forsooth and siccor, Markbassett!

@Jytdog: When did I ever frain the question "Is it fair for activists to jump in and spout promotional or completely bias-filled, useless information on Wikipedia?" That was not even close to the question that I asked. Not even close.

Furthermore...

Wikipedia works because it has something similar to an assembly line process going on here for many articles. In plenty of instances, it cannot be reasonably expected for everyone to suddenly become Mister Perfect and play the world's best devil's advocate. That's something that only certain personality types can make work. In very many cases, articles grow into great states due to the efforts of scores of individuals working together to produce neutral, informative and useful articles for anyone who has the ability to view Wikipedia to see and learn from. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC) (striking per my comment below Jytdog (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC))

Jytdog Above I was indented to show inputting re the discourse trail from 'Terms of Use' had gone badly wrong in several ways. I'm in harmony with you and commonly refrain on just follow the cites or show me the cites, and yes we seem to be interpreting the topic differently, and that there we start to have some fundamental different thoughts. I've separately posted back to that top thread, which appears at that indenting below here. To your phrasing above in an answer paradigm, I would offer the complicating observation that in the contentious areas, WP policy seems more honored in the breach and evidenced as an added symptom ... Markbassett (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Tharthandorf Aquanashi, back to the WP:REP#Partisans question itself, short form partisans always exist and mostly OK with interesting complications and cases. I think thats a general statement but the situation generally is one of those "its complicated" and while general and pointing at the positives the details are varied and most but not all ways work out wonderful. Seems to me like everyone is inherently somewhat POV and every editor someway partisan, and most articles are not significantly controversial for that to matter. The WP:CONT ones are those where the positions are strong enough to overwhelm any common goals and methods, that by definition have not reached WP:CONSENSUS and implicitly will not do so. But they're the boundary where Wiki policy consideration actually happens and effects occur. Also, for such Wikipedia has some record value in capturing (roughly) what areas where that's the case, and the Wiki ideals form a means to narrow it by testing against Wiki ideals in an open arena. I'll offer the view as well I see cases where it fails that it still mitigates the damage -- in a gaming area I think discourse broken but think that sort of conveys the nature/level of the topic area, and at a different article I think it unretrievably biased but since it goes so far it is obvious and hurts it's own POV it seems two wrongs make a kind-of right. Markbassett (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. The biggest problem happens when a group of partisans take hold of an article. This isn't all so common that it causes a terrible problem generally, but it does happen. What can make this worse is when the vast majority of editors act in a partisan manner (even if subconsciously) towards something that is not so black and white. Those types of problems are what has led to the English Wikipedia being labelled as having a western bias in the media. We do all inherently have biases, and as long as we can suppress them to the extent that we can all together produce neutral, informational, and useful articles, that isn't really a problem. When it does become a problem is when a masquerading gang of ill-intentioned partisans fights off edits from a well-intentioned user that is trying to give fair weight to deserving, non-fringe, not of the type where a question of "truthfulness or falseness" "fact or fiction" would be an issue, points that are not included in an article due to the efforts of the aforementioned gang of ill-intentioned partisans trying to (by way of intimidation and wikilawyering) force their bias into an article. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Tharthan with all the latin you are using i suspect you have some kind of law background. maybe i am wrong. You both are missing the point of NPOV, which is really sad to me. We are supposed to work like scholars - each of us is responsible to read the literature on a topic and try to represent what the literature says, giving WEIGHT to various aspects of the topic according to the weight given in the literature. You both have it backwards, where we start with the editor pushing a POV, and going out and finding sources to support it, and adding content based on those sources, and then battling with other editors to determine how much weight any perspective gets. Editors acting that way, are basically doing that on the basis of complete bullshitting because they are not actually following the heart of NPOV - they are all just using NPOV as a tool to get what they want. We call that "wikilawyering". Wikipedia is not a court of law where lawyers do their best to outlawyer each other, and are happy with a win on a technicality. In WP there is no "judge" or "jury" that is the arbiter of which editor/lawyer best played the game. We are not "mad max" either, where editors just battle out POVs under a veneer of NOPV policy. We are not an ugly garbage dump of POV. Editors acting under those metaphors, are the ones who make this place suck. It is not what we are meant to do here. Does it happen? Sure. Is it a good thing. Hell no. Please - try to work in a really NPOV fashion - read all the relevant literature and try to work from it, and urge others to do the same. That is our responsibility here - one that comes with the privilege of editing Wikipedia. That is only way this place really works; the only way you can have really honest, rational discussions about weight and NPOV is from a shared grounding on what the relevant literature says and a shared desire to have the article reflect the literature (not anyone's POV). Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC) (striking per my comment below Jytdog (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC))

^^^^ Nominate for Comment of the Year Award (CYA). ―Mandruss ☎ 21:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)(Stricken commments may not be nominated for CYA)―Mandruss ☎ 11:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

that is kind of you! Jytdog (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Once again: not all of us can become Mr. Perfect and play the world's best devil's advocates. That kind of thing can only be achieved by persons of a specific nature. The process that you describe is not incorrect, but the idea that every single person would be able to indiscriminately collect, cite & summarise an equal number of sources for every single legitimate point of view in the entire galaxy all by themselves is unrealistic. My best friend, for instance, can do that kind of thing quite easily. That is one of his notable traits; being able to break everything down to a more-or-less unbiased account of something. However, not everyone is like my best friend. We cannot all be reasonably expected to magically create a perfectly NPOV article all by ourselves. That's an absolutely ridiculous assertion! If such a thing were possible, some other encyclopaedia would already have done so.

Furthermore, you don't seem to have read everything that I wrote before your post. I already discussed how wikilawyering can render something. Furthermore, I absolutely do not approve of shysters following the American lawyer method of "winning" something by way of technicalities. Had you read what I actually wrote, you would have realised that, Jytdog.

The rest of what you wrote is based on the assumptions of what I do and do not approve of, based not on what I actually wrote, but on what you have assumed about me. Please try not to assume, thank you. If you are unsure of what I am trying to say, just ask and I will happily answer. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

sorry that you don't feel i am addressing your point. Here are some questions that may help me understand.

1) in your original question you used the term "partisan" which is not a term in PAG. can you define this better? (i have been reading that as "an editor behaving as an advocate" (which is disallowed per WP:SOAPBOX

2) in your original question you said that the partisan makes a "legitimate edit". Can you flesh that out for me? if it is a legitimate edit (following NPOV, VERIFY, OR, and is reliably sourced), why does the "partisan" nature of the editor matter?

3) What is the article where a gang of ill-intentioned partisans is owning an article and a well intentioned editor is getting crushed?

4) how does that relate to your original question?

thanks. if there is something you think i am just not getting in your original question, please clarify. i will try to hear. Jytdog (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC) (striking per my comment below Jytdog (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC))

1. Close, but not exactly. In this case, I was referring to "an individual that feels strongly about a subject, and (outside of Wikipedia) might act in the manner of an activist for that subject". The individual in question, both on Wikipedia and in regards to matters involving Wikipedia in other places or websites, would essentially be following Wikipedia protocol (except for one specific thing that I will mention in the answer to your second question). However, that only referred to the partisan in my initial question; the "hypothetical partisan" as I will now call him so as to differentiate from the partisans being referred to in my reference to a "gang of partisans", by which I mean "a gang of activists that have clear ulterior motives".

2. Because the hypothetical partisan that I refer to would either not go out of their way to find sources covering all non-fringe POVs, essentially leaving it to others to find them after his/her edits OR would indeed cite sources that covered all sides, but would not bother to mention that. So, essentially, whilst their edits may contain useful, absolutely retention-worthy for the article, information, they would also stay silent on certain perspectives that the partisan did not agree with, or would only mention them in brief. Essentially, the article would contain a significant amount of information on the topic in general, as well as on outlooks A B and C, but would have little if anything on outlook D. Essentially, the partisan is saying to themselves "there's no way that I'm going to bother including loads of information on that ridiculous outlook D, so I'll leave it to other editors to do."

3. It's just a general trend that I've seen on a small few articles. There are no current cases of that that have not been resolved as we speak that I am aware of, but there have been in the past.

4. How does what relate to my original question? What I am referring to in answer three? I'm afraid that you'll have to rephrase that, because I'm not sure what you're asking. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I think in many instances we don't even know what a neutral point of view is. To put it another way, we disagree over what neutrality is in a given instance. Sentences within an article can be at odds with one another. I think we aim to cause an overall fairness, or neutrality, to prevail over an article as a whole. I think we'd have to consider this as much an art as a science. Anyone who has edited in this environment knows that disagreements are anything but uncommon. Communication in language implies extreme flexibility. We often argue over a word or two. How something is said is sometimes of great importance and at the heart of disputation. Each side thinks the other unfair but it is creative compromise that almost inevitably results—sometimes after long, heated argument. Neutrality is an ideal. We all should be urged to value that ideal. But I think that ideal escapes all-encompassing and strict definition. Bus stop (talk) 23:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Tharthandorf Aquanashi Note you've got my input and otherwise seems evidence of POV blindness here. Jytdog says "you used the term partisan which is not a term in PAG" - which seems did not see the original post saying WP:REP, nor follow my link to WP:REP#Partisans. And nitpicking, this is in the thread where I said fundamentally POV as unavoidable and actions come from motivating forces is just a fact of the universe, true for all cases at all times -- which seems not visible to some or something able to participate in. Can also take the NPOV mention as yet another example where it causes dysfunction rather than gets used for good. Suggest you take it as you have two inputs and cross statements and now just wait to see if a third poster shows. Markbassett (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm just waiting for Jytdog to respond, is all. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Markbassett I said that "partisan which is not a term in PAG" and you linked to an essay. So...?? Jytdog (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thartan, thanks for answering. My question in 4), was asking how your bringing up 3), related to your original question in 1). You lost me when you introduced that matter. It doesn't matter though. I am striking all my answers above. Your question is too hypothetical for me to address adequately and all I am doing is upsetting you. So, I'll leave this alone. Good luck! Jytdog (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog - The "So" was to Thartan ... thatWP:REP and WP:REP#Partisans being the topic, not reflected after prolonged exchange, I suggested in interest of what best for the question to just take spot blindness as being part of the issue and accept what he had and wait for next poster if any ... I do appreciate your scratching out your earlier posts since then. Markbassett (talk) 02:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Undue weight to mention failed bills about the subject of the article

Is it undue weight to mention bills that do not pass in articles about the subject of the article?

These about the Gun show loophole:

In July 2009, Representatives Michael Castle and Carolyn McCarthy introduced the Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2009 (H.R. 2324) in the U.S. House of Representatives. Senator Frank Lautenberg introduced similar legislation, the "Gun Show Background Check Act of 2009"(S. 843), in the U.S. Senate. As of October 2009, the House version of the bill had 35 co-sponsors (mostly Democrats) and the Senate version had 15 co-sponsors, all Democrats.

