Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

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

Before posting here, consult the neutral point of view policy page and the FAQ explainer. Also, make sure to discuss the disagreement at the article's talk page.

Fringe theories often involve questions about neutral point of view. These should be discussed at the dedicated noticeboard.

You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so.

Sections older than 21 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
List of archives

, 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, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113

Additional notes:

Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments, not on vote count or sheer size of argument.
Consensus in previous discussions does not make policy, but you can generally rely on it.
The list of articles where users flagged a point-of-view concern is here.
This page is not a forum for discussions unrelated to the neutral point of view. We have a separate noticeboard for concerns about original research (material made up by a Wikipedia editor), and another dedicated noticeboard for questions about contextual reliability of a source.

Start a new discussion

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors.
Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.

Archives

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, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Due weight and numbers of sources

Just moved this over from WP:RSN, since I figured here was more appropriate. This is Gibraltar again, I'm afraid.

An editor is currently citing an argument made here (in a mediation case since closed), which judges the due weight of points to be made in an article based on the raw number of sources found in a search of Google Books. The methodology is to search for keywords in books that contain the word "Gibraltar" in the title.

I have three questions:

Is this a reliable means of judging the appropriate weight to be given to subjects in articles?
Would it be a reliable means of judging the appropriate weight to be given to subjects in articles, if it was confirmed that all of the sources actually mention the piece of history concerned?
If it was not done through Google Books, but rather through a count of sources containing the point collated by some other means, would this be a reliable means of judging appropriate weight?

Thanks, Pfainuk talk 18:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary comments and clarifications

Extended content

To add to the above, I was about to start a new thread. I am involved in the above discussion so will not comment but add further information.

It has transpired that two editors who have been arguing the edit they prefer is justified per WP:DUE and WP:V but they do not have access to any sources whatsoever. They are relying upon limited searches of google books, often from google snippets. Having no access to any sources I'm at a loss to see how that can make an argument based upon WP:DUE. 20:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The question of relying on Google hit counts was a side issue at RSN. It seems appropriate here because establishing relative WP:WEIGHT (or balance) is central to NPOV. And it is an intriguing idea. However, it has been discussed at RSN#Archive 54, where it rejected. Main problem is that Google hits are only on strings of words, and any inference beyond the numerical occurrence of a specific string of words is unsupported. Also, the domain referenced (nearly all the garbage on the WWW) has no particular authority.

The simple answer to the question posed is: No. The very idea that proper WP:WEIGHT can be determined by any simple numerical or (not so simple?) statistical measure (whether Google hits, or citation counts, or ??) is misleading. Such measures might show how notorious a subject is (i.e., how much it is being discussed), but how much weight any discussion or viewpoint or argument should be given depends in a large part on the quality of the argument, expertise and reliability of the proponents, etc. These have to be assessed by the editor, require some familiarity of the field, may even require expert knowledge on specific points, and in the end are subjective. It appears there is not, nor even could be, any "simple" arithmetical determination of due weight. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Actually the original question was whether it is reasonable to rely on Google snippets from reliable sources as evidence for the occurrence of a single phrase, and I gather that you might accept this. We are currently trying to follow a bibliometric approach to another vexed question and I take your point that bibliometry cannot be determinative. In fact we have been stuck on a fundamentally subjective issue for two years of argument, and I can't really see any way to solve it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Richard that wasn't the original question at all, due weight is argued on the basis of the number of google hits. And as we've seen it isn't a suitable argument at all. What we've now found is that those making this argument, don't have access to sources and the argument pursued for 2 years to the frustration of any attempt to improve the article is one that isn't sustained by policy. Please do not confuse the question and allow outside comment and don't deter it with walls of text as virtually every attempt to elicit outside opinion is. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I point out that this is the NPOV notice board? As to whether due weight can be determined by any "bibliometric" means, I have given you my opinion. Now you both are sliding back into the more general question of reliable source, which seems more appropriately discussed at WP:RSN. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Gibraltar#RfC: Due weight & NPOV in the History section I have started an RFC to gather outside opinion related to this issue. Those who have commented here may care to contribute an opinion. Thanks. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I finally found WP:Google searches and numbers (an essay proposed for policy), which states: "One of the biggest fallacies in determining notability of a subject is the results of a Google search...." Yes. Google can be a useful finding tool, and the results useful as a very rough measure of notoriety. But not as metric for purposes of WP:WEIGHT. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, I completely agree with JJ. But nobody has used Google search. We have used Google books (not google search) search and then have checked the books one by one in order to see if they were specifically about the issue at hand (and each non-complying source was discarded). In my opinion, this process avoided many of the drawbacks signaled by WP:GNUM I also agree this is not a final criterium, but I would say it is a very strong evidence suggesting notabilityl.

Please, JJ and other outside editors, could you please give your opinion on this? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the third question above. Whether the count of sources, where the weight given to each point in each source is not considered, is appropriate. JJ addressed this above:

The very idea that proper WP:WEIGHT can be determined by any simple numerical or (not so simple?) statistical measure (whether Google hits, or citation counts, or ??) is misleading.

It also is patently false for you to say that "each non-complying source was discarded". Your much-repeated thirty-seven hits on San Roque included primary sources, histories of San Roque and a biography of an Austrian general. Many of the books concerned are not available except though Snippet view, which we have already seen cannot be used as a reliable source. It included at least one source that didn't include the words "San Roque" at all. But even if they had been discarded, that is addressed by my second and third questions above. Pfainuk talk 07:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed (below) that all discussions on Gibraltar be continued on the talk page. However, it may be useful to try to resolve this discussion here, provided it stays on topic ("Due weight and numbers of sources") and does not slide into other aspects of reliable sources or such.

It seems to me you all have slightly different takes on what, precisely, the issue here is. Is it a fair statement, and generally agreeable, that the issue here involves a reliance by Imalbornoz (and one or more others?) upon Google or Google Books to either 1) determine the reliability (and therefore the weight given to) individual sources, or 2) determine the proper weight (balance) to be given a sub-topic as represented in the aggregated sources? (And please, no debate yet, just let me know if this is a fair understanding of the situation.) - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point 2 is what is argued primarily by Imalbornoz and one other. The argument is used for two claims, one based on a Google Books search, the other based on a raw count of quotes provided by others without regard for context. Point 1 is only argued inasmuch as the sources counted for point 2 are not otherwise assessed for reliability (or indeed content). Pfainuk talk 18:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To put this into perspective, Imalbornoz has adopted this technique for a reason. As we found out during the mediation case here he doesn't have access to sources Diff [1] Regarding Jackson and Hills, I wish I had access to the books. I think Ecemaml has one or both. I think I'll ask him.. Jackson and Hills are named as the primary sources of his edits - he relies on a 3rd party for quotes. Similarly he relies heavily on Google snippets. This is a very misleading way of editing, for example here [2] where even after I pointed out that Chapter III of Andrews p.54 is about the period after Utrecht he continued to claim it supported his edit, though it did give me the clue to find the snippet and technique he'd used. He searched in Google Books here for Shrimpton the Hapsburg Governor from 1705 to 1707, unfortunately Andrews introduced a discussion of the corruption of early Governors by referring to Shrimpton's dodgy deals earlier. (I recently found a copy and can confirm he is incorrect). Then there is this example [3], well I had a look at this list here. He also claims to have compiled a filtered search, in which he personally verified that each text was relevant. However, as Pfainuk notes it contains much irrelevant material, including the Austrian General or simpy San Roque. Sadly I don't think there is any substitute for actual research from reliable sources. At best what we see with these searches is simply the observation of Confirmation bias since the search terms predicate the outcome, and if the editor is looking for terms to support an edit, which is what we see here it is inevitably biased. We look to the sources to dictate the edit, we don't write the edit and then look for sources. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa — a big wave of text just overwhelmed me! Look, I was seeking assent; a simple "yes" or "no" would be an adequate answer. Instead, we have argumentation with supporting points, and the chickens are loose again. You folks are just too ready to dance, but I really need smaller bites. I think you will make more progess if you go slower (por favor!), one small point at a time. (Think in terms of using low-gear, where using a higher gear will either loose traction (spin the wheels) or stall the engine.)

Let's try this again, and I'll simplify the question. Is it a fair statement (i.e., close enough) that the issue presented here regarding numbers of sources is about the use of Google (or Google Books) by Imalbornoz? (A yes or no is adequate, thank you.) - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Wee Curry Monster talk 23:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes (the use of Google books as one argument -not the only one- of a set that also included qualitative arguments, please see here for example). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 07:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good. Let's wait a tad longer before continuing, in case there are any dissents. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 02:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it also applies to Imalbornoz's use of raw counts of sources that are gathered by means other than Google Books (but instead provided by an outside editor), that similarly do not take account of context or weight given to the points by the individual source. Pfainuk talk 17:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the preliminary formulation of the issue, as far as it goes, seems generally acceptable. I am leery of Pfainuk's extension, but we will see where this goes. Before proceeding I want to establish certain caveats. First, this is not the reliable sources noticeboard; this is not the place to discuss the criteria or means of identifying reliable sources. We will be discussing that part of NPOV concerning the due WP:WEIGHT or balance to be given certain issues, and particularly a certain use of numbers of sources to determine that balance.

Second, Imalbornoz is not on trial here. He is the proponent of the usage under discussion (and I am curious, are there any others?), and I hope will be a worthy champion of that usage. But we presume he uses it in the belief it is satisfactory, and the discussion here is only on whether the usage is satisfactory.