On January 3rd of 2013, Representative Carolyn McCarthy of New York introduced the Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2013 - H.R.141. The bill, which has 47 co-sponsors, amends the federal criminal code to make it unlawful for any person to operate a gun show unless said person meets certain criteria. It also imposes record-keeping requirements on gun show operators, grants the Attorney General more authority over gun show operators, increases criminal penalties, and authorizes the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to hire additional investigators to carry out inspections of gun shows. The bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, And Investigations on January 25th of 2013, but has not been passed.

Diff of the edit that removed the text - [11].

Link to discussion about bills - [12].

This one, regarding Universal background checks:

Two months after the shooting, Representative Bill McCollum (R-FL), introduced H.R. 2122, the "Mandatory Gun Show Background Check Act." A highlight of the bill was that it would have required background checks "of all buyers of guns at gun shows that involve or in some way affect interstate commerce, with at least 50 firearms for sale and 10 firearm vendors present."

--Lightbreather (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

What is the purpose of mentioning bills that did not pass?--MONGO 23:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

To improve the article, of course. If a nation has a problem, and lawmakers propose solutions, and those bills are debated nationally and covered by numerous high-quality RS, concurrent with the debate about the problem, or even months or years later when discussing the problem and how it was solved, or how it has yet to be solved... Is it undue weight to mention those bills in an article about the problem/topic? Lightbreather (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

On average 4,000 bills are introduced each year that don't pass the US House. I think it is extremely undue to include such bills in an encyclopedia article. Inclusion of such would not be an improvement in any article. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Source please? Also, do you know how many of those 4,000 bills are mentioned repeatedly in high-quality RS for days, weeks, months - sometimes even years - before they're voted on and even after they die? Lightbreather (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Google.com, it's a tool that allows people to find out quite a lot of interesting information. It may be a shock to learn, but some cynical politicians introduce bills they know will not pass in order to please supporters, garner political attention, get press attention (big reason), and to make a point. Given that reality, I think there are a lot of unpassed bills that garner RS coverage. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that whether a bill passed or not is the wrong question. We should be asking whether any given bill, pass or fail, is sufficiently important to the biography of the legislator, which we can decide by considering its coverage in reliable sources. Formerip (talk) 23:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the question posed is about BLP articles (biographies). It seems specifically about policy related articles. I imagine there could possibly be a bill that didn't pass that was still so significant in an individual legislator's life that it might be included in a bio. It seems unlikely though. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah OK, I didn't get that. I think the same principle applies, though. Of course a failed bill *can* be relevant to any article. It's a question about sourcing, and its also relative to the subject of the article. Clearly, our article on tax does not to mention all failed bills in the US (probably not any). A failed bill relating to a Tobin tax or Flat tax *might* be relevant to the relevant article, though. I think its a question for talkpage consensus, but definitely not general prohibition. Formerip (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Consider Carolyn McCarthy. A big part of what some people admired about her, and others loathed, was that she kept trying and trying to pass a new assault weapons ban. She started before the original expired in 2004 and kept on trying after it expired, too. That's one of the things that RS talk about the most when they write about her. Lightbreather (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The unlikely rep! I'd say that might be the exception that proves the rule. She was a Representative whose entire career was built around a single gun control bill that never passed (even when her party had supermajorities). It is appropriate to discuss it in her unique case. The broader question stands. There are way too many unpassed bills annually to go adding them to articles. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Re the question "Is it undue weight to mention bills that do not pass in articles about the subject of the article?" I think that's a "it depends" kind of question. For the political concept of gun show loophole, the bills that share that name and growing from that political concept I would say just follow the cites and present them in the same weight as fairly they may be re the political concept discussion. There seems a risk or danger of gerrymandering here, but are the cites about the political concept or are they just sharing the name and mention the concept is at least part of what I would look for. In this case for example, if a cite is primarily about McCarthy then the bill mention goes onto her article and the political concept is just named as part of that mention. If the cites about the concept typically mention a bill then it goes in here. If the cite is mostly about the bill and just inherently ties by name and known background seems not enough by itself, it should be on the article topic and look and weight the explicit statements more than our understanding of unstated context. Markbassett (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Lightbreather...if the bills didn't pass them maybe the legislature failed to see that there is a problem that needs addressing. I think a brief mention of a specific bill that did not pass is probably fine...so long as most of the bill that did not pass is about the specific article and not just some pork that was attached to a larger bill.--MONGO 20:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Gun show loophole

Is the title "Gun show loophole" contrary to WP:POVNAMING for the article about the gun show loophole?

It was discussed about a week ago - [13] - and then another discussion was started today - [14].

Others want to title the article "Gun show loophole controversy."

--Lightbreather (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, the article's original title was "Gun show loophole" but "controversy" was tacked onto the end of it on December 2, 2014,[15] by an editor who is now topic-banned[16] from gun control articles. Lightbreather (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you discuss this naming issue at the talk page rather than jumping it to the noticeboards? Perhaps consensus can be achieved. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It has been discussed at the article. See links above. Lightbreather (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It is not yet ripe for discussion here. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

According to which policy/guideline? Lightbreather (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

At the moment I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not this question should be discussed here. Note however that I have just added a Request For Comment to the article's talk page. -- Talk:Gun show loophole#RFC to rename article. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather -- Umm "Is the title Gun show loophole contrary to WP:POVNAMING for the article about the gun show loophole?" is kind of a leading RFC phrasing so maybe start TALK at what to look at and how the concerns might be addressed. I'll offer that there seems consensus it's a non-neutral but common name, submit it might be agreed to expect political concepts do label games, so perhaps look at Death panels which gets that title and also puts mention of title sensitivity prominent in lead section which sets context and weight. Markbassett (talk) 04:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Re your first comment, I don't think it's leading, but I respect that you might come to a different conclusion. (Though I thought your edit summary, "yes example of inflammatory label so suggest..."[17] could have been friendlier.) I do not see a consensus that the term is non-neutral - but yes, that it is common.

As for the "Death panel" argument, were any bills introduced called the "Death Panel Act of 2009" or similar? Because "Gun Show Loophole" (using those exact words) bills were introduced in seven consecutive Congresses, in 2001 (H.R. 2377), 2004 (H.R. 3832), 2005 (H.R. 3540), 2007 (H.R. 96), 2009 (H.R. 2324), 2011 (H.R. 591), and 2013 (H.R. 141). I think that's a big-difference between "death panel" and "gun show loophole."

--Lightbreather (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Soka Gakkai

Before being threatened with a topic ban again I would like a third opinion on the section about “Peace activities”. There are a number of links indicating that some SGI adherents like doing gymnastics and building human pyramids. I’d like a third opinion if there is enough evidence that this IS an official SGI peace activity and if the reference stated are concrete enough?--Catflap08 (talk) 12:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any NPOV issue here. If there is, please provide diffs and link to a relevant discussion on the article's talk page. If you're concerned about the reliability of sources, [18] is the place to ask. Rhoark (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Request assistance

I was on the Talk Page of an article (Talk:Tom Brady). Per an "Admin Help" Template request, an administrator told me that I should come to this page with my questions and concerns. There is an article (Tom Brady) that is being edited in a very POV manner (in my opinion). Editors on that page will not allow any mention (whatsoever) of the word "Deflategate" in that article. Even though Tom Brady is a central figure in that topic; Tom Brady himself held a press conference on that very topic; and the topic has a million reliable sources. One editor in particular, in my opinion, is editing in a POV manner and interpreting Wikipedia "rules" to his convenience (User:Calidum). He says that, per BLP, we cannot "infer guilt by association". And, on top of all that, he keeps deleting a post that I placed on that Talk Page. He has deleted my post about 3 or 4 times now. My post contains nothing but (A) factual information; and (B) my concerns for editing that specific article. Please advise. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed at the top of this page, there is a red statement that says: "You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so." How do I notify that person? (Quite frankly, I'd like some neutral person to notify that person.) Please advise. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hate to play noticeboard tag with you, but this is for situations where an article presents a non-neutral point of view, not for conflicts with an editor who has a non-neutral point of view. For what it's worth I agree in outline with what you and "Friendly Person" have said on the talk page. If the locus of dispute is about BLP then Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard is the place to go. Other content disputes can go to Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard. If its about the conduct of a user edit warring, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring is the place to be. Rhoark (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Huh? If the article is being edited in a non-POV manner, then the article itself presents a non-neutral POV. No? What am I missing? What's the distinction you are making? Are they not one and the same? That is, (A) if an article is being edited in a non-POV manner, then it follows that (B) that article presents a non-neutral point of view. No? How are (A) and (B) different? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

If the problem is user behaving badly go to the administrator's noticeboard. If the problem is the neutrality of something in the article is disputed, post diffs here. If the problem is the BLP implications of something in the article is disputed, post diffs at the BLP noticeboard. Rhoark (talk) 06:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Joseph A. Spadaro - Deleting anothers Talk when that Talk is about the editor deleting it ("It should be noted that User Calidum") seems understandable that you would want to type that and that he would then feel free to delete material that seems just about him. Kind of two wrongs make a sorta-OK protocol item than a Neutrality topic. The positive outcome is each editor got to vent some steam out, it's in the history, and Talk winds up more polite and on topic at the end. But I'll suggest talking the article topic and ways to proceed in this at the article Talk more likely to stick and looks better. Markbassett (talk) 13:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. But, I did not understand your comment at all. Please re-phrase it. And it is my understanding that one editor cannot delete (completely remove) the comments of another editor on a Talk Page. I am not talking about an article; I am talking about a Talk Page. So, even if you disagree with someone's Talk Page comment, the proper course is to reply or respond to it. Not to delete it. (Barring extreme circumstances, like to remove contact information or such.) So, please re-phrase your comment above. I really did not understand what you were saying. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• The situation appears to be that Joseph A. Spadaro does not understand WP:BLP and made this edit to a BLP article including 'incident in which "some people are suspicious of Brady" and he held a press conference to dispel accusations of alleged cheating'. People either get BLP or they don't and I rarely find that explaining it achieves anything, however, Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, therefore people are not permitted to add rumors and accusations (there are some exceptions but they do not apply in this case). If a due process has found someone guilty of wrongdoing (and if it is WP:DUE), that information can included. Until then, stick to Twitter. Also, an article talk page should not be used to make proclamations about other editors, and the editor was quite correct to remove the off-topic attack. Johnuniq (talk) 08:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the lecture. How was that quote not 100% factual? And, no less, how was it not 100% reliably sourced? And if that other editor was correct in removing my post from a Talk Page, why is my post still there, as we speak? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Iglesia ni Cristo

Me and an anonymous user are having an edit dispute in regards to the display of the Iglesia ni Cristo's founder Felix Manalo as the "above=" field in the navigation template. I think it's giving him undue weight since his article is already linked. Can someone look into this? --w^{L<speak·check>} 03:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Jeb Bush

I feel guilty - but when I posted the query at BLP/N, another editor insisted it was not a BLP issue and now says the issue is that the source has a "viewpoint" rather than just giving a neutral fact - so I am having to come here for a determination as to whether the use of the CSM is POV in esse, or simply reciting a neutral fact (the precise same source is being used by him, so there is no basis to doubt reliability, but I decided to ask here to see if the claim is, indeed, POV and UNDUE:

The Christian Science Monitor noted that " most of Mr. Bush’s emails came with a disclaimer: “Most written communications to or from state officials regarding state business are public records available to the public and media upon request. Your e-mail communications may therefore be subject to public disclosure.”"

The preceding part currently reads:

In 2015 Bush released the emails from his governorship online. Most of the emails were public records under Florida's sunshine laws, and many included personal details such as social security numbers, names and addresses, as well as the contents of those private messages. According to Politico "a Bush spokesperson Kristy Campbell said that the emails are an “exact replica” of those on public record that are available at the Florida Department of State and are “available at anyone’s request under Chapter 119 sunshine laws.”"

Is the fact that people sending emails were actually notified that the emails were not private a POV claim? It is clear that Florida did not regard them as private, but is the notice actually given to people at the time they were not private an UNDUE claim? A claim intended to make Bush appear "righteous"? Is the addition of the sentence a violation of WP:NPOV?

MrX as the other editor. Collect (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: The entire section on the 2016 campaign Jeb_Bush#2016_presidential_election has now been tagged as POV. Please comment on whether that section is biased. If it is, then we surely should fix the bias. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

References

• Editors are already commenting on this at WP:BLP/N where it was cross posted, so this should be closed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Alas BLP/N can not be the place to discuss the POV accusation made specifically at me -- including a claim that saying the CSM "noted" a fact is clear "editorializing". Each new issue goes to the correct message board on Wikipedia, alas. Recall he insisted that BLP/N was the "wrong" board and wanted the first discussion shut down. (Wrong place to discuss this. This is not a BLP issue) Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

And if the section is indeed POV, then it must to be fixed - thus getting opinions here on the whole section which was objected to. Collect (talk) 01:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Landmark Worldwide

The above article and topic area was recently encouraged to have more eyes on it by the ArbCom. I have started a new thread on the talk page of that article, at Talk:Landmark Worldwide#"Comment" committee persuant to a suggestion I made during the arbitration to try to get some specific editors who might have some sort of experience in similar topics involved, and have actually already binged them in the thread. It is of course understood that none of those individuals, or any others, will have more authority than any others, but I thought their input might be welcome in drafting one or more RfCs on the topic down the road. Of course, any additional eyes would be welcome as well, particularly as I have no reason at this point to think that any of the individuals who I pinged have even responded yet. John Carter (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter: Thanks for starting this thread. I dove into the article a bit, and oh boy there is a big problem there. Significant criticism is being repeatedly removed, with attempted justifications via long, tendentious arguments on the talk page. Many of the arguments make little sense. Apparently the article has been drifting away from NPOV over the years; see e.g. this revision from 2011, which I got from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark_Worldwide/Evidence#Behavior. I am surprised the arbitration case did not lead to sanctions on any editors. I've even noticed a few borderline cases of intimidation since I've been there. Manul ~ talk 06:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with Manul that there is a problem at that article. I have tagged it again for NPOV, as there are multiple active talk page discussions related to POV issues. I would characterise the issue as see-sawing rather than one-sided, as the article swings between extremes. At the moment, for instance, half of the article reads like an attack on Werner Erhard. Additional eyes and commentary at the article talk page would definitely be valuable. --Tgeairn (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Renewed request

In the arbitration case John Carter refers to above, one principle affirmed by unanimous vote of the committee was "All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects which are peripheral to the topic. Relying on synthesized claims, poor sources, or other "original research", is also contrary to this principle." The committee reminded parties "...to base their arguments in reliable, independent sources and to discuss changes rather than revert on sight", and they invited additional eyes to facilitate finding NPOV. These things are not happening right now in that article.

Since 15 January when John Carter brought this here, there have been over 230 edits to the Landmark Worldwide article. A significant portion of those edits have been multi-party edit warring (reverting "on sight"), or have been additions of poorly sourced material. Entire sections have been created based on synthesized claims. Multiple attempts at dispute resolution have been ignored or met with attacks. Some editors have been blocked, others have been warned. The state of the article is worse than ever.

The Landmark Worldwide article (and the entire field of "New Religious Movements") really needs additional impartial editors. --Tgeairn (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Ali Khamenei#Public letter to the Western youths

Given that, in Ali Khamenei's 75 years of life, he has both been involved in the 1979 Iranian Revolution, the Iran–Iraq War, and an unknown number of crackdowns on political opponents, is it really WP:DUE to mention a tweet he made last month in the article about him - let alone devote an entire section to it (it is also linked under "See also")? The section has previously been removed[19], but was restored[20], in good faith (per talk). I have asked what WP:LASTING effect the tweet/letter have had, but have not received any response.--Anders Feder (talk) 04:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Dear Anders, it is not about a tweet, it is about the letter. The tweeter account of khamenei in not verified and the article should not refer to it at all.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Sa.vakilian: Same difference. The newsworthiness is equivalent to that of a tweet by Justin Bieber or some other celebrity. It has zero historical or political implications.--Anders Feder (talk) 10:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Feder: I do not get what you mean. There is not any tweet. There is a letter. The question can be the notability of the letter. We can judge about the notability based on the frequency of the coverage of the issue in reliable sources. In my view the only thing which can relate this issue to NPOV policy is WP:UNDUE. On the other hand as you told above it is not so important to make a separate section for it. I think we can merge it in the other section as a sub-section.--Seyyed(t-c) 10:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Sa.vakilian: It isn't important whether it's a tweet or letter. Why mention it in the article at all? It has no encyclopedic value.--Anders Feder (talk) 11:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we can make a section for "Public diplomacy" and put it under it, with or without title. However, it has notability due to the coverage by different media.--Seyyed(t-c) 12:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The passage covering the letter was created by me but I had originally made it a subsection under "Foreign P,olicy" but it was later promoted to a separate section by another user. Sa.vakilian's suggestion: having a new section called "Public diplomacy" and moving the letter there seems like a good idea, considering the fact that one of the key characteristics of Iran's Supreme Leadership is public statements in matters of politics and religion. The letter would subsequently find its right proportion and place in the page. Strivingsoul (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Any lessening of it's prominence that you can agree to would be an improvement, in my view.--Anders Feder (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

This letter I agree is worth exactly the weight of a tweet. In fact one could be pushed to say it is the equivalent of recieving a message on a pager. I say this due to two reasons. When deciding on content, one has to appreciate the enduring notability of said event which in this case is unlikely. This letter has the odour of considerable insignificance. The second reason is weight. A google news search of the of the letter (limited to stories from past month[21]) returned 174 results. This section should be henceforth deleted. Anders Feder makes a well merited point about the events in this leader's life. When the life of an article subject has involved a revolution, a war, crackdowns on opposition and various other weighty events, it is slightly disparaging to give an entire section to something which could only be described as having the mass of 14, or at a push 15, higgs bosons. Mbcap (talk) 04:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the title is not suitable. We should find an encyclopedic title for the section. For example "Public diplomacy#non-Muslims" then mention this issue as an example beside the other examples. --Seyyed(t-c) 17:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Foie gras

After a recent flurry of editing, this article has gained a number of citations to viva.org

• "Torture in a tin: Viva! foie-gras fact sheet" (PDF). Viva!. 2014. Retrieved February 14, 2015.

and an external link the the Daily Mirror[22]. A wider assessment of the neutrailty of this would be welcome ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

As the editor Alebrn is concernes about, am I required to speak to this here? I have made my points on the relevant Talk page, but I can re-address them here if that is the usual format.__DrChrissy (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, this belongs more at WP:RSN. That being said, while the Viva pdf can be used to verify the opinion of the publisher, the statements of the pdf should not be taken as verified fact.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

So what about the sources in the article which are attributed to the foie gras production industry? They clearly have a vested interest in the subject matter - why is their neutrality and stated "verified facts" not being questioned? This "neutrality and reliability" has to be applied consistently.__DrChrissy (talk) 00:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

You are not required, no, since no one is compensating you for your work. But wikijustice is often best served if done adversarially.--Anders Feder (talk) 03:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

This was hardly discussed at all on the talk page before coming here. I'd suggest closing this thread and continuing there to avoid parallel discussions. The noticeboard doesn't need to be the first step. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

James Napier Robertson

The subject of this article has made a complaint about his voice intro project recording being published. Apart from that, which will be discussed elsewhere, has this made apparent that User:203.173.201.94 has removed this recording without comment twice making it very likely that this is the ip address of him or somebody very close to him. This ip address has made many edits to the article and related ones over the past months, making them biased even though there are citations to many of the edits made.1Veertje (talk) 07:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm that user User:203.173.201.94. I'm not the subject nor am I close to him or know him at all (although I do live in New Zealand). The changes I have made all have citations, feel free to check through them. I deleted the voice intro project recording twice because I believe it is not Wikipedia appropriate - you do not and could never see a feature like this on any notable person that has deceased, and so it is inconsistent to Wiki bio articles and feels 'gimmicky' to me, not of Wiki's standard. I have left it alone since anyhow. I am not involved (or aware) of any complaint that has been made however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugarloafrd (talk • contribs) 20:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:WikiVIP won me an award, presented by Jimmy Wales himself, at Wikimania. Here's some press about the project. Your move. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, sorry to insult your project, but just stating my honest opinion on how I feel about it. Anyhow, as mentioned before, I have left it alone since, and intend to leave it alone from now on. I'm not part of any complaint about it or anything like that, so don't know what that is about. But I'm not intending to remove it again. Cool getting an award from Jimmy Wales. --Sugarloafrd (talk) 10:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Men's Rights Movement

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Men's_rights_movement&diff=646544448&oldid=646542408

I believe the lead is full of "expressions of doubt". It appears to me that it is written in a manner intended to cast doubt on all claims made by those considered to be part of the "Men's rights movement". Compare and contrast to the article on Feminism, which I believe is the closest article on a similar subject that's written in an unbiased and neutral manner.

Previous discussions on this article's neutrality: Current 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44

Please note that some of these no longer apply, but help to demonstrate the long-term NPOV issues with the article, and the lack of permanent resolution.

I feel there are multiple serious issues with the article.

One, the article appears to be written largely from an anti Men's rights perspective, not a neutral one.