Now I need some clarification: What is being weighed here? Is it the space or treatment accorded certain sub-topics? Or is it possibly something else, say the weight to be given various sources? Imalbornoz, perhaps you could provide a short explanation? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is both the space and treatment of the certain sub-topics. Deph of coverage is excessive and the quantities of text dedicated to certain details are grossly out of proportion with coverage in sources. Related to this, is that sources are not used for the edits, rather Google Book searches used to justify a pre-determined edit; Google Book searches then become an example of Confirmation Bias. Another issue and I appreciate it you wish to cover one at a time, is that this is achieved at the expense of a) not covering signficant events as opposed to details and b) the range of relevant opinions in the literature. The latter can be dealt with later, I merely raise it to register there are multiple issues with proposed methods. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the number of sources was not an argument per se. The argument was a benchmark of events in the same section of the article. Quite a few of them are mentioned by fewer sources (some of them maybe only by a couple of sources) than the events that WCM and Pfainuk want to remove. So I thought that it was quite unconsistent to remove some facts cited by 37 sources and keep some events mentioned by fewer sources in the same topic area (Gibraltar). Counting the number of sources seemed to me a good objectivization of this inconsistency. Again, this was only one argument (call it circumstantial evidence) among other more qualitative arguments.

Regarding the text, the factuality of the events is not under dispute. It is the importance of the events for the History of Gibraltar and their due weight in the article that is under dispute. WCM and Pfainuk want to eliminate detail to a point that the events are not actually mentioned because they say they are not important to the topic (the history of Gibraltar in an overview article):

from

"there was widespread raping, almost all houses of the town were looted, all churches except one were desecrated and almost all the villagers left -the largest part to a nearby town called San Roque."

to

"they [the invaders] were frustrated when, after three days of violent disorder, almost the entire population of the town left citing their loyalty to Philip V, the Bourbon claimant.". -- Imalbornoz (talk) 09:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I won't comment in detail but no one is suppressing anything and I for one am tired of the constant accusations of suppressing material, see the footnotes for a start, in fact we're arguing for greater detail. The fact of the matter is, its this additional details to address a NPOV issue that is obstructed by the demand to mention a detailed list of crimes to the detriment of other significant events. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've prepared a sandpit comparing the two proposed texts here for editors to judge for themselves. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, another deluge of text!!! Okay, for you guys this is relatively short, but you really need to practice on shorter. One step at a time. WCM: your first sentence ("It is both...") would have been adequate, and even the second sentence was not out of line. And if you truly appreciate that I want to take one issue at a time, you would not introduce "another issue" (at least, not yet). Okay? Also, there is a rather serious matter raised by your statement that you are "tired of the constant accusations of suppressing material". I have looked closely at Imalbornoz' statement (and let's not raise up old issues not "in evidence" here), and the only basis I see for your statement would his statements "events that WCM and Pfainuk want to remove" and "WCM and Pfainuk want to eliminate detail...". These appear to me to be very plain, objective statements of fact; I do not see that these amount to any "accusations of suppressing material". Your complaint is a misrepresentation (perhaps only a misunderstanding?) of what Imalbornoz was saying; it is an invalid strawman argument. It is also some what inflammatory, which does nothing to help us. (I hope I will have these comments in place before anyone else comes back at you with a hot retort. Everyone cool it!) Also, and for everyone: supplying alternate texts is a good thing — on the article's talk page. On this noticeboard we should stay focused on the usage complained of.

Imalbornoz: a good start, even if over lengthy. Let me ponder on that for a bit. And everyone stay cool. A slow, considered step forward progresses much faster than rapid fire missteps that have to be retracted. Also, I added indentation above (pushing the boundary of talk page etiquette) to make matters clearer. To the same end, would anyone object to permitting me to freely indent, reduce, emphasize, or even hide your comments in this discussion? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eliminate, remove, suppress are one and the same thing and it happens to be untrue. This is not a misunderstanding, nothing is eliminated or removed the content is still there - please take a look. My comments are not a misrepresentation in the slightest but the accusations of eliminating, removing or suppressing are. I have no problem with hiding comments if they're tangential - feel free. But WP:TPG would indicate you should note edit by indenting, reducing or emphasizing.

Anyway we're dancing around the issue of actual relevance, hit counts in google searches whther in google books or plain google are not a substitute for research of reliable sources but the argument presnted here is that it is. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JJ, I won't object. Thank you for taking the time to mediate in the discussion. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it would be improper to change any remarks to the point of misrepresenting them, and I hope to avoid that. But with you all's permission I may reduce or even hide extraneous comments, for the purpose of clarifying matters and seeking a resolution satisfactory to all concerned.

WCM: Quite a bit of the "dancing around" I see here (and on the talk page) seems to arise from your comments, which prompts other editors to respond, and around the houses you go. Keep in mind that not every comment you feel should be said is necessarily useful. I think we should have a side discussion about this. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After considering the prior comments I have two questions. First: am I correct in understanding that the issue presented here is not the weight to be given to various sources themselves, but rather to the weight the sources (individually or in aggregate) provide regarding the inclusion (or not) of certain events?

Second: is it possible that issue here can be boiled down to selection of alternate texts, such as Imalbornoz quoted above? Not that the example above is the only alternative in dispute, but: is it a representative example of the core issue? (And "yes" and "no" are adequate responses.) - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 08:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I fully understand the questions. (Minor reformatting. -JJ)

On the first, I think the answer is yes and no. The weight given to each source is significant to the point in that Imalbornoz's argument weighs all sources equally, regardless of reliability and content. The weight the sources provide regarding inclusion is significant in that the question is as to whether certain points in the article are given more weight than is due to them based on sources, and whether this ought to be decided based on a raw count of sources or on the weight given to the point by individual sources.

On the second, the whole point is that we are trying to find an alternative text to that currently in the article. Now, the possibilities for a new text are obviously theoretically endless, but we must be sure that the new text does not give undue weight to any particular point - and particularly the arguments of one side or other in a modern dispute (bearing in mind that this is not an article on that dispute). Pfainuk talk 18:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So we need some finer resolution. WCM, I want to hear more about your "no", but let's hold off on that until we can sort out Pfainuk's points.

Pfainuk, on your second point it seems to me that you have only stated generalities. Of course the possibilities are endless, and we must avoid undue weight. What I am asking is whether, out of those endless possibilities, two statements could be taken, representative of each point of view (perhaps the from/to versions quoted by Imalbornoz), and the issue here reduced to determining which is "best". Is that clearer?

Re your first point, I think you are saying that the weight of a source — essentially how much impact it has — may vary depending on reliability, etc. Which is correct. But the means and criteria of determining what the weight of a source should be is a matter for WP:reliable sources, and not appropriate here. I am hoping that is not part of the issue here, that you all have (at least potentially) some degree of consensus regarding the weight to be accorded the sources, and the issue here is the application of those weights to determine an adequately balanced point of view. Is that clearer? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JJ the issue for discussion here is very clear, it is the claim that you can establish WP:DUE on the basis of hit counts whether it is in Google Books or simply Google. We seem to be diverging away from that considerably. Can we focus please. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slow down, wait your turn! I am trying to keep a very tight focus, which right now is on Pfainuk's elaboration of certain points about this claim. I promise you we will get back to the other stuff, but if we try to discuss everything all at once we will choke. Let's take one bite at a time, chewing slowly. I am going to carefully consider the following remarks, and also what I might usefully say; this will take at least overnight. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting out my points, therefore:

The weight of each individual source - how much impact each one has - is a part of the equation here because the methodology used to create these counts gives all sources equal weight. The reliability of the sources, along with the context (if any) that the point is mentioned in and the weight given to the point by the source are assumed to be either inherent in the search or to be irrelevant.

Such an assumption is necessarily a part of the argument being made. It is impossible to create the kind of purely quantitative measure that Imalbornoz is arguing is the sole possible means of establishing weight from sources without ignoring all qualitative factors - including reliability.

But this applies also applies in cases where the reliability of the sources is accepted by all parties. The argument in these cases still relies on a raw count of sources, with qualitative factors excluded. There are many ways in which an individual source can give more or less weight to a point, including the amount of detail given, the positioning, whether it is emphasised and whether it is highlighted as important by surrounding text. Imalbornoz's argument deems all of these factors to be irrelevant compared to the number of sources used, which is argued to override all other factors.

Is it an argument between two such texts? Not necessarily. It has been proposed that the points that are currently given undue weight as compared with reliable sources be given a more appropriate weight by putting them in references or by dramatically increasing the length of the paragraph to compensate. Problem is, Imalbornoz continues to argue that his counts of sources entirely override the weight actually given to the points by the sources. Pfainuk talk 21:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Pfainuk has not seen my previous (very brief) comments, so I will repeat one of them below:

"Yes ([the problem in discussion is about] the use of Google books as one argument -not the only one- of a set that also included qualitative arguments, please see here for example). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 07:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)"

I hope it is clear now. Thanks. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually see any qualitative arguments in that this is due weight from that link. There's a statement that it's due weight because you say it is, and a claim that other editors are editing in bad faith, but no actual qualitative argument. Certainly, there is nothing that would render any part of my comment above inaccurate. Pfainuk talk 17:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pfainuk, thank you, that is a clear and well reasoned explanation. However, you are getting ahead of me — that was about the methodology, which I haven't gotten to yet. From your remarks it appears you are not taking issue with the degree of reliability of the sources (authors) themselves, but with how that and other factors are used to weigh or balance a point of view (regarding certain events); this is effectively affirmation of my first question.