Two, there is heavy usage of sources which are biased - but this bias is extensively justified in the talk pages as being "from a reliable source, regardless of any amount of bias of that source". If anti-men's-rights articles from "reliable sources" are allowed and included, then an equal amount of pro-men's-rights articles from similarly "reliable sources" should be sought out and included to provide balance.

But above all, the wording and phrasing of the article - especially the "lede" (lead?) - is written in a manner that attempts to marginalise, discredit, and is pretty much the definition of "expressions of doubt". See the first link of this section for specific examples. This i not the case in the article on Feminism - the fact that the Feminism article is written in a manner that presents all the views and claims of feminists as facts, and the Men's rights movement article is written in a manner that casts doubt on every view and claim of Men's rights activists, leads me to believe that Wikipedia officially supports Feminism at the expense of men.

In any case, I believe the Men's rights movement article should be reviewed and compared with similar articles, partially rewritten to present a neutral viewpoint (excluding the bias of so-called "reliable" sources), and the page should be permanently locked to all but a short list of editors who have shown the ability to edit the article neutrally (someone else, because I don't have time to dedicate to something like this). BrentNewland (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

BrentNewland - you have been editing both this and feminism, trying to make them "equal". But they are not treated equally by sources and the articles reflect that. You are making a false comparison. Sources are allowed to be biased, our writing cannot be. The reliable sources that discuss MRM tend to be discuss it negatively and the article reflects that due weight. There's nothing Wikipedia can do about it. NPOV has been used as a badge of shame on the MRM article, despite the piles of horse corpses on the talk page and the constant revisions. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

"you have been editing both this and feminism, trying to make them "equal"" My actions on any articles are not in question here. Bringing them up is an attempt to deflect and disrupt conversation on this topic.

"But they are not treated equally by sources and the articles reflect that. You are making a false comparison. Sources are allowed to be biased, our writing cannot be" - The problem is the writing IS biased. Yes, you can use a biased source. No, you should not use that biased source to insert biased statements, which is what has been done.

"The reliable sources that discuss MRM tend to be discuss it negatively and the article reflects that due weight." (A) That's kind of the whole problem. More unbiased and negative MRM articles need to be found to balance the article. (B) Where is your evidence of consensus that the majority of articles written about MRM are negative? How can articles written by feminists be justified as a reputable source and counted along with these other negative articles?

Would it be appropriate to cite studies from White Supremacists on articles relating to African Americans? Would it be appropriate to cite articles from Anti-Feminists on the Feminism page? How can you justify these sources as "reputable" when they are clearly biased?

"There's nothing Wikipedia can do about it. " Yes, there is much that can be done about this problem. Which is why I'm posting here, to initiate that process.

"NPOV has been used as a badge of shame on the MRM article, despite the piles of horse corpses on the talk page and the constant revisions." I see this comment as aggressive, hostile, and condescending. This is the second time you have left such a post in response to one of my comments. I strongly recommend you carefully consider the wording of your posts, and perhaps consider distancing yourself from the discussion, as it appears that you may possibly have some personal feelings or interests that are potentially at odds with your responsibilities as a Wikipedia contributor. BrentNewland (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

My tone might not be the most friendly, but I don't need to be your friend. You appear to not understand WP:RS (which is fine, being a new editor and all). Wikipedia is a tertiary source that reflects secondary sources. We do not try to make things "balanced", we give sources due weight. If the preponderance of sources are negative on an issue, so will Wikipedia be. Feminist sources are, by and large, reliable sources as many are academic. You will not find White supremacist academic sources easily. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. However, your comment has only restated what you said initially, as well as what you said here. If you do not have new input on the subject, please consider refraining from further comments, lest they be seen as hounding. To be quite honest, I believe you yourself are partially responsible for propagating the biased POV of this article; due to this, I cannot take any statements you make at your word, which is why I have posted this discussion - to get unbiased input.

I have posted this request here after many, many previous reports of NPOV violation (see 40 links posted above). With that many people believing the article is not NPOV, this is a valid discussion and cause for concern. . BrentNewland (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I too look forward to outside input, but you seem to know a lot about things like hounding (which this does not remotely approach) for a new inexperienced account. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I know how to google, my account is not relatively new, and I have done quite a bit of minor editing while logged out over the years. If you are accusing me of being a "sockpuppet", you may follow the instructions on your talk page to report me. BrentNewland (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with BrentNewland (talk · contribs) that this article suffers from systemic NPOV bias due to the persistent involvement of a small cadre of editors fighting against any sourced content that portrays the "men's rights movement" in more innocous language. In particular the most persistent issue is the extensive use of expressions of doubt within the article to cast doubt on the veracity of the movement. Comparisons of this article to the women's rights article are instructive to highlight the difference.Spudst3r (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

This does look to be a matter of WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. Especially with a contentious issue like this, we first have to nix unreliable sources, but note that "reliable" in our context doesn't necessarily mean it takes a neutral position of a subject. If the body of reliable sources on a subject is largely negative, the article has to reflect that per WP:WEIGHT. It seems like the best approach would be to go one step at a time, tedious as it may be. For the lead, the order should be first addressing the reliability of the sources cited and/or those which you think she be included, and then addressing whether the language reflects a summary of what the sources that we cite have to say. For the rest of the article, those two steps could theoretically be reversed. I just don't think you're going to get anywhere by arguing both at the same time -- not with a controversial issue. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, scholars are usually the most authoritative source. On the topic of the men's rights movement, quite a few scholars have written about it, and the majority of these have portrayed the movement in a negative light. This is why there cannot be any sort of satisfaction for BrentNewland or Spudst3r in terms of 'balance'. The proper balance is achieved by portraying the topic in primarily negative terms.
The sockpuppet accusation should be put to bed. Though both BrentNewland and Spudst3r have been sporadically active, dormant until recent interest in the MRM article, the two accounts demonstrate separate styles and timings. This intertwined edit report shows too little time passing between the activity of the two accounts; in one case edits were posted by the two accounts separated by only seven seconds. Binksternet (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Binksternet (talk · contribs), RE your statement that "proper balance is achieved by portraying the topic in primarily negative terms.":

WP:WEIGHT is not a blank cheque to begin using non-impartial tone and language casting expressions of doubt. Right now this article has extensive and intentional insertions of NPOV expressions of doubt continuing unabated, to the point where consensus-seeking attempts to make the tone more neutral are getting reverted over and again by the same individuals.

Binksternet (talk · contribs) Rhododendrites (talk · contribs), Part of the article's imbalance naturally comes from the dominante sourcing of scholarly material skewing to one perspective. Descriptions of the men's rights movement are WP:SUBJECTIVE and we need to recognize the opinionative nature of the cited sources being used. This is particularly true since most gender scholarly resources are published within women's studies journals who have a natural tendency to be critical of movements challenging them. This is not me disputing reliable sources, but rather to suggest that in an article like this non-scholarly material may need to be given more weight than normal.

Either way, I do believe the dearth of meaningful reliable sources not critical of the men's rights movement is partially due to the fact that under the current state of the article, potential editors to this page who are not nuanced in wiki lawyering will need to be able to master it quickly if they are to have any hope of getting past the [aggressive automatic reverting and attempted suppresion of reliable sources that consistently occur during attempts to add new sources.

But even putting disputes over sources aside: My main NPOV complaint is not even with how sources are being relied on, but rather how POV is being systematically pushed into this page to the point disregarding NPOV tone and structure. Reverts are so aggressive that meaningful progress any where on this page is unbelieveably difficult. There is no excuse for this, as Wikipedia is quite explicit about WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:BALANCE:

• WP:BALANCE:

• Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint.

• WP:IMPARTIAL:

• "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone."

Example of NPOV: The opening statement "The men's rights movement is made up of a variety of groups and individuals who focus on issues of male disadvantage, discrimination and oppression." versus "The men's rights movement is made up of a variety of groups and individuals who focus on what they consider to be issues of male disadvantage, discrimination and oppression." Here the first is a factual statement about what the movement focuses on, following the spirit of Wikipedia's NPOV guide showing how the statement "The pro-life movement holds that abortion is wrong, or occasionally that it is only justified in certain special cases" is a factual statement to describe the pro-life movement, not an opinion.. Yet despite this, a small group of editors are still reverting aggressively to the latter phrasing, rejecting any attempt to remove "what they consider to be" from the opening statement of the article. This is clear (and entirely unnecessary) NPOV WP:SUBJECTIVE framing. If I added similar language (and backed it up with reputable sources) to the feminism article, I guarantee my attempts would be heavily reverted and challenged. Indeed, BrentNewland (talk · contribs) recent edits demonstrate very clearly the zero tolerance environment currently existing for any changes to the Feminism article. (I don't endorse disruptive edits to the Feminism page, but reverts occuring in that article clearly demonstrate the existence of a systemic double standard in the administration of these related article's that extend far beyond just trying to uphold appropriate weight to reliable sources).

My Temporary Recommendation for admins: order that the usage of expressions of doubt on the men's rights movement article be tapered down so that attempts at more neutral language no longer get reverted.

(Finally, thank you Binksternet (talk · contribs), for exonerating me from the false accusations made against me by Flyer22 (talk · contribs) that I am a sockpuppet account.)Spudst3r (talk) 10:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Scholars in the area of women's studies are not automatically opinionated or biased against men in their writings. All scholars are subject to tough peer review standards, so that's why we hold their work in such high esteem. Wikipedia is not going to ignore the opinions of, say, white scholars who are writing about African Americans, or hearing scholars writing about deafness, or Canadian scholars writing about the USA, just because the scholar is not part of the group under study. Binksternet (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@Spudst3r: I'm going to give a couple examples to make a point. They are extreme examples and I don't want you to think I'm equating the present subject with either of these, but I think it may help to illustrate a couple of the issues you're perceiving here. Time Cube and Westboro Baptist Church. The body of reliable sources writing about these two subjects simply do not present a balanced perspective (which is also to say that a lot of the "positive" articles on the subject are published in what would, under Wikipedia policy, be considered unreliable sources). Therefore it would be a false balance and undue weight to present both sides equally. It likewise would not be an accurate summary of the subject [as reliable sources write about it] to omit the negative characterizations in the lead -- because the lead is supposed to summarize the article, which in turn summarizes reliable sources.

So coming back to "focus on what they consider to be issues of male disadvantage, discrimination and oppression.", it just isn't the case that reliable sources writing about this subject consider "male disadvantage, discrimination and oppression" to exist in the way that they are considered to exist by men's rights activists. That isn't to say it's true or untrue, but looking at reliable sources it's not possible to come to another conclusion. This is what is meant by presenting views with the weight they receive in reliable sources. It doesn't mean presenting unadulterated arguments of each side as they would characterize the arguments themselves.