As to my second question, well, I don't want to hear a rebuttal to an argument I have yet to hear, and I don't want hear objections of any kind. What I want to hear is this: given that the issue here comes down to an issue of some text (as most WP issues do) either including details of a certain event, or not including such details, is the issue here really about the use of certain means or criteria (e.g., the "methodology") of selecting between these alternatives? (NOTE: it could be about a lot of things. What I am trying to do is scrape off all the side issues that will only distract us.) - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am taking issue with the reliability of some of the sources that are used to generate these numbers. In many cases I also dispute their relevance and/or the claim that they even verify the points concerned. This is, to some extent, beside the point, since even if I did accept all of that, I still wouldn't accept that it is appropriate to ignore the weight given to each point by the sources in favour of merely counting them.

Is it about text? Well, when it comes down to it, practically everything on Wikipedia is about text or images, and in that sense it is about text.

The text currently says:

“

On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. The terms of surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings. By 7 August, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and fled to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain.

”

It is argued (among other things that are less relevant to this discussion) that this gives undue weight to the specific acts of violence that took place and to one of many verifiable reasons why the townspeople left; it is also argued that it gives undue weight to San Roque. These arguments are made based on the weight given to these points by individual reliable sources, on the basis of factors similar to those I listed above. That the weight given to these points by the current text is very much greater than that given by individual reliable sources on the subject has never (to my memory) been disputed.

It is further argued that the points being given such undue weight are exactly the points that have been argued by Spain in support of her position in the modern dispute, and that for us to give undue weight to these points thus takes Spain's side in the dispute. For these reasons, texts have been proposed with the aim of reducing the weight given to these points.

In defence of the existing text, it is stated simply that these details "must be mentioned" or that they are "very notable and relevant", generally without further comment or argument. When pressed, those defending the existing text argue that due weight must be determined by a simple count of sources (through Google Books for San Roque; by other means for the details of the violence), and refuse to acknowledge or accept any other means by which sources can be used to determine appropriate weight (such as the weight given to points by individual sources). They also accuse editors who favour change of trying to hide facts that they are embarrassed about. Pfainuk talk 22:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well stated, but you are broadening the discussion, which makes it too difficult to get a handle on it. I will address your points, but hopefully to lay them to rest, not to expand the discussion. (And my apologies for so much text.)

First: this is not the place for discussion of the reliability of sources. I am hoping that we can get this discussion focused on the methodology raised here, and not the particular inputs. Think of it like algebra, which studies the process of calculation, not whether specific inputs are "correct" or reliable measures of anything. Sure, the purpose of algebra is eventually to produce a result, whose validity (just like here) will depend on the actual inputs. But that is a different question! The question raised here is about the process (the methodology), and I think you will agree that if the process is invalid there simply is no reason to use it at all, irregardless of the inputs (sources). So let's back away from any questions of reliability or authority or such; those are for later, and likely elsewhere.

As to due or undue weight of specific text, yes, that is, at the highest level, the issue here. But we know that! You are again raising generalities. More particularly the issue here is how to determine proper weight, and specifically the validity or adequacy of a certain means that has been used for making that determination.

You also raise the issue that choice of text will favor or disfavor one side or another in a political dispute, and that we shouldn't favor Spain. Well, I don't know that we should favor Great Britain, either, or even the local residents. But considerations of who will be favored are an extremely poor way to resolve such a situation. Anticipations of who might eventually be favored should not color matters of fundamental importance, and even warrants drawing a "veil of ignorance" as to the ultimate beneficiaries to avoid such considerations. For any editor to consider "whether this helps my side or not" is inherently non-neutral, and not admissible here.

Finally, your statement that others "accuse" is in itself an accusation. As I told WCM above, in this discussion I see no accusations of "trying to hide the facts". I realize that you all may have past (or even current!) history in this regard, but please: get over it. You all may have traded a few verbal punches before, but ask yourself: did any of those do any good? And what good would they do now? I hope that instead of "getting even" we can focus on getting ahead. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If all that is adequately resolved I would like to ask again: is the issue here really about the use of certain means or criteria (e.g., the "methodology") of selecting between alternative text? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JJ I believe you have misunderstood Pfainuk's point. There are a range of opinions expressed in the literature but the article does not reflect these. Instead it promotes a single opinion that reflects a modern national narrative. That is the problem, it does not present a NPOV by failing to reflect the range of opinion in the literature.

Secondly, one of many issues is that this is justified on the basis of hit counts in Google Searches. The claim is currently that this is superior as the searches are "structured". He misses the point that the searches are structured to justify a point, thereby resulting in Confirmation Bias. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if I have misunderstood anything (I hate that!), as distinct from ignoring what might not be relevant here. I would say that if there is a range of views on some aspect of the topic then the article should mention that. (Perhaps not going into detail on each view, but at least mentioning that a range of views exists, and perhaps pointing to any notable views.) And while that may be a valid issue in this article, should it be part of this discussion? I say no, that we should focus on the narrow bibliometry issue, in accord with the title of this section and the three questions Pfainuk originally posted.

In your second point you touch on this possible issue of balance as being "justified on the basis of hit counts", which is pretty much what I think this discussion should be about. Our determination of whether that the method used is valid (or not) will bear on this other issue, and is antecedent to it; therefore it should be resolved first. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it is high time that there is clear guidance as to whether this method is acceptable practise. If I may open by offering my own opinions as to why it is not. A) Bibliometry is not nor should it ever be an alternative to researching a topic from valid sources B) "Structured Searches" in Google Books are not a reliable way to establish WP:DUE as they are inherently unreliable due to Confirmation Bias. C) Finally, due to the very nature of Google Books, the full text is not available so it is impossible in most cases to establish context. At best Bibliometry may have a role in indicating occasions of WP:UNDUE but not should never be relied upon as the sole reason. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC) [Reduced by JJ.][reply]

Thank you, WCM, but your comments are premature; we are not to that point yet. At this point I am trying to address Pfainuk's comments, and hoping that he is agreeable that the discussion here might be narrowly constrained to the use of this bibliometric method in determining the proper balance of alternative text.

Pfainuk, is this agreeable? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question as a whole is as I described in the previous section. If you want to narrow this discussion down to the questions I asked at the beginning - that is, whether counting sources a given point while disregarding the weight given to that point by those sources (where the counts are generated either through Google Books or by some other means) is an appropriate means of establishing the weight to be given to that point - that's fine with me. Pfainuk talk 21:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes? I do want to narrow this discussion to the original questions, but I am concerned that we may have a subtle divergence of view; your statement just above is unclear. I think you are referring to a way the basic "methodology" (which is not yet in evidence) can be tweaked by factoring in another consideration ("the weight given to that point by those sources"); I would deem this within the purview of this discussion. Alternately, possibly you want to consider whether the results of this methodology are contradicted by other, independent considerations. I would say that any such contradiction should be evaluated, but only after we determine the validity of the methodology. Does that work for you? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm still not 100% on what you mean. Are you suggesting that we broaden the question to discuss the weight given to each point by sources? I don't have a problem with that. Obviously, you can't delve into the results until you've decided what weight to put on things.

But I am a bit concerned that it has been three weeks and we still seem to be discussing what the question is. Pfainuk talk 21:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it has been slow. And that is intentional. I initially reckoned about two months to sort this out, and half of that on determining the precise, narrow focus of the question. So by my reckoning we are not doing badly. As I have said before, there is more progress in one slow step forward then a bunch of fast steps that don't go anywhere and may even have to be revisited. Hang in there!

Your comment just above about whether this discussion should be "disregarding the weight given..." I think can be applied in two ways: either as a factor of how the subject methodology works, or as an alternate consideration, possibly in conflict with the results of the methodology. Either of these could be pertinent to this discussion, but not in the same manner, nor at the same point in the discussion. And either way I think it is too early to definitely include or exclude discussion of "disregarding the weight", so perhaps we could table that consideration for the moment? And if so, then would you agree that the question for consideration here is regarding the use of a certain methodology for determining the proper balance of POV in this particular matter (of San Roque)? That though there may be other issues in this matter, here we focus on the validity of methodology? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, I'd note that the verb "to table" has directly contradictory meanings, depending on whether you're writing in British or American English. I assume that you are using the AmE meaning (to leave aside for later discussion), as opposed to the BrE meaning (to bring forward for immediate discussion), since it seems to make more sense in context.

So, based on that, I agree that the question is regarding a certain methodology and we can start with the validity of this methodology - and then possibly move on to discussion of other methodologies afterward. But to my mind, it is actually the detail of the violence, not San Roque, that is the more important issue here. It is there that the more significant weight problem occurs. San Roque is also an issue, but not the more important one. Pfainuk talk 15:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do mean "leave aside for now" (American usage). Thanks for the clarification. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Collapsed in anticipation of a summarization. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Possible summarization

Wee Curry Monster! Thank you for your patience, and now it's your turn. Way above I asked 1) whether the issue here is not the weight to be given to various sources themselves, but the weight they provide, and 2) if (for the purpose of considering the validity of the methodology) we can limit the discussion to use of this methodology in choosing between alternate texts; your answer was "no". Without getting too deeply into matters, could you explain your answer? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WCM seems to be missing in action. In anticipation of his return (and satisfaction of his concerns) I would like to learn more details of this "methodology" that is the core of this discussion. Imalbornoz, would you be so kind as to describe this methodology and how you used it? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weston Price introduction

Currently there is an issue with the lead into the Weston Price article. I want to go with a more descriptive (and IMHO more accurate) lead in (see [[4]] but one editor wants to stick with a less descriptive (and I might add TOTAL UNREFERENCED) lead into (see [[5]])

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

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

You are the one who seems to be pushing a point of view and WP:OWNing the article. The kind of detail you have added to the lede is unwarranted, as the lede should reflect the main body of the article. That seemed to be true of the statements, "These ideas formed the basis of focal infection theory during this period and led to the mass extraction of teeth rather than the use of root canal therapy. This application of focal infection theory fell out of favor starting in the 1930s, and it is not currently considered viable in the dental or medical communities." Mathsci (talk) 16:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the conflicting nature of the WP:MEDRS noted in the focal infection theory article how is the above version better than "However, research in the 1930s raised questions about the quality of this and similar evidence and despite a cautious resurgence in interest in oral FIT there is still no scientific evidence for it working to the degree supported by Price and his contemporaries" which has Pallasch's 2003 article as a reference which Ingles (2009) PDQ Endodontics called recommended reading and talks about Weston Price in more detail than Grossman does (though admittedly not by that much)?