That's not to say none of your arguments have merit. In particular, it might be informative (for me, too, from a policy perspective) to ask for clarification, being as specific and concise as possible and perhaps in a separate thread, regarding your question about "all sources in MRM article must be about MRM vs. all sources in feminism article must be about feminism". --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

NOTE: I indicated that Spudst3r is either a WP:Sockpuppet or a WP:Meatpuppet, and I stand by that. Others at WP:ANI agree that Spudst3r is undoubtedly a WP:Meatpuppet, with a WP:Canvassing thread to bolster that conclusion. Nothing false at all regarding what I stated about Spudst3r. If others want to play dumb regarding that account, they are free to do so, but don't expect me to play dumb in this case. That is all. Flyer22 (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry is certainly a possibility, as both appear to be from Vancouver. BrentNewland cited a small British Columbia newspaper here in a little-known topic local to Vancouver, Canada. Spudst3r has edited many articles of local BC interest.[23][24][25] The two could easily be working together. Also, the Seattle IP that added the prison bit is not so far removed from Vancouver, Canada, being about 4.5 hours drive away. The Seattle IP edit was separated in time from the edits of BrentNewland and Spudst3r by at least 8 hours. So it's possible that there is larger coordination occurring. The only thing I said was not true was that BrentNewland and Spudst3r were the same person. Binksternet (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The requirement of due weight is to present all sides clearly and proportionately. The reader should not be left with any doubt as to the opinion of the majority of reliable sources. This does not constitute a requirement for sniping at minority views with doubtful language. Rhoark (talk) 15:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Donetsk People's Republic

I'd like to call attention to the article Donetsk People's Republic. There are 2 NPOV issues that I think need addressing;

1: Respect for the POV tag.[26]

2: The section "Human rights" needs more de-POVifying. (the debate can be found here). It probably qualifies as a WP:CRITICISM section. The main proponent of keeping it in the article is User:Volunteer Marek. (other editors, User:MyMoloboaccount and User:KoolerStill seem to agree that this is WP:UNDUE). As has been said in another debate before, "Section totally un-encyclopedic, as its based on unreliable sources..."

Here are some example diffs of the material being added & removed:

• WP:IDONTLIKEIT -- [27], [28]

• WP:UNDUE -- [29], [30]

• WP:RS -- [31]

Like any conflict it cannot be reduced to "good guys" vs "bad guys". The reality is that both parties had committed human rights abuses. Certainly some of the content here should be included, but I feel like its a bit of a WP:BITR and most definitely WP:UNDUE. -- Tobby72 (talk) 13:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The neutrality of the article is clearly disputed. An involved editor should not remove the tag without consensus.

This does not appear to be a criticism section, rather a major component of the body of the article. The excesses of the rebels and the support they receive from Russia are very significant to the reliable sources, and likely the concerns of greatest interest to readers of the article. There is no way the section as a whole could be construed as undue. The requirements of NPOV have also generally been fulfilled by appropriately attributing opinions. That's not to say that if someone went through the section with a fine-toothed comb they couldn't find something that needed to be more precisely attributed. If there are concerns about the reliability of sources, the sources should be addressed one-by-one entirely on the basis on reliability alone rather than being conflated with NPOV. It's entirely possible that while the views in the article are not UNDUE, opposing views are not receiving the coverage that they are DUE. They will need to bring their sources and make their edits. Rhoark (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

^ This is spot on. Couldn't have said it better.TheBlueCanoe 17:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The excesses of the rebels .... Antisemitic flyer 'by Donetsk People's Republic' in Ukraine a hoax (whole section "Allegations of anti-semitism")

The excesses of the pro-Kiev Aidar, Donbass and Dnipro-1 battalions .... Eastern Ukraine: Humanitarian disaster looms as food aid blocked (not mentioned in the article)

Nearly half of the Wikipedia 'Donetsk People's Republic' article is devoted to the "excesses of the rebels". Clearly WP:UNDUE & WP:BITR.

For comparison, below are a few examples of Wikipedia articles about self-declared states with limited/no recognition:

Somaliland, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, Transnistria, State of Palestine, Republic of Serbian Krajina, Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia, Biafra, Confederate States of America, Republic of Kosovo

Rebel groups that control territory

Zapatista Army of National Liberation, Al-Shabaab, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Houthis, Moro National Liberation Front

Tobby72 (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you present these sources for discussion on the article talk page. Rhoark (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Rhoark, that's exactly what I'll do.

An involved editor should not remove the tag without consensus. --- Volunteer Marek recently once again removed neutrality tag.[32] -- Tobby72 (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd like it noted that Tobby72, when he began this discussion here, failed to notify me of it, as required per the heading on top. This brings up the question of whether the discussion was started in good faith, or just a back-door attempt at WP:FORUMSHOPPING.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

As to the removal of the tag - the text within the tag itself is NOT policy. It was inserted in there arbitrarily by a grudge holding user with some sour grapes. The WP:NPOV page IS policy. And that is pretty clear on the fact that a) a spurious tag should not be inserted based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, b) the tag needs to be justified on talk page and grounded in policy and c) that yes, it's perfectly fine to remove a spurious tag. We go by NPOV policy here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and now that I thought about it for a second, I recalled that this issue already *has* been discussed on the talk page (if not this noticeboard, see talk page archives) of the article and consensus was against Tobby72. So not only are they failing to notify relevant parties of this discussion, they are also failing to disclose the fact that this has already been discussed (and of course, that the discussion didn't go their way).Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Tobby72 here. Unfortunately Volunteer Marek has become strongly engaged here and is pushing a very one sided POV here(minor note-I have known and was one of Polish editors who worked with editor VM for years before, until recentre). The claim that there was a discussion is a weak one, there doesn't seem to be any consensus there and besides, consensus might change. At the moment the section was undue because it didn't represent a neutral view, which points to abuses and violations by both sides.Reliable sources like OSCE and Human Rights Watch have noted serious abuses and atrocities committed by Ukrainian side on the territory of DPR and this indeed should be noted in the article. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 01:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

the section was undue because it didn't represent a neutral view, which points to abuses and violations by both sides - this is patently false. The original section discussed violations and abuses by BOTH sides. Another editor pointed out that a lot of the stuff was off topic, basically trying to create a false balance, basically by throwing in some just random anti-Ukrainian stuff unrelated to the subject of the article. So to the extent that there WAS a WP:UNDUE problem, it's that there was unnecessary, off-topic info about Ukrainian violations, whereas these should really be discussed somewhere else. But that's not what Toby (and you) are complaining about. You're complaining that the article includes information based on reliable sources which is pertinent to the topic. Tobby (and presumably, you) want to remove it because it makes the DPR look bad. Too bad. We go with reliable sources, not some Wikipedia user's WP:IDONTLIKEIT

And as I keep pointing out. Spurious NPOV tags can and should be removed. What Toby hasn't bothered to do - not this time, not at any previous time this came up - is to explain *what exactly in POV*, as required by policy. Which text is not based on reliable sources? Which text misrepresents sources? Which text is unsourced? Etc. This hasn't and isn't being done. The tag goes, its presence in the article is *itself* a form of POV pushing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

"The original section discussed violations and abuses by BOTH sides". Which you have removed completely, leaving only alleged abuses by the Republic's forces."Another editor pointed out that a lot of the stuff was off topic, basically trying to create a false balance, basically by throwing in some just random anti-Ukrainian stuff unrelated to the subject of the article"Documented reports about abuses comitted by Ukrainian forces on the territory of Republic made by reliable organizations like OSCE or Human Rights Watch aren't "random anti-Ukrainian" stuff. They are a highly important information by reliable sources which requires coverage in article about the territory they concern.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 08:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, you restored the original material. By your logic, you should now proceed to remove the NPOV tag, since the original section, which DOES discuss both sides' violations, is in there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

It would help if everyone could be crystal clear about exactly what kind of change they want in the article. Rhoark (talk) 22:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Continuing POV-pushing

Blatant POV-pushing being obstinately reintroduced without opposition -- [33], [34]. -- Tobby72 (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Making the section less WP:COATRACK seems to be a positive step for neutrality. Rhoark (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Removing abuses by Ukrainian government forces and pro-Kiev battalions and leaving only separatist side is extremely POV, turning Wikipedia into little more than war propaganda machine.

My suggestion is WP:SPLIT -- "... section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article, it is often appropriate for some or all of the article to be split into new articles. In some cases, refactoring an article into child or sister articles can allow subtopics to be discussed more fully elsewhere without dominating a general overview article to which they are non-central" -- Tobby72 (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Tobby72.The current attempts to erase all information by one side, leaving just abuses by another are POV pushing and seem to go against WP:NPOV policy.A split and leaving information covering briefly abuses by both sides seems to be the best course of action.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and there are numerous editors who disagree with this, because the material being added violates WP:COATRACK, is outside the scope of the article, and is a POV attempt to create a false balance. Somehow Toby72 conveniently forgot to notify those editors of this discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring over the POV tag

What can be done to prevent such behavior? -- [35], [36], [37], [38]. -- Tobby72 (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Toby72, can you PLEASE start alerting relevant users to these discussions you're starting? This is required. How are we supposed to discuss issues when you appear to be trying to avoid input from involved parties? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Various articles related to the Falun Gong especially including Epoch Times

A single-purpose pro-FLG user User:Aaabbb11 has been making substantial edits across multiple Falun Gong related articles for the last two months. These include trying to change the perspective on alledged organ harvesting practices to statements of fact, and obfuscating the connection between the Epoch Times and the FLG. I've cautioned this user at the Falun Gong talk page but their edits continue unabated across so many articles that I have neither the time nor the inclination to try and keep a lid on the shifts in neutral point of view. Could some uninvolved editors without an axe to grind in this never-ending conflict please step in? Simonm223 (talk) 17:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

There is an easy way to resolve this issue. Simonm223 should debate or contest the content of the organ harvesting information on the main Falun Gong page Falun_Gong#Organ_harvesting. That page gets plenty of attention and could be used as a guide to other articles with organ harvesting information.Aaabbb11 (talk) 01:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

But that's the thing. A) I don't have the time or interest to debate another Falun Gong partisan, again. B) Seeking consensus shouldn't be a public debate between two figures. Which is why I came to this noticeboard - to ask people who are neutral, as in, uninvolved, to assess the content on the basis of its merits. Simonm223 (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It states above "Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Include a link here to that discussion." Here is the link Talk:Falun Gong

I suggest that people looking at the discussion just look at my last (as yet) unanswered comment made on 19 Feb. Aaabbb11 (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

In mid-January, Aaabbb11 tried to remove from the first sentence the connection between The Epoch Times and Falun Gong with a series of edits capped by this one, but I restored the connection which must be stated prominently. Since then, Aaabbb11 has not touched the first sentence, which shows restraint or improvement. Regarding the coverage of organ harvesting, I have no comment, being uninformed about the issue. Binksternet (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Binksternet that was one of my biggest concerns. The other is the pattern of inserting dubious sources from obvious non-neutral websites as statements of fact on the various organ harvesting sources. That and the fact that all claims regarding Chinese organ transplantation are at least half a decade out of date if not more. Simonm223 (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you make comments about the content of articles on Talk:Falun Gong Aaabbb11 (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? I have. And I also made comments regarding the articles here. Simonm223 (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Aaabbb11 has also kept removing related Wikilinks in Falun Gong without giving valid reasons: [39][40]. He/She is obviously a SPA using Wikipedia for his/her advocacy for Falun Gong. STSC (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Simonm223 has discussed the issue on the Falun Gong talk page and only one editor replied which is why it was brought here. The fact it affects a number of other articles is another reason. It would be helpful however to have links to some of the disputed edits. Otherwise the only way for editors unfamiliar with the subject to come to a conclusion would be to read the articles and the discussion and search for reliable sources to see if they are correctly reflected. TFD (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I've been following on a couple pages as well. These are pretty representative of the user's edits:[41][42][43][44][45][46]

I don't necessarily agree with some of the changes Aaabb11 has made with respect to organ harvesting, but my disagreement is partly based on personal preference/style issues--e.g. by insisting on the importance of certain minor details, editor seems to diverge from WP:Summary style. There are some RS issues as well, but despite his/her use of some primary sources, the material itself is verifiable. For example, in this edit[47], user references a personal blog. The same fact could easily have been attributed to reliable sources. And as to the Epoch Times, the paper won a Society of Professional Journalists award for investigating reporting on the subject of organ harvesting, so I would not dismiss it out of hand, but I would try to supplement with other RS.