I noted you ignored the fact Yobol removed the "Noted in the dental profession for his work in the relationship between x-ray and cancer, the invention and improvement of a pyrometer dental furnace, and the development of radiological techniques expanded on in the 1940s" part which is in the main body of the text having no less than seven reliable sources including Ingle's Endodontics (6 ed.) (I have added those as references in my restore)

I also found this little gem: "The last paper was read by Weston A Price DDS of Cleveland, "Focal Infection" tracing the source of infection to the gums, tonsils and accessory sinuses, showing the intimate relationship between the nose and threat surgeon and dentist" ((1915) The Lancet-clinic, Volume 113; pg 508) If you have reliable sources that address the "gums, tonsils and accessory sinuses" part of Price's FIT I think we would love to see them.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for an opinion. You seem to be advocating a minority point of view in that article and related articles; it differs from the mainstream point of view. I also find it odd that the biography of someone who died in 1948 is being used as a WP:COATRACK to discuss current practices in dentistry/nutrition. Mathsci (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for that has to do with the Weston A. Price Foundation's claims about the continued relevance of Price's work and the resulting recent critiques of Price's work by professional skeptics (e.g. Stephen Barrett). Had no one resurrected his theories he'd simply have been a figure in the history of dentistry, and perhaps also the history of nutrition, but now his very dated research is the center of controversy. I would personally prefer it if all of that stuff went into the entry for the foundation instead, but what happened some months ago was that a couple of editors insisted on adding Barrett's critique into the entry. Ever since then Bruce has been arguing to include all kinds of other materials, which IMO also do not belong in the entry.Griswaldo (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It not just the Weston A. Price Foundation but as user:Ocaasi showed in Talk:Weston_Price#Price_and_FIT-inspired_.27holistic_dentistry.27 a lot of other people using his work with George E. Meinig being the main lightning rod according to Ingles 6th ed. I agree that the article should be on the man himself and not what others have done with his work but the lead in Yobol supports fails to explain why Price is important now while mine (as flawed as it is) at least tries to deal with that issue. IMHO too much is on what others are using Price's work for rather than what the man himself said.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

You know, I've tried multiple times to get Bruce either to take this over to the Focal Infection Theory page or elsewhere, because it doesn't belong on Price's Bio. I don't understand why he doesn't get that, and I'm tired of arguing about the issue with him. If he wants to say stuff about modern applications of FIT, he should do it somewhere where they talk about modern applications of FIT, not on the article about someone who was long dead before FIT started to be reconsidered. --Ludwigs2 19:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem as I keep pointed out is the biography keeps making a medical statement about the current status of FIT. Administrator User:Will Beback stated that "(h)owever articles that appear in scholarly journals are considered to be reliable for most purposes. If we're using it to make medical claims, then it would have to meet the stricter standards at WP:MEDRS, but I don't have enough information to tell if it does."

Personally I think the only way this article can truly move forward is if we go back to Price's contemporaries and see how they summed up his ideas. The one sentence in Pallasch 2003 Yobol harps about is actually referenced to Price WA Buckley JP. "Buckley–Price debate: subject: resolved, that practically all infected pulpless teeth should be removed." J Am Dent Assoc 1925: 12: 1468–1524 and rice WA. (1925) "Fundamentals suggested by recent researches for diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of dental focal infections." J Am Dent Assoc 1925: 12: 641–665. or some 47 pages worth of material including a debate. And as I have repeatedly stated it is not me who makes the connection between Price and his contemporaries and what is going on with regard to modern FIT but the reliable source Pallasch (and a whole host of non RS)!

"Little attention then as now was paid to the observations that temporal associations are the weakest of epidemiological links and that many of its proponents were infected with the concept of ‘after it, therefore because of it’ for which even today there is no preventive vaccine." Pallasch set up the rabbit experiments of Weston Price and Rosenow as an example of the "then" and and spends the next six pages on the "now". If you go back to Grossman you will see he put Price and Rosenow together just as Pallasch does.

Strangely a 1935 Journal of the Canadian Dental Association article cited Price's 1923 book as an example of conservatism with regards extraction of teeth due to FIT which is puzzling for a man Pallasch says "asserted that ‘practically all’ infected non-vital teeth should be removed rather that endodontically treated to prevent or cure focal infections."

Furthermore Price's comments in his 1939 book "The evidence seemed to indicate clearly that the forces that were at work were not to be found in the diseased tissues, but that the undesirable conditions were the result of the absence of something, rather than of the presence of something" make you wonder if he still supported FIT in 1939. We can't say but we can put his exact words on the matter in his bio and let the reader decide.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce, there should be no discussion whatsoever of FIT as a theory on Price's bio. It's not the place for it. I would be happy to discuss removing any claims that are made about FIT that are currently in the article - I could support that - but do not try to argue it out in the article, because it is not the correct place to do that. --Ludwigs2 22:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwigs2, with all due respect how on Earth did you come up with this idea? There are dozens of RS articles that mention Price's work regarding FIT including the The Journal of the American Dental Association, The Dental cosmos, Pickett-Thomson Research Laboratory, Canadian Dental Association, Dental summary, Dental journal of Australia, Endodontic Topics and Ingels as far back as 2002 (who now has a 7th edition-2010 out). This is ignoring all the non RS people using Price's research to push their own views.

This is not like the idea that Louis Pasteur might have seen penicillin but didn't realize its impact--like or not FIT was a major part of Price's work. I have already pointed the third party 1916 Lancet-clinic article showing that Price application of FIT included "gums, tonsils, and accessory sinuses" and so wasn't just limited to teeth or root canals. FIT clearly belongs in Price's bio but the question is what is being presented actually Price's views rather than those who use his work. That is why IMHO we need to go back to the old material of Price's time and see what his contemporaries said and note how it disagrees with the more recent source material. After all isn't noting when sources conflict at the heart of NPOV?

That is why I say IMHO neither the Stephen Barrett or Weston A. Price Foundation rebuttal really belong in the page as neither is really reliable with regards to the biography. As I showed in Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_21#Burn_Barrett_Bandwagon.3F Stephen Barret had NO IDEA what he was talking about with regards to Price.

To paraphrase Yobol: "One last time: this is an article on Weston Price." This is not the article on holistic dentistry. So why is this holistic dentistry nonsense in Price's biography? What reliable sources show that Weston Price was a holistic dentist?--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that these issues have been discussed ad nauseum over months on the article talk page, so I feel no need to repeat myself here, except to note that Bruce's approach, which is to delve into 80-100 year old primary sources to build this article rather than use reliable more current secondary sources flies in the face of most Wikipedia policies, and no amount of discussion has been able to get this across to him. I would also like to thank Bruce for showing me these problems exist also in the Focal Infection Theory article (which I had not looked at all that close)...I will be addressing the problems there soon as well. Yobol (talk) 02:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A 2003 article is a "80-100 year old primary source"?!? Yobol's claims are not born out by reality. Right now the entire basis of his version of the lead is based on an now out of date version of Ingles and given his efforts to push a unsupported idea that there were two theories and if he takes that nonsense to a page that have very good MEDRS references he is going to have issues.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should mention true to his word Yobol is now doing his nonsense in the focal infection theory article as well and so I have opened a NPOV thread on that mess. This is starting to look like the kind behavior we saw with User:Ronz (see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive97#Noticeboards.2C_source_criticism_and_claims_of_BLP_issues as well as a repeat of the Wikipedia:Recentism issue brought up in Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_21#Weston_Price_and_Quackwatch for the fun the editors had there) to exclude relevant material.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New lead in still being blocked

I came up with a largely third party referenced lead in that even uses Ingels (see [[6]] which has already been determined as a reliable source and Yobol true to form reverted it back to the unreferenced stuff (see [[7]]

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

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

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

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

NPOV issues in the Focal Infection theory article

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

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

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

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

and

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

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

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

Consensus above suggests that modern focal infection theory should not be discussed in the biography of Weston Price. Please keep the discussion of Focal infection theory on the talk page of that article. If you have complaints about the conduct of particular editors, WP:ANI is a more appropriate venue, provided the complaints are well-founded. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mathsci, did you even bother to READ what I said? This is about the focal infection theory article and NOT the Weston Price article. It even says that in the title.

Also there is no real consensus in the regarding Price's quotes. Ludwigs2 feels there should be "no discussion whatsoever of FIT as a theory on Price's bio" (which has its own set of issues as even his obituaries and memorials talk Price's work in focal infeciton clear into the 1950s), and Griswaldo is not clear about the material he has issues with (most likely the general FIT stuff that the quote)--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to use capital letters or coloured/bold fonts: please do not shout. You have opened up two threads here which seemingly only attract editors already active on the articles. Even here you mention Weston Price, so the issues remain unchanged. Long threads have been generated elsewhere (eg on WP:FTN). Posting here does not seem to be an appropriate way to resolve disputes on either article. If you have complaints about another editor's conduct, WP:ANI is the right noticeboard. From my perspective, it is you who appear to be pushing a minority point of view. Mathsci (talk) 07:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We already had one of those (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive675#Weston_Price.2C_NPOV.2C_and_MEDRS) and nothing was done. The issue of putting misleading and out of date medical claims was never addressed by the other editors.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was a thread started by you and no administrative action was considered appropriate. Which medical claims are out of date? The statements by Weston Price, or something more recent than 1939? Mathsci (talk) 08:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I explained that fully in the above link. "This application of focal infection theory fell out of favor starting in the 1930s, and it is not currently considered viable in the dental or medical communities." is the problematic passage.

"Additionally, recent evidence associating dental infections with atherosclerosis and other chronic diseases has also helped resurrect the focal infection theory." (Silverman, Sol; Lewis R. Eversole, Edmond L. Truelove (2002) Essentials of oral medicine PMPH usa; Page 159) This book is now published by the same people that put out Ingles.

The Pallasch 2003 article expresses concern that given focal infection theory's easy explanation and economic incentive to use it one could easily see the same application as seen in Price's time. As I stated before the Pallasch 2003 article 1) Defines FIT, 2) talks about Weston Price while going into the history of focal infection theory, and 3) goes into the current situation regarding focal infection theory. It also make several connection between the enthusiasm in Price's time and the current situation.

PDQ Endodontics (2009) by Ingles clearly states "And even today, cancer and neuropsychiatric disorders are blamed on focal infection" making the statement supported by Ingles 2002/2007 (the 5th and 6th editions are nearly identical in this regard) statements out of date. In fact Ingles 2007 states the revival of FIT is "based on the poorly designed and outdated studies by Rosenow and Price" and no mention of the modern revival triggered by the work of Mattila (Fowler, Edward B "Periodontal disease and its association with systemic disease" Military Medicine (Jan 2001)) is made. PDQ Endodontics by contrast does comment on the revival thanking Pallasch for his information and so does NOT make the "not currently considered viable in the dental or medical communities" claim that the older versions did and even recommends the Pallasch 2003 article for additional reading.

Heck, Pallasch in 2000 was stating "The resurgence of the focal infection theory of disease has been greeted with great enthusiasm in some quarters" citing three papers from 1998 including Meskin's "Focal infection: Back with a bang!" in no less than the Journal of the American Dental Association so the Ingel's piece was already out of date in 2002 (which was my point)

A more NPOV sentence would be "Idea that focal infection was a primary cause of systemic disease fell out of favor starting in the 1930s, and despite a cautious modern revival "Focal Infection Theory fails to pass scientific scrutiny" (Pallasch 2003)--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chevrolet Vega problems

This article is dominated by one user named User:Barnstarbob pushing a pro-Vega agenda. The Chevrolet Vega is widely considered to have been one of America's worst cars, but criticisms are shunted to bottom paragraphs and overwhelmed with positive detail. The article dominator deletes inline citations, reverts "COI" tags by other users, is uncooperative and doesn't participate with WP:AGF. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that article's got issues. BSB obviously dominates the talk page, and the main page itself is very much fixed in the early 1970s, with all mention of the Vega's historical significance buried at the bottom. I mean, it's there, which is something, but the article very clearly leads with the positive whenever possible, and burying the criticism section changes the character of quite a few earlier quotes. For instance: Car & Driver picked it as one of its 10 most collectible cars, with the comment "We're talking about historical significance here." But that appears at the end of a long list of awards won by the Vega and before any mention of its legacy as a "black eye" for Chevy, which makes the historical significance seem positive to somebody who doesn't already know what they're talking about.

Also, I never thought I'd ever run across the phrase "pro-Vega agenda" unless it involved Street Fighter. ShaleZero (talk) 14:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tomwsulcer, I generally agree with the characterization of the Chevrolet Vega article which you and ShaleZero have provided. On the other hand, it's also important to note that other editors have given a barnstar and other praise to Barnstarbob for his work on the article, saying it is more detailed and well-researched than the typical car model article. What do you propose be done? -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I wouldn't propose to delete any of the content Barnstarbob added to the page, but to reorganize it. The Vega's one of the best-known cars of its decade and definitely deserves a comprehensive article; it just needs to stop dancing around why the Vega is so well-known. If I had free reign of the page, I'd move the "reception" section much higher and add either a third subsection or a subsequent full section on the car's popular reception, to examine how the car went from best-seller to discontinued in the space of seven years. Either way, the article needs a full "Legacy" section on how the eventual failure of the Vega line (a) affected Chevrolet as a company and (b) led to its sitting alongside the Pinto and the Yugo as one of the all-time bad cars in popular culture.ShaleZero (talk) 11:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those changes sound good. In addition, I think that Awards and Comparison to competitors belong in the Reception section. But I should have made my question more specific. I was actually looking for how you intend to deal with Barnstarbob's de facto control of the article and his likely opposition to the type of changes you have proposed. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How best to present disputed information

Idris al-Senussi is a claimant to the abolished throne of Libya. The man has gained quite a bit of notoriety in the media, including most recently in the U.S., in light of the protests against Gaddafi. But the legitimacy of his claims have been widely questioned.

The two main sources used in the list, Christopher Buyers and Henry Soszynski, both present the son of the last crown prince, Muhammad al-Senussi, as the rightful heir.
In 1995, a British magistrate ruled that "The world of make belief has totally absorbed Mr Idris Al-Senussi in this case. Mr al-Senussi wishes people to believe he is the heir presumptive to the Libyan throne. ... [T]he clear evidence in this case says that crown prince Muhammad, son of the last Crown Prince of the Kingdom of Libya, has a stronger case".
This case followed his attempt to convince British members of parliament that he was the "great nephew of the late King Idris of Libya". However, David Williamson, co-editor of Debrett's Peerage, instead described the man (after also mocking his claim) as "the second son of the sixth son of the second son of the younger brother of Idris's father." (The Sunday Times) Buyers' genealogy matches this association exactly. Soszynski doesn't list him at all.

There is now a disagreement regarding how best to present his claim on List of current pretenders. WP:LIST requires a verifiable inclusion criteria, and this list currently requires a legitimate link to the throne. The order of succession in Libya was codified in Art. 45 of the Constitution: primogeniture, or failing that, nomination by the reigning king. This man fails both of these, and it's verified by independent sources. Similarly dubious claims are presented in the article either in plain prose or in a footnote, but not as a main entry. The other editor involed claims that presenting claims unequally violates NPOV. As for myself, I consider it a violation of NPOV to give dubious claims the same weight as those that are generally recognised; see the following relevant sections from WP:NPOV: I'm hoping that editors here, familiar with the policy, can determine which is the right way to go. Any comments would be greatly appreciated. Nightw 08:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My reading is that we should exclude people like Emperor Norton, whose claims are entirely illegitimate. TFD (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that I've been asked to comment here on my talk (but also that the message was neutrally worded and I am looking at this without regard for who holds which position here).

A list such as this needs to find a way of giving appropriate weight to each POV in each case. Per WP:NPOV (and in particular WP:VALID), the idea that points need to be given equal validity, regardless of prevalence, is not accepted. Neutrality requires that we give due weight to each case, which in this means putting significantly more weight on those who are recognised by scholars as those who would be the legitimate heirs to the throne if it still existed, and less weight to those who are not. For this reason, it would appear from the above that Idris al-Senussi should not be given equal weight with Muhammad al-Senussi in the case of Libya.

I think it would also be a good idea to distinguish more clearly those individuals who actually claim rights to the thrones concerned from those who recognise the abolition of the thrones concerned (or the rights of another line). Pfainuk talk 15:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Metapedia

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

"Considered a legend"