I've also had some issues with the editor linking excessively, but they do actually seem willing to learn and improve. That being the case, I suggest that Aaabbb11 read WP:RS and use higher quality sources. When other editors disagree with a change, try to talk it out (don't just continue making the same edits). It's probably also advisable to edit a broader variety of articles and get more familiar with other editing and conduct policies.

And to be fair, some of the other editors involved also could also do better editing from a neutral point of view (e.g. [48], and should refrain from needless antagonism.TheBlueCanoe 14:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe reporting unsubstantiated claims by people with connections to conservative think tanks (Gutmann) or by credulous politicians with poor research methods and laughable investigative standards (Kilgour / Mattas) as being unsubstantiated claims is a WP:NPOV issue. In any other article, if somebody posted an essay alleging a genocide for which there is literally no material evidence that'd be probably treated with some skepticism. But because the FLG own a newspaper that repeats their accusations loudly, and have a dedicated and militant group of wikipedians who regularly shift the WP:NPOV balance of articles with single-purpose accounts they get a pass? As for acting antagonistically, I try to assume good faith. But when you've been through the same situation as many times as I have over the FLG articles you get worn out. This is the same stuff, different year. And I'm sick of it. I'm not asking for any assistance any more. I have given up on the Falun Gong, removed it from my watchlist and won't be contributing to the editing or maintenance of those pages any longer. Because I have enough going on in my life that I don't need to be constantly vigilant against these people while simultaneously playing wiki-politics. It's exhausting. I'm sorry for the rant. I'm just very frustrated. Simonm223 (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems that your main problem is not with this editor per se, but with the fact that the articles discusses organ harvesting at all. It's an issue that's received substantial coverage, so it's totally appropriate for the article to summarize it by presenting the positions of reliable sources. And of course everything should be cited to reliable sources--I take your point on that, and hopefully Aaabbb11 will also be more mindful to use the best/most authoritative sources. But given your obvious frustration, removing yourself is probably a good idea.TheBlueCanoe 23:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Monarchy in Canada

Page

List of Canadian monarchs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article has a lot of opinions expressed as facts, for example, "In 1931 the Canadian Crown emerged as an independent entity from that of the British Crown due to the Statute of Westminster 1931."

While it is not sourced in the article, it appears to come from an opinion expressed by Lord Justice May in ex parte: The Indian Association of Alberta (Court of Appeal of England and Wales, 1981):

1. Although the Crown at one time was one and indivisible, with the development of the Commonwealth this is no longer so. In matters of law and government the Queen of the United Kingdom is entirely independent and distinct from the Queen of Canada.

2: Any treaty or other obligations which the Crown had entered into with the Indian peoples of Canada in right of the United Kingdom become the responsibility of the Government of Canada with the attainment of independence, at the latest with the Statute of Westminster, 1931.

The head of the Court, Lord Denning, said that the Canadian Crown became separate in 1926 with the Balfour Declaration, while Lord Justice Kerr said that the Crown had been separate when a Canadian government had been established, which had occured by 1867 with Confederation. The House of Lords, which at the time was the highest court in the U.K., would decide in 2005 in ex parte Quark to accept Kerr's opinion and reject the other two. (Note: both these cases were requests for prorogativeprerogative writs and hence took the form of The Queen vs. the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.)

It would seem that dating the separation of the Crown to 1931 is an opinion based on one interpretation of one judge's opinion that itself is no longer accepted. I would appreciate if other editors could weigh in on this.

TFD (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Canada viewed the BNA act as being central to its history (not counting Newfoundland which was a Colony until 1949). KGVI was His Majesty George the Sixth, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India thus (as Canada was a Dominion) he was King of the Dominion of Canada. Not "King of Great Britain and not separately King of the Dominion of Canada". Just as QV was "Empress of India" not "Queen of Great Britain and through that 'Queen of India'" And she was never "Empress of Great Britain." Kerr's position was the best of the lot as the peers agreed. [49] The royal official site states: As already referenced, The Dominion of Canada was created in 1867 with the passage of the British North America Act, 1867. The constitutional act of 1867 set out executive authority vested in the Sovereign and carried out in her name at the federal level by a Governor General and Privy Council , with legislative powers exercised by a bicameral Parliament made up of the Senate, the House of Commons and the Crown. One of the key features of the Statute of Westminster of 1931 was the separation the Crowns. As a consequence, the Crown of Canada – separate and distinct from that of the United Kingdom and the other Dominions – was defined in statute. Which appears to agree with the title before was as "King of the Dominions" and not as "King of Great Britain" with the Dominions sharing a common king and the only change being that he was now "King of Canada". 1931 did not change the position from "King of Great Britain" to "King of Canada" but rather "King of the Dominion of Canada" to "King of Canada" clearly -- as the House of Lords officially stated. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The key point of the Royal Family website is that the division of the Crown was "recognized in statute" in 1931. That does not mean it was divided in 1931, and the "Introductory text" in the Act makes clear that it is recognizing "the declarations and resolutions set forth" in the Balfour Declaration of 1926. The 1926 Declaration merely reported the existing relationship between the King and the various countries.

1867 is of course a good dividing line in the list, but there is no source to say that is when a British Crown became Canadian.

TFD (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Long post on the article talk page with all sorts of sources I had to go through -- do you know how much is contrary to current Wikipedia articles? And it is all your fault, Stan! <g>. Collect (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree that the statement In 1931 the Canadian Crown emerged as an independent entity from that of the British Crown due to the Statute of Westminster 1931 should be sourced in some way. Those cases mentioned above were concerned with Prerogative writs, but does that make any difference? The BM page on Queen of Canada describes the position well enough. [50] In the passage cited from Kerr's judgment in ex p. Quark he was basing his ratio decidendi on 'the situs of rights and obligations of the Crown'. Does that make any difference? Qexigator (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The Lords read Kerr's opinion to mean, "The Queen is as much the Queen of New South Wales and Mauritius and other territories acknowledging her as head of state as she is of England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom." In the case they decided that the queen of SSGI (population nil) was legally a separate person from the queen of the UK, just as the queen of Canada had legally been a separate person from the queen of the UK. I mentioned the form of the actions because Wikiain said they had "all the excitement of Patagonian toothfish"[51] and because ex parte implied that only Quark was heard. TFD (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

That date is used through a variety of articles as, on the whole of sources, it seems to be the most supported. Yes, there are sources to support earlier dates, however, the key point here is that all sources support this distinction by 1931. So, some sources may say 1867, and others would refute this. All sources agree that by 1931 this situation existed. And I think that this is the phrasing that should be used (ie not saying that this situation occurred in 1931, but that it by 1931). If someone would like to modify the phrasing to something like 'at least by 1931', or 'was codified into law in 1931' I would see no issue. trackratte (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

"Codified into law" is misleading, it already was the law and became recognized by statute. No source says the status changed in 1931. As Denning wrote, "at the Imperial Conference of 1926 it was recognized that, as a result of constitutional practice, the Crown was no longer indivisible. Thereafter the Crown was separate and divisible for each self-governing dominion or province or territory." So why have a break in the article between "The English and British Crown (1497–1931)" and The Canadian Crown (1931–present)"? TFD (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that there should be sources. They will be added once I or others can find the time. Second, the break is there because all sources can agree that the break existed by that time. Before 1931 there was always debate between editors and contradicting sources. However, if the consensus develops to move it to 1926 or an earlier date I'm not opposed. I'm just looking back to previous debates on this matter on why 1931 ended up being used throughout Wikipedia. trackratte (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The HL report gives the names of counsel for Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and for Quark Fishing Limited. Whatever may have been the title when the proceedings commenced, it does not follow that the case was not argued by both parties on appeal, but 'prorogative' must have been a typo. If one looks at Denning above, and various academic and practitioner writers and commentators, the concepts and words representing them were fairly fluid, and depended on the issues being argued or discussed, and when a party's interest turns on such a point it can usually be argued either way. But for the purposes of the article, it suffices to use the year/event commonly accepted, for which the BM website is as good an example as any, though it would also be good to have a Canadian source as well. Qexigator (talk) 01:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not commonly accepted to divide lists of kings and queens into before and after 1931. See "The Kings and Queens of Canada" (Government of Canada website), "Canada’s Monarchy throughout History" (Monarchist League), and even "United Kingdom Monarchs (1603-present)" (BM, the source you use for dividing the list).

In the 1981 case, all that had to be determined was whether the Canadian Crown was separate from the UK Crown in 1981. The specific date at which it became divided was irrelevant to the outcome. In the 2005 case the issue was the specific date at which the crown of an overseas territory became separate and it was decided it became separate when an administration was established. They specifically refer to the 1981 case and endorse the view that this had happened in Canada by 1867.

Due to historical reasons, the form of these cases was the Queen vs. the Secretary of State, but the Queen's side was argued by counsel for the ex parte litigants.

TFD (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I do not see the list at 'The Kings and Queens of Canada: The Crown in Canadian History'[52] purporting to make any division and therefore it cannot be looked to for guidance in that respect: it is irrelevant to the point under discussion; ditto, Monarchist League; the BM page does not have a list, divided or otherwise, but describes a change in 1931, which is the substantive point in question.