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

Great! Well, I have to say your exposure of this unacceptable phrase everywhere in Wikipedia is umm legendary? Is there a bot that can fix this?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I know I'm the best! ^{[citation needed]}. --Damiens.rf 02:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When reliable sources refer to the individual as a legend, it's appropriately used in the article. You might want to actually check the sources before tagging or altering the language, certainly not all of them are appropriately used, however of the first 7 on that google search 2 of them were linked to reliable sources using the word "legend".--Crossmr (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Considered is weasel wording and legendary is non-neutral language. We do not allow not-neutral text just because we know whose opinion it is. Still, some of them may be justifiable. --Damiens.rf 02:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first hit I got was from the Simple English Encyclopedia, "[ William Tell ] is considered a legend". The English Wikipediqa articles says that he is a legend. How would you re-phrase this? TFD (talk) 02:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's where "considered mythical" might work better. Most of the entries appear to be hype, and not many of the "legendary" comments actually are from quotes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legends tend to be about humans, while myths are about supernatural characters. TFD (talk) 03:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then keep it as "legend" where it really is a legend, and dump it elsewhere unless it's an integral part of a quote. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as "myth" and "legend" are used interchangeably. Bulfinch's Mythology or John Remsburg's The Christ give more detailed descriptions how "myth" is used.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel words and non-neutral language is usually only a concern when we don't attribute it. In fact we have a section exactly on that Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Attributing_and_specifying_biased_statements. If reliable sources refer to a subject as a legend, especially multiple sources, there is no reason that that shouldn't be included in the article.--Crossmr (talk) 05:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them are unattributed. So they're either hype on the part of the editor, or they were lifted from another source without attribution. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If they are sourced by the attributed language is missing "according to.." that can easily be fixed rather than running around blindly tagging sources as failing verification as he did when the language is present in the source. That kind of editing is bordering on pointy and disruptive.--Crossmr (talk) 09:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who did it? --Damiens.rf 01:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better yet give us examples.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You did. Right here [8]. You tagged the source as failing verification for the term "legend". Yet, the article in question clearly makes the statement about the individual. For several seasons, Anyang Halla has been coached by Otakar Vejvoda. A legend of Czech hockey as both a standout defenseman for HC Kladno and a successful coach, Vejvoda is now in his third season behind the Anyang Halla bench.. When the NHL correspondent refers to an individual as a legend in hockey, I'd say that's a rather authoritative classification.--Crossmr (talk) 08:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. As said above, this is inherently non-neutral language, and Wikipedia should not parrot that kind of statements. NHL texts are written for fans and contain a certain amount of hype. Reader discretion is advised. --Damiens.rf 14:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia specifically has policy addressing that kind of text. It specifically discusses how to word them and does not prohibit their use. It's your opinion on how NHL news stories are written and what degree of hype (if any) they contain. You've failed to provide any any evidence that these kinds of statements shouldn't exist at all, nor support your claim about NHL news stories, in addition you seemed to have no recollection of even making the edit, nor the fact that the text you were objecting too appeared directly in the cited article. My original comment stands that your edits seem borderline pointy and disruptive.--Crossmr (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We had such WP:PEACOCK issue over in Weston Price article regarding him being a Charles Darwin of Nutrition and to use it we had to state just where it came from in the text itself. The Czech hockey example above does not do that. Per WP:PEACOCK the material should read something like "According to Meltzer in a NHL news story Vejvoda is considered both a standout defenseman for HC Kladno and a successful coach."--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"standout defensemen" is no less of an opinion than legend, and both terms appear in the text. My point was the false tagging of the passage rather than adding the attributed language. Tagging it as failing verification would indicate the text did not appear in the citation when it in fact did.--Crossmr (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not so much false tagging as incorrect tagging. ^[vague], ^[who?], or ^{[neutrality is disputed]} would have been more appropriate.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing vague about it. His legend status was attributed to his skill as a player and coach, and it was cited. While it was unattributed in the article, it could have been attributed if he was so inclined, but it was clear he was just going to tag things rather than actually check the citations. Had he bothered to check it, he would have seen the text appearing there, and thus his edits were borderline pointy and disruptive. If he's got some kind of argument to make, he needs to far more careful with his edits. Especially for someone who was just blocked for trying to force uncited text into an article. It puts it in a far more pointy context. As far as being point of view, there is nothing inherently wrong with it being point of view so long as it's attributed in text. Your version is no less point of view, as "stand out defenseman" is just as much opinion as "legend" is.--Crossmr (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trafigura

Could a few people have a look at Trafigura. An IP editor has been removing lots of negative information and slanting the rest in a more positive light [9]. A couple of editors have reverted, prompting some long posts on the talk page - it's currently back on the IP's version. The article may well have too negative before, but now it's gone a long way in the opposite direction. Trafigura have tried to improve their image on wikipedia in the past (Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2007-05-21/Trafigura); this might be good faith editing but I think more experienced eyes are needed.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just got a level 3 warning for my edit at Indus Valley Civilization

I've just been given a Level 3 warning for presumably this edit: [10]. The editor, Wangond (talk · contribs) removed the entire sentence (not just my edit) and a citation request of mine at [11] . There been a brief discussion at the article talk page and I certainly didn't expect this, although I note that he removed a citation to Sharri Cla earlier claiming it wasn't in the source, which was I believe just plain wrong. He appears to think that any suggestion that disagrees with h about mother goddesses is a " minority views npov violation". I don't want to get involved in an edit war (see his talk page, he's had a couple of warnings recently about 3RR), but Clark has a number of interesting things to say about the figurines - see [12] which should be in the article. The whole mother goddess issue is also not cut an dried as I've pointed out at Talk:Indus Valley Civilization#Religion and mother goddess.

Editor's first edit was [13] which removed a cited claim that the Indian Ocean was named after India (no edit summary). [14] was a basic change in the etymology of the article from what looked like a well cited claim that the origin was generally thought to be Sanskrit but might be Tamil, removing the Sanskrit paragraph and asserting it was Tamil. So we may well have an NPOV problem but I hope it's not on my part. Dougweller (talk) 11:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The violation was made by you. According to wp:npov, such sentences are not allowed to have prominence like the majority view. Furthermore, Clark doesnt contenst the majority view, but giving stimulus to other views. The addition of Clark have thus no basis for inclusion, especially not in a dispute way. The word Malaysia is not thought to be from Sanskrit. This is not referenced by any source, the editors have given in the Malaysia article. The sources say only, that there is a Sanskrit work, which references to Sumatra as Malayadvipa. Etymology is about the sorces of words, not references from works to this word.--Wangond (talk) 11:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems there is an issue with sanskrit, among other things, see here where the editor altered a disambiguation to say that it was a sanskrit loanword. I'm not sure it's appropriate for a disambiguation page either. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I put a fact tag asking for references for what you claim to be the majority view, and you removed it. You don't appear to understand NPOV if you think Clark's viewss don't belong in the article. The sentence you removed, "However, this view has been disputed by S. Clark who sees it as an inadequate explanation of the function and construction of many of the figurines." doesn't violate NPOV, in fact I'd say it's required if we are going to have "In view of the large number of figurines^[1] found in the Indus valley, it has been widely suggested that the Harappan people worshipped a Mother goddess symbolizing fertility." I've said that that claim worries meas it is cited to another work by Clark [15] which does not make this 'widely suggested' claim and could be read as suggesting that Clark has made that claim. As for Malaysia, right or wrong, your edit summary "vandalism no source for the claims made" not helpful. I agree with what you say about etymology but it was neither vandalism nor unsourced, although the sources might be being misused. Dougweller (talk) 11:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for Sanskrit, I've just reverted an edit by Wangond where he changed cited text[16] with the edit summary "there is no "sanskrit writing system")"- my edit[17] hopefully conforms with the cite now which mentions Sanskrit inscriptions.

Thanks for your support on Malaysia. I have talked to chipmunk about this, and he still doesnt understand the matter. However on IVC, are you still contesting a majority view about mother goddess worship requiring a source? even after I told you to look in google books on the talk page? --Wangond (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying it needs citing and you should not have removed the fact tag, but more importantly I easily found sources making statements such as " Given our current knowledge, we are unable to understand fully the position of a Mother Goddess as a fertility deity or, for that matter, the role of other female divinities in the religious fabric of the protohistoric societies of India. It is uncertain if the Harappan population had any idea of a single supreme Goddess with or without a male counterpart or if they were governed by magician-priests or even if they had a highly developed religion."[18] and the comments in this book [19] eg "At one time scholars tended to use the "Mother Goddess' label for all female figurines found at sites. This largely because of the belief that the worship of fertility goddesses was an important part of agricultural society. In the light of such problems the term "Mother Goddess" should be replace by the longer but more neutral phrase — 'female figurines with likely cultic significance'... " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 12:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

this is nothing else than pov pushing.--Wangond (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pov entrenchment at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

I have edited many controversial articles and BLPs but this is the most difficult in terms of entrenched pov bias (the pov being that this matter's "truth"(that Obama was born in Hawaii) is obvious and must be reflected in the article's title, section titles and general content). This is also the first such article where consensus seems unwaverable for retaining the pov in the title,section titles and content

There are 3 npov issues that I think need addressing;

1: Respect for the pov tag. Three different Editors have attempted to place a pov tag on the article 5 different times in the past 12 hours only to have the tag summarily removed. [20][21][22]
2: The section title "Release of the birth certificate" is misleading in its povishness and incorrect terminology, yet again, multiple efforts by multiple Editors to correct the title have been quickly reverted. Its really a matter of a single, albeit important, word distinction. The image, and what was released, is a short form,computer generatedcertification; yet the section title keeps getting reverted to misapply the term for the more detailed long form "certificate", which applies to something quite different in the State of Hawaii as shown here:

from the article; source #35[23]"Birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth and Certifications of Live Birth) and Certificates of Hawaiian Birth are the primary documents used to determine native Hawaiian qualification.The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth (original birth certificate) and Certifications of Live Birth because they are official government records documenting an individual’s birth. The Certificate of Live Birth generally has more information which is useful for genealogical purposes as compared to the Certification of Live Birth which is a computer-generated printout that provides specific details of a person’s birth. Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth."

3:The article title is inherently pov as our own article on conspiracy theories states the term, "conspiracy theory", is perjorative. Also, it is even more pov because it does not apply as WP:COMMONNAME nor with any sense of logic (who are the alleged conspirators). I am attempting a move to substitute controversy for conspiracy theories but the comments thus far generally and openly display the entrenched close minded pov I am referring to. There are a couple of other Editors trying to pry open the discussion and insert some NPOV into the article but we have been overwhelmed in that regard.

Here are the links o the talk page discussions.

[24][25] Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary break number 1 (responses)

I agree entirely. It's impossible to edit objectively there. There is a group of POV folks there who simply won't allow anything that attempts to neutralize the POV. They take the position that the opposing POV is a fraud and must be identified as such. Any neutral phrasing of any contrary information is immediately reverted (usually on the ground that it was discussed long ago and an agreement reached).

The underlying issue isn't inherently a "conspiracy theory" (as defined in WP) but the entrenched majority insists that it be called such - so that it sounds more dismissive (with no rationale... just that it's the consensus).

I've never seen an article that it more appropriate for NPOV intervention. John2510 (talk) 14:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait - Do you acknowledge that claims that Obama isn't a natural born US citizen is a WP:FRINGE theory? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible not to notice that you started a request for comment on the talk page yesterday and today the count of heads stands at 12 to 1 against you, or perhaps 14 to 3 if you count comments. The issue is obviously one of very strong consensus. Only when the strong consensus is against one does one ever characterize it as entrenched. Admit that you are in the minority and move on. Binksternet (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editors should be aware of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation. Maybe we need to notify some editors about this. Dougweller (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notified the OP, others may need to be notified but as the OP has been told by another editor they are getting close to edit warring there is a particular need for the OP to be clear about the probation. Dougweller (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the OP is acting in good faith and is simply unaware of the history of the matter, but this board is not an appropriate place to deal with this kind of thing. The OP needs to realize that when a bunch of experienced editors advise them not to add POV tags accusing Wikipedia of "liberal bias" for failure to give due credence to false conspiracy claims about the US president, they ought to listen and try to understand the situation instead of jumping to a knee-jerk conclusion that everyone but them is acting in bad faith. The article and subject are a sock / troll magnet as it is, and edit warring to insert POV tags because you don't agree with long term consensus on the article is not going to help. I'll probably avoid participating here b/c as I said it's not the right place, but allowing POV tags to stay up on articles like this has been consistently rejected, and encourages tendentiousness rather than resolution. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, the OP has made what's sometimes called a "perennial proposal" that has the effect of drawing a false distinction between the birth certificate Obama released and a "real" (but nonexistent) form of birth certificate that some conspiracy theorists claim he's hiding. It also attempts to recast the fringe claims as a "controversy" rather than a conspiracy theory. As a content matter both are contradicted by the sources, and have been rejected by a long term consensus of many editors. The Obama articles in particular, and other high traffic articles that are the matter of partisan politics, have seen a lot of "drive by tagging" by disgruntled editors (in many cases, persistent socks and trolls, hence some sensitivity and refusal to be dragged through repeated bureaucratic process on the matter). Language on the tag saying it shouldn't be removed doesn't make it so. The editors have reasonably decided not to allow tags denigrating the article and its editors from those unhappy because consensus runs against them. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume I am the OP. I don't think I ever accused anyone of "liberal bias" and challenge Wikidemon to show that diff. I think Wikipedia is an organic and growing entity wherein perennial proposals,especially with the new Arizona legislation and Trump's involvement, are not a reason for dismissal, and the statement, as if it is fact, that a "real" form of birth certificate (which I believe in this case would be the original long form Certificate of Live Birth), is nonexistent is not supported by any of the Reliable Sources that I have read, some of which state that Hawaiian officials have seen such a document. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The digital short form is today's official version of the long form and is sufficient in Hawaii to establish birth. That makes it a "real" birth certification even though it is demonstrably not a birth certificate of the old long form. Binksternet (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with all of Mr.Grantevans2 claims above, but he is certainly right that there are some WP:OWNERSHIP / entrenched POV issues with this article. A few editors reject every substantive change, citing "long-term consensus", regardless of how many potential editors might come along and disagree. I made what I thought to be a couple pretty reasonable suggestions (as you can see on the talk page), and they were either ignored or rejected immediately. On the requested move, my first comment on the matter included the statement "I understand the desire to not legitimize the topic in the title, but conspiracy theory doesn't really fit", and yet I was dismissed without much thought. Never a "hmmm, yeah, maybe we can come up with somebody better than conspiracy theories that we all agree on". –CWenger (^ • @) 17:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary break number 2 (redirect ?)

The entire article should be deleted as a WP:BLP violation and redirect to his bio article. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It's a serious POV fork. The subject is already covered elsewhere and given more than the weight it deserves, which is about 2 sentences. The OP's complaint that Obama's Hawaiian birth is merely a "POV" is disingenuous. He (as well as the other "birthers") are essentially labeling Hawaii's record keepers as liars. That's a BLP violation in wikipedia, and theoretically libelous in the real world if anyone cared to dignify it enough to take action on it. And in fact it's a conspiracy theory... and it's a fact that conspiracy theorists don't like being labeled conspiracy theorists. Nothing new about that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a Birther (I just read the definition). I am not a proponent of any theory about Obama's birth and have no opinion about it at all. I actually like Obama. The pov I am referring to is semi-hysterical and name calling reactions to attempts to improve the article, not to mention rapid reverts of tags and content. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Much of tha "hysteria" is a function of exasperation, due to the birther POV-pushing over the last 2 1/2 years. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - If that is the case maybe they should take a wikibreak. –CWenger (^ • @) 23:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm sure the lunatic fringe is hoping for that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It seems necessary to emphasize that the "birther" POV is (as AQFK noted above) WP:FRINGE in terms of facts or truth. But the "birther" phenomena seems real enough, and just as we have articles about flat earth, Moon landing conspiracy theories, etc., an article about the birther theory(?) seems acceptable, and even desireable. But NPOV and WP:WEIGHT would require recognizing and reflecting that it is a fringe view. (Although that probably requires addressing why half (?) of the Republican party can't be wrong.) At any rate, such an article cannot be allowed as a WP:SOAPBOX for championing a fringe POV. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect could point here. But I'm not convinced that a redirect would be the best way to go. The issue is pretty big, and no other article is devoted exclusively to it. A better approach might be to try and make it NPOV. Some liberal Democrats, such as Chris Matthews, have urged release of the document. But the editors at this article refuse to mention such things, and prefer to suggest instead that there is nothing more to release, that only nutty fringe Republicans seek release, et cetera. Also, as you can see from the potential redirect location that I just suggested, the eligibility issue also involves something unrelated to conspiracies: whether your father has to be a US citizen to qualify you as "natural born" under the original meaning of the Constitution as written in 1787 (I personally think the answer is "no"). My point is that this article is trying to deliberately slime anyone and everyone who has eligibility concerns or who seeks release of documentation, as fringe right-wing conspiracy theorists. There are fringe right-wing conspiracy theorists here, but that's only part of the story..Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary break number 3 (comparison with George W. Bush)

I wonder if editors have the same feelings about George W. Bush military service controversy, i.e. it's a BLP violation and POV fork? –CWenger (^ • @) 20:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "editors"? There are thousands of editors; I would be stunned if at least some of them didn't think so. Presumably you mean the very specific editors who offered that opinion above.

I'm an editor who doesn't happen to think either article is a BLP violation or a POV fork. They both are about issues that have been covered extensively in the press, thus there are tons of reliable sources, so I don't see how any sourced statement would be a BLP violation.

Clearly, if the article said "Hawaii's record keepers are liars", that would be a BLP violation, but it does not.--NapoliRoma (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, the editors above that said they think the Obama article is a BLP violation or POV fork. –CWenger (^ • @) 23:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. There is no BLP issue here and it's not an improper fork since it's only tangentially about Obama, and much more about birtherism, IOW about the conspiracy theories of Obama's enemies. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if it was called "George Bush miltary service conspiracy theory" we'd have some parity in balancing POV. Your example actually proves well the point some of us are trying to make.John2510 (talk) 03:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary break number 4 (Living Persons and Reliable Sources)

The only "POV entrenchment" I see on that article is the desire to actually follow Wikipedia policies. People who think it is pushing a POV to not give equal validity to the birthers' fringe views just do not get how encyclopedias work in general. DreamGuy (talk) 00:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of the proposed changes would give equal validity to birthers. –CWenger (^ • @) 00:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly several of the comments in this section encourage actions that would have that end result. DreamGuy (talk) 05:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note that several editors have mentioned that the article is a BLP violation. I would suggest that they haven't a clue what that means. They should reread the WP:BLP policy. Any information, even the most offensive, is not a BLP violation IF PROPERLY SOURCED. There may be other arguments against using such information, but BLP isn't one of them. It must not only be properly sourced, but framed correctly. If framed as a notable opinion, it's still okay. BLP should not be used as an argument for censorship and whitewashing. We're already seeing plenty of that on all the articles related to the Koch brothers, where even articles by notable prize winning journalists published in RS like the LA Times aren't being allowed by certain entrenched tag teaming editors, in violation of NPOV. They too claim anything negative is a BLP violation, so those articles are hagiographies. That mustn't happen here.

As to redirecting, that's not appropriate because this isn't an improper fork. It's more about birtherism (IOW Obama's enemies) than about Obama, and a tweak of the title might be in order for that reason (not sure to what though ). Per FRINGE the phenomena deserves short mention in the Obama article, but that's all. The article deserves its own life as documentation of a very notable political phenomena, just like other ridiculous beliefs that are also documented in RS. It's notable enough that some statistics show that over half of the Republican membership are fooled by it. We can't ignore something that notable. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The BLP violations, aside from those aimed at Obama, are also the ones aimed at the Hawaiian officials. Those officials have stated that a proper BC exists. The birthers are calling them liars. Wikipedia does not need to be in the position of aiding and abetting BLP violations. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Any "unsourced or poorly sourced" addition of such opinions would be a BLP violation. Any "properly sourced" addition that was framed as if it was true would also be a violation of FRINGE and UNDUE. The difference between fact and fiction should be made plain, and there are myriad extremely reliable sources that do so. The fringe POV pushing editors don't understand our policies and one seems to think that just because Trump is pushing the issue gives it more credence. That's a hoot! If anything, that only.....nah, better not say it here....