The ex parte Quark proceedings in the early stage was for judicial review, and in the customary way titled R(Quark Fishing Ltd.) v Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs, and was heard, in the usual way, in the High Court, Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court. [53] The fact that the title begins formally with 'Regina' (for certain archaic historical reasons deriving from the prerogative writs) does not mean that for practical purposes the party applying to the court is not the claimant or plaintiff. The title ex parte does not disclose whether or not in the event the other party attended the hearing and was heard in argument by the court. The judgments show that counsel for both parties, Quark and SoS, made submissions at successive stages, including the hearing in the House of Lords. This is not the place to go into further technical detail about the rules of court in such proceedings and the manner in which the case came for hearing before different judges or courts of appeal.

Qexigator (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The Canadian government has a list, you need to scroll down the page to see it. Likewise the British Monarchy website has lists for each house. It does not actually say the crown was divided in 1931, but that the legislation recognized the crowns were separate. I do not know if that is true, it is an odd source for constitutional law. I do not see why it is an important date since the law did not separate the crowns but merely recognized it, although it would be 50 years before the courts acknowledged that. Then again the Quebec Act 1774 might have been the first legislation to recognize a separate Canadian crown. The point about Quark is that it is a significant case and has had influence on UK government policy, and invalidates the claim that there was an indivisible crown before independence. TFD (talk) 22:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I had noted and commented that the list there is not divided.[54] I do not know where the crown was divided in 1931 comes from. The point in question is the division, or separate headings, of the List of Canadian monarchs as at 1931. The expression indivisible/divisible crown is problematic, whoever or whenever used, but Kerr LJ's point (mentioned below) about seiizure of assets could be, in any particular case, the one that matters. If there is an editing problem of presentation, due to unresolved uncertainty in external sources, let the subheadings be removed, and the listing be headed 'The English, British and Canadian Crowns (1497- present)', retaining the content of footnote 2. There could then be a question whether to retain the shields and where to place them. Qexigator (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

When considering the Succession to the Throne Act, 2013, one wonder if the British & Canadian crowns are seperate. I do believe the Act is currently being challenged on its constitutionality. GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

They are separate in the sense that the rights and obligations of one are separate from those of the other. So the U.S. government would not seize the accounts of the U.K. government to pay off debts owed by the government of Canada, nor pay money to Canada to satisfy a debt owed to the UK. While that may appear obvious now, in 1981 the Indian Association argued that the UK was responsible for treaties between the Queen and Indian nations. TFD (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

True enough that Kerr, LJ (DT obit.[55]), mentioned above, had been a leading practitioner in the Commercial Court, and would have had a good eye for whose assets were liable for the debts of which realm. Thus, a claim against the Crown of one realm could be made against that Crown's property situated in another realm, both realms having the same person as its monarch. Qexigator (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Image at Gun show loophole

Is this image with this caption at Gun show loophole undue?

Among the displays of licensed dealers (shown) are found those of private sellers. Both may sell guns from their private collections to buyers without background checks.

It has been/is being discussed here: Image for the article.

It was originally added 8 February 2015 with the caption:

"Houston gun show at the George R. Brown Convention Center".[56]

--Lightbreather (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes. The photo's caption has no source. WeldNeck (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you think this photo with this caption is undue? What about this photo with the original caption?

As for the source of the second caption, an editor, Faceless Enemy, on the article's talk page said that the photo is of a licensed dealer's stock.[57] Lightbreather (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The photo is clearly of a dealer's table at a gun show. Simply expand and look at the sign on the table. It is not a private seller's table. It is misleading to put up a picture of a dealer's table in the gun show loophole article, as the gun show loophole only pertains to private sellers selling to other private buyers. The gun show loophole does not apply to dealers selling from their store stock. All dealers have to do background checks on all private buyers by Federal Law. It would be much the same as putting up a picture of a retail store, say Walmart, in an article about yard sales by private citizens. Very misleading photograph in this article. The hidden agenda appears to be making the volume of private sales appear as large as gun stores stock that is for sale. The gun show loophole pertains only to occasional secondary market sales, not to retail sales, such as this picture portrays. This picture is intentionally misleading. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I feel this issue could easily be solved if the editors that object would simply suggest a different image, for the article, that they approve of. Since the image was removed there has been no discussion, and no apparent effort to resolve the problem, and it's been over a week. I reattached the image because I did not see a POV issue, and moreover, this article deserves an image. Darknipples (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Photographs should be illustrative of the topic material. If we were talking of used book sales in your front yard, at a yard sale, would you put a photograph of a local brick and mortar book seller in the article, instead? It would be the same thing. No. Photographs should be illustrative of the topic in question. It wouldn't even help to label the photograph with, "Among the store fronts of towns with licensed book dealers (shown) are found those yards of private sellers. Both may sell books from their private collections to buyers without background checks." This would not make sense, either. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I see a POV issue, and there are plenty of other articles on more notable topics that do not have an image. No image at all is far preferable to one that is misleading. Faceless Enemy (talk) 12:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

All dealers have to do background checks on all private buyers by Federal Law? Even when they sell from their private collection?

But even that's not the point. This is what a gun show looks like. A gun show where dealers and private sellers and dealers selling private collections sell. But as Darknipples asks, what image would you suggest? If we found one of a private seller selling a gun, would you then object because it might imply that he was selling illegally? If we got a hidden-camera image of someone selling illegally, would you object because it might imply that all sellers sell illegally? What image would be better than this one? Lightbreather (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

All dealers have to do background checks on all private buyers by Federal Law when they are selling new guns, whether at a store front, or at a gun show. No exceptions. On the other hand, a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) can sell an occasional firearm from his private collection in the secondary market as a PRIVATE CITIZEN and no background check is required, to sell a used gun. The straw man of a private seller selling illegally is not what the gun show loophole is about. It is about legal commerce between private citizens in the secondary market. A photograph that shows this would be fine. By the way, should we have a picture of Cracker Barrel in this article? You know, the restaurant chain? The reason I ask is that I once bought a firearm in the parking lot of a Cracker Barrel restaurant. But, I would not propose a picture of the restaurant chain for this article, either. It would be misleading. So is a picture of a Federal Firearms Licensee selling store stock at a gun show undue for this article, too. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

A photograph that shows this would be fine. A photo of one person selling to another person at a gun show - not Cracker Barrel - but without any signs that might indicate that he's a dealer selling new guns, not guns from his private collection, because he wouldn't sell from his private collection at a gun-show table where he's also selling new guns because he'd only sell new guns there... That's the better photo? Do you have one of those? If not, what would be the next best photo? Or would that be the only acceptable photo? Lightbreather (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The fundamental problem is that cameras are prohibited at gun shows. There are signs at the entrance specifically banning cameras. Hence, the lack of pictures to choose from. But, no picture is better than an intentionally misleading picture. Another possibility is a picture of a sign that says "Private Seller" on a table beside firearms for sale. These signs are common, and the photograph could be taken outside a gun show, of the same sign used in the gun show, with the same guns that will be sold in the gun show. That would be a possibility. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't the description just be changed to "Display at a Gun Show" rather than the disputed verbiage? Capitalismojo (talk) 23:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

That's far preferential. But what is more preferential, if there does not appear to be a consensus that the image properly represents the subject, than why have the image in the first place?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Of all the arguments presented so far against including this image, yours, RightCowLeftCoast, is the best. Lightbreather (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Miguel Escopeta: Are cameras prohibited at ALL gun shows? If so, could you please provide a RS or two for that? And, assuming for now that they are prohibited at all gun shows, how come there are so many to be found, especially this one - which is also the image used in the Gun shows in the United States article? Lightbreather (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

That image is definitely not appropriate for the article. It does not depict the subject of the article, and it's very likely to mislead the casual reader into thinking the term "gun show loophole" applies to the many, many guns shown in the picture, but of course that's not the case, as others here have already explained. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 12:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The image shows guns at a gun show... not sure how that's misleading EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that it is partisan. Part of the controversial nature of the so-called "Gun Show Loophole" is that it does not really apply to gun shows. It applies in all venues where one private individual sells a firearm to another. Where one side of the debate could say any gun show picture could work, another would say that any such picture is biased. In this situation, no picture is better than any picture at all. ScrapIronIV (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The picture is non-partisan. And the gun show loophole does apply to gun shows - which is the scope of this article. Since 2012, there has been a shift toward UNIVERSAL background checks and the private sale loophole, but that is outside the scope of this article... which is about sales at gun shows... which is what is shown in the picture... a gun show. Lightbreather (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Would any of the pictures here work?[58] 16:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felsic (talk • contribs)

None of them appear to depict a private sale, so I don't think any are appropriate. Faceless Enemy (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

An image depicting "gun show loophole" would have to show a convicted felon or other ineligible person buying a gun from a private party at a gun show, in a state that does not require background checks for gun show sales. It seems unlikely that such an image will become available. But if it's any consolation, many Wikipedia articles about important subjects also don't have any images. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 15:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

It is untrue that the image would have to show "a convicted felon or other ineligible person buying a gun from a private party at a gun show, in a state that does not require background checks for gun show sales." (The point of the loophole is that private sellers don't have to run BGCs on ANY buyers, which makes it easier for prohibited persons to buy.) If the objection to the proposed image is that it shows a licensed dealer's display, then what we need is a private seller's display. (Although, another part of the loophole is that licensed dealers can sell from their "private" collection without having to run a check, so honestly, IMO, the proposed image is fine.) Lightbreather (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

It would be odd if you didn't think the image was fine, considering that you were the one who added it to the article. The image is misleading because although it depicts a table at a gun show, there's nothing to indicate that it depicts a private seller or that it has anything to do with the loophole. A table at a gun show and the gun show loophole are not equivalent and one can't be used to depict the other. I understand that you want to include an image as part of bringing it up to GA - which will be great when it happens - but no image is preferred to a misleading image. Ca2james (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

... considering that you were the one who added it to the article? You make it sound like I forced it in, or snuck it in. There was a whole discussion about it on the gun show loophole talk page. Cullen328 suggested it. Darknipples, Scalhotrod, and I were OK with it, though Scalhotrod suggested a different caption. Lightbreather (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that you snuck the image in. I just thought that, since you did add the image, it would have been weird for you to not support its use. That's because it would be odd for any editor to not support inclusion of an image they added. In other words, your support for the image is a given. That's all I meant - there was no subtext intended there. Ca2james (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Unless an image accurately depicts a salient event to the article in which it is to be used, it ought not be used. In the case at hand, it implies that "individual private sellers" attend shows with several hundred weapons - leading to the implication that they make up most of the sales at gun shows. As it is not an apt depiction of private sales at gun shows, it is equivalent to using an irrelevant cite in any article - it fails. Collect (talk) 15:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. A picture of a registered dealer's stock doesn't properly illustrate Gun show loophole. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, from that perspective there may never be an appropriate image. I'm still having a hard time even dreaming something "neutral" up in my mind's eye that isn't facetious. Maybe the Infobox will have to suffice. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Per WP's MOS..."Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic. Because the Wikipedia project is in a position to offer multimedia learning to its audience, images are an important part of any article's presentation. Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal, especially on pages which have few visuals." The image's caption is written in a way that conveys the intent of the article. The logistics and importance being placed on obtaining an image of a "private sale" at a gun show seems to be somewhat undue, if not impossible, considering that photography is typically not allowed at gun shows. I am willing to attempt to obtain such a photograph myself, however, it would only be a last resort as it takes time and money to do so. My only wish is for a consensus, but some of our editors do not seem willing to compromise [59] [60] despite the context within the caption. Darknipples (talk) 03:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The "context within the caption" doesn't make this image suitable or representative of the gun show loophole. The image shows licensed dealers, not private sellers, and saying that private sellers exist neither identifies them nor represents or describes the loophole. No caption can fix that or make the image work for this article. Moreover, saying that licensed dealers and private sellers may sell guns from their private collections to buyers without background checks actually misrepresents the loophole, which according to the article refers only to private sellers. Finally, articles - even Good Articles like this one - are not required to have images. If no suitable images can be found, an unrepresentative image should not be used just for the sake of having an image. Ca2james (talk) 06:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I suggested this image from Commons as a possible image for this article when the issue came up at the Teahouse. I then then repeated that suggestion on the article talk page. After considering the arguments against its use, I no longer support its use in the article under discussion, given the range of concerns that have been raised. To me, the most important objection is that the dealer illustrated in the image is not a subject of the article, and to use that image would be unfair to that company. I apologize for not stating that I had changed my mind earlier. I dislike the contentiousness that accompanies this topic, for which I consider both sides responsible, and yearn only for the neutral point of view in this and all other controversial articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

So, it seems the fate is decided for this image. [61]. I guess I will have to obtain an image that encompasses "the needs" of all of these editors that object, at my own expense. It will be of a private sellers inventory. Please feel free to make constructive suggestions in this regard on my TP. Darknipples (talk) 07:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Project for a New American Century

Is in the realm of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Its neutrality is at issue here, as it is almost entirely a series of claims connecting people who signed a document to a deliberate plan seeking 9/11 and designed to get the US into war, as well as promoting biological weapons and "the targeted extermination of a specific ethnic group" . It includes naming multiple people multiple times (wikilinking every time) in connection with that.

I consider statements that people are seeking to develop biological weapons, to promote genocide, seeking war,, and deliberately seeking 9/11, to be a "contentious claim of conspiracy" and suggest that it is,indeed, subject to WP:NPOV and WP:BLP and invite eyes to look at this article (which nicely uses ALL CAPS a lot when quoting section titles from a pamphlet).

[62] is the latest such edit.

Thanks. Collect (talk) 10:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The only person for whom neutrality is at issue is Collect, who has been trying to remove long-standing, well-sourced consensus material from the article.

It will be readily apparent that there is already a thread on this board open on almost the same topic on onoe individual, British Labor MP Michael Meacher, and 9/11 conspiracy theory.

If you are complaining about the wikilinks on the table, I don't think that's unreasonable, as it is a compiled reference.

You already brought the table issue to BLP/N (and this board is not the correct place for BLP claims), and consensus was against you.

All statements of opinion from RS are attributed, and there is no quote accusing anyone of "deliberately seeking 9/11", an exaggeration which I'm sure was simply a mistake on your part that you're going to correct.

The article is not about Meacher, for exmample, but does contain statements made by him as covered in peer-reviewed secondary sources, and they don't mention the 9/11 conspiracy theory.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Do we really need two threads about this article on the same noticeboard? (And another one at BLPN?) Fyddlestix (talk) 12:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Just about to say that. When I opened the window, it was here. Should be a subsection of the above one. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The issue here is about linking people to genocide and biological warfare - not the same as above. Ought we link living persons to such accusations? I suggest,alas, that walls of text on the topic including accusations of bad faith seem to make the neutrality problem a tad clearer than such posters would like.

Many key positions in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush were held by PNAC members, including the vice presidency, and a number of other PNAC members served in important advisory roles, is not stated as opinion, and the link between them being PNAC members is SYNTH as shown by the table on that page.

And advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool. attributed as a quote from PNAC is, alas, totally wrenched from context - and is stated as "fact" here.

In a review of a book on the history of eugenics in the United States, Keller cited the quote as an example of modern-day thinking that continues the tradition of eugenics, saying that the quote proposed "a sort of 'gene bomb'" and accusing the authors of supporting "the targeted extermination of a specific ethnic group -- i.e., genocide, the ultimate eugenic practice " is making an exceedingly strong claim about the group - failing to note the person is not mainstream on such a claim at all. Kip Keller, in fact, is a non-notable book reviewer, and not an expert on Eugenics at all. The book [63] is by Edwin Black AFAICT. Opinions of a non-notable person are not notable. Etc. Collect (talk) 13:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The article does definitely need major work, and a lot of points/edits I agree with you more than I agree with Ubikwit, Collect. But both of you are being extremely combative here and you both seem to be more interested in carrying on a pre-existing conflict between the two of you than in improving the article. As you may have noticed, I've stopped even trying to make a substantive contribution to this debate - I don't think a resolution will be possible unless you two can calm down and check whatever baggage you're carrying from previous disputes. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

My goal is a readable article consonant with policies and guidelines, encyclopedic and of value to readers. I have no POV regarding this or any article, and if you doubt that in any way please note my edits on Johann Hari and innumerable others. Too many articles have been made POV to an extreme extent - and one clue is when they defame living persons. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

And believe me, I share those goals. My statement was not meant to disparage your motives or question your credibility - I'm just letting you both know that I think the tone of the discussion and the level of animosity of animosity between you is not helpful and needs to change. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@Fyddlestix: It's true that I have been dealing with what one admin at an AE thread described as tendentious editing from Collect on other articles related to the neoconservatives, including BLPs, which I've wikilinked on the Talk page. My patience has worn a little thin.

Perhaps you could present your views a little more proactively so we can move this along in a more functionally collaborative manner. I in light of your comments/edits on that point to date, I gather that you agree with me that the article is not and should not be about 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Note that the material that Collect has been deleting from the article is, as you noted with respect to the passage from the lead, long-standing consensus material. That doesn't mean consensus can't change, but the issues at hand here have already gone through a couple of processes, including the BLP thread on the table (consensus against Collect's claims of SYNTH) to which I've linked on the article Talk page, as well as another BLP thread on the quote from Meacher in which you also participated.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive845#Proposal_to_topic_ban_Ubikwit_from_AN is fairly clear, Ubikwit. And when you cite a source which is entirely about a 9/11 conspiracy theory and you figure that as long as you don't use anything but a single quote which does not actually have "9/11" in it, that the article is miraculously healed of being about a 9/11 conspiracy theory - I think I have some Jordan River water to sell you. Collect (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

It's off-topic to link to such threads here, especially one not even related to this topic. It shows that you are desperate.

Your pushing of the 9/11 angle is not going to get you very far, and has already become disruptive, as far as I'm concerned, with this second NPOV/N thread and already two BLP/N threads. I'll continue to address the issue, but your are continually repeating the same tired arguments because you refuse to listen and refuse to collaborate according to the relevant content policies: RS and NPOV.

The point has already been made several times over that the academics published in peer-reviews secondary sources do not even mention conspiracy theory in conjunction with Meacher's statements on PNAC. I've removed the Guardian citation and Meacher's statements on PNAC are sourced solely to peer-reviewed secondary sources now.

What other conspiracy theories, 9/11 or otherwise, remain in the article?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

"Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation"

A serious NPOV discussion required here involving users who live in Crimea. This and related articles are easily influenced by propogandas from both sides. in English Wikipedia - mostly from pro-regime-in-Kiev side. In Russian Wikipedia - from regime-in-Moscow. Viktor Š 22:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Виктор Ш. (talk • contribs)

It is unacceptable spin and false equivalency to assign the same weight to reliably sourced news reports and the productions of Kremlin-controlled media. WP:NPOV does not mean WP:GEVAL. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

What does WP:GEVAL have to do with this? Do you mean that Poroshenko-, Kolomoyskiy- and Akhmetov-controlled media more reliable than "Kremlin"-controlled? Is now GfK Ukraine "Kremlin"-controlled? Is war-party in Washgton's media (like Radio Svoboda) any way more reliable than "Kremlin"-controlled? Is Amanpour any way more reliable than Kiselyov? Certainly not. Plus, there are enogh english-language reliable sources that are just being ignored here. Labeling the acception "annexation" without asking Crimeans who could provide reliable crimean sources does not give Wikipedia credit. Viktor Š 22:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the way Wikipedia works. If information is reliably sourced, verifiable, and notable, it cam be included (with due weight and in an encyclopedic tone). There is no obligation to "balance out" this information with unreliable sources, fringe theories, or even "local" sources. Furthermore, your invocation of sources like "Radio Svoboda" is a red herring. The sources for the articles you are protesting are predominantly Western mass media outlets. If you have an issue with them, I suggest you visit the reliable sources noticeboard. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

There has already been ample discussion of what are and are not reliable sources on the talk page of the article being questioned, as well on a massive number of related article surrounding recent events in Ukraine. The fact that this user disagrees with consensus and has taken it here is WP:FORUMSHOPPING because s/he doesn't like the consensus. Trying to resurrect the same arguments already rebutted belongs to the relevant articles, not to this noticeboard. I suggest that this section should be closed off as another waste of editor time and energy. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I always try to assume good faith, but this torrent of SPAs, IPs (many of them using dynamic or proxy addresses), and other obvious bad-faith actors strains me to do so. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I, too, follow WP:AGF and try to discuss and inform... but problematic issues surrounding current affairs in Ukraine has brought in a huge wave of new contributors (both with accounts and IP hoppers) working as SPAs for one POV or the other. It only takes a few interactions and attempts at trying to explain how Wikipedia works to ascertain who is NOTHERE. Unfortunate as it may be, this tidal wave has swept away some excellent regulars who've just given up on rolling the boulder uphill. Ultimately, for the sake of editor retention and quality encyclopaedic content, a balance needs to be struck between "that anyone can edit" and where the entire project risks being compromised. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

This subject has received such extensive coverage in Western media that there is no reason to use sources that do not have the same reliability. That is not to say that there are not problems with Western media present the story, but it represents what is considered mainstream. TFD (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that a considerable number of regular editors are aware of the discrepancies and spend quite a bit of time checking the credentials of 'experts', the context, and eliminating yellow press references as much as is within the scope of our policies. In the long run, and with more academic publications becoming available in the future, the RS content may change. Until such a time, we are obliged to adhere to the mainstream... whatever our extracurricular reading and personally trusted sources may say. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)