! As always, if we stick to RS, we're safe. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, using the process of elimination, it seems as if BullRangifertalk is saying that properly sourced additions which are framed simply as having been reported (as opposed to being "true") would be acceptable? The Trump view adds notability to the "questioning" group because he is polling #2 in the Republican party and #1 in the Tea Party. In terms of credibility of the person referenced, I don't think that's for us to deal with as it is another word for path towards "truth" discovery. Its the credibility of the Reliable Source which I think is more important to us? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In principle and in practice that is often the case. It isn't Wikipedia's job to determine truth. Editors aren't allowed that freedom, because that would violate NPOV by editors taking sides in their edits. They are welcome to have personal opinions, but that mustn't cause them to engage in censorship or whitewashing, either by inclusion or exclusion of RS. We document what RS say, even if the opinion might not be true. We have whole articles devoted to documenting nonsense, such as the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article. It documents numerous false and libelous statements, but they are properly sourced and the fact they are false is made clear by using other RS. That's how to frame things properly.

One of our most important policies is the WP:Verifiability policy, and it is very clear there that we are concerned with "verifiability, not truth". That doesn't mean we don't care about truth, or don't consider it, but that when we discover something isn't true, we frame it properly by making sure it isn't allowed to stand alone and deceive readers. It's not allowed to stand alone, as that would violate WP:Undue. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its clear that there are at least 4 groups covered by Reliable Sources involved in this subject matter. The Birthers who are proponents of the view that Obama was not born in the USA, the "fightthesmears" group itentified in the article who say Obama was clearly born in the USA and the topic is not open for discussion, the agnostic but questioning group, which Donald Trump seems to belong to if one actually listens to his inteview [26]backup[27] on the Today Show, which want more information. And the fourth group, like myself, who don't have an opinion and don't really care whether he was born in the USA or not. Virtually all of the discussion on the article talk page by the more experienced Editors of this article ignores the possibility that Editors may belong to either the 3rd. or 4th.groups and thereby forces on the discussion page a false dichotomy which by the nature of dichotomy leads to non-constructive stalemate and/or bickering.
And I do not understand why experienced editors would actively edit and vote on articles covering subject matter which they are highly opinionated about? To me it seems to be a direct hindrance to the whole effort of creating NPOV content in Wikipedia. Baseball Bugs comments above about "lunatic fringe" is the kind of opinions I am talking about as well as his assumption that I am a "Birther". If the "probation" designation means anything, it is exactly that type of commenting, if any, which I think should call for sanctions; although I personally am philosophically opposed to these types of article editing differentiations. (except for semi-protect). I personally have the opinion that any support for non-universal health care in any civilized society in 2011 would be coming from a "lunatic fringe" group. So I do not edit articles related to health care. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd. There's a discussion on the article talk page about this proposal, where it belongs but is opposed by fairly overwhelming consensus, and as I said I do not wish to participate in a process fork here or yet another blustering attempt to accuse editors of bad faith for being resistant to bad / biased birther content about Obama. True, four (or so) positions are reliably sourced, and it is also reliably sourced that one of them is correct, namely that Obama was born in the United States and is a US citizen, eligible for the presidency. Not caring and not being convinced about the accuracy of fringe theories and political smears to the contrary is not an unbiased opinion, it's giving a fringe theory credibility, and neutrality of the encyclopedia does not require that the encyclopedia sit on the fence as to the accuracy of every untruth that gains currency in every corner of the world. Please don't start calling for sanctions against editors you disagree with - we have some memory of that kind of battleground mentality in the articles, one of the reasons for article probation, and it does not make for constructive editing environment. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The entrenched majority at the subject page continue (there and here) to confuse: 1) giving an unbiased description and analysis of the birther position; with 2) giving validty to the position. Mocking it, as opposed to describing it, is not encyclopedic. Cubby-holing it as a "conspiracy theory," etc. contributes nothing to the reader's understanding of the subject. I haven't edited there in a while. I figure it's so blatantly POV that it stands as a monument to the POV reality of Wikipedia when it comes to political subjects. John2510 (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW... I observe that the WP articles on Yeti and Bigfoot are given a much more NPOV than is the subject article. Perhaps the editors find them less threatening... John2510 (talk) 16:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because almost no one really takes them seriously. The birthers are Grade-A "conspiracy theorists". There is no getting around that. When confronted with statements by Hawaiian public officials, they say it's a lie. If they were shown the actual birth certificate, they would say it was a lie, a fake. The true conspiracy theorist never accepts the facts. It is not wikipedia's place to cater to those looneys. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John2510: Your point is well-taken. And I agree that it's not encyclopedic to mock a fringe theory (as tempting as it may be). However, I read through the first third of the article (I got bored by the time I got to Campaigners and proponents and quit reading - sorry!) and the article seemed fairly well-balanced all things considered. I thought some of it was a bit redundant so I made a few minor fixes only one of which was reverted and is now being discussed on the article talk page per WP:BRD. What specific part(s) do you think descend into mocking? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs mocks things on talk pages. I think he's just acting in character. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's like deja vu, as a few years back we had the exact same thing going on at the Apollo hoax page. And it's the same style of fanaticism. It is the conspiracists who are "entrenched", as they will never abandon their viewpoint regardless of any facts presented. They are like the "flat earthers" that way. That's why I call them "looneys"... on talk pages, as you note. I don't edit-war over this nonsense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should try refraining from using terminology like "looneys". If I'm able to do it at 9/11 Conspiracy theories, so can you. :) 17:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Or "moon-bats" as they were called at the Apollo hoax page. Predictably, when the recent lunar orbiter transmitted photos that showed the moon landing sites from straight above, the moon-bats said they were fake. Surprise, surprise. And if you were to take the leading "birther", whoever that might be, directly into the state archives and show him the Obama BC, he would declare it a fake. Guarantee ya. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it looks like the article may have been cleaned up a little since I was last there. The term "conspiracy theory" is unduly loaded, dismissive and inherently mocking. I note the article gratuitously uses the term numerous times within the first few paragraphs. As I've argued on the article's talk page, theories about his citizenship (none of which, BTW, I believe) don't necessary involve a "conspiracy" and certainly don't meet the WP definition of a "conspiracy theory" - in that they don't require, "...conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning." I'm told the use of that term doesn't need to be consistent. I disagree. Simply calling them "theories" and describing the arguments pro and con would allow the reader to draw his own conclusions - which one would assume are that the theories are invalid. If they really are absurd, the appropriate treatment would seem to be to treat the arguments with all due care and deference, and then explain briefly why they are almost certainly false. I note also that the article has grown to a ridiculous size and is poorly structured. John2510 (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To call them just "theories" without the "conspiracy" qualifier would be misleading. It would give undue weight. If you prefer "fringe theories", maybe. But they are not proper "theories". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calling something a "theory" or a "claim" doesn't give it any weight - due or otherwise. That's the point. There's nothing good to be gained by slapping on a POV qualifier in front of the label. John2510 (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, a reasonable compromise to achieve NPOV in the article as a whole would be to drop the "consipiracy" label, reference them as "fringe" theories in the opening paragraph, and then go on to address the arguments on both sides in as fair a manner as possible. The reader will presumably conclude that the theories are invalid and somewhat kooky... but he'll do that without WP ramming it down his throat. I seem to recall the article used to call them "false claims," which was even worse from an NPOV perspective than the current version. John2510 (talk) 18:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've always believed in following the sources. If reliable sources call it a "conspiracy theory", then it's proper for Wikipedia to do so as well. OTOH, I have sometimes noticed a tendency towards always inserting the word "conspiracy" before every single mention of the word "theories" which can sometimes become repetitive. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary break number 5 (outside opinions of fringiness)

These claims are baseless. The facts are, reliable sources describe the Birther claims as "conspiracy theories"(these just in the last week or two). It is not POV to describe them as such, and there are a plethora of reliable sources that describe them both as conspiracy theories and fringe views. In fact, the claims by the OP and a couple others here that wish to give "equal weight" to fringe views is the real problem. Both by Wikipedia guidelines and reliable sourced reality. I was reading but ignoring this thread, hoping an uninvolved Admin would just close it and the requested move down, because we have to go through these hoops and ladders in what seems like every other month or so. Many times with the same editors chiming in to declare the article POV. Perhaps we need a more detailed FAQ for the page, these claims are made way too often. Dave Dial (talk) 19:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that a detailed FAQ would be helpful. In the RfC, several editors mentioned past arguments but an uninvolved editor will have no idea what those arguments were. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no 'POV Entrenchment', the is a WP:Fringe theory that is not accepted as mainstream consensus and will never be without better evidence to the contrary. It may be a pain to go back in the archives and discover all of this, but that doesn't change this fact. SeanNovack (talk) 19:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And how many articles describe the theories without using that judgmental label? The fact that some articles choose to make judgment calls doesn't mean WP must or should. A lot of reliable sources say that the New York Yankees are the greateast baseball team ever. Maybe they are, but I don't think WP needs to take a stand on that. As I said, WP seems reasonably objective on the Yeti and Bigfoot. I think it can let the reader draw his own conclusions here. WP tries to set a particularly high standard for objectivity, and there's simply no reason to make an exception here. Some people use FAQ's to intimidate editors and inappropriately suggest that an issue is closed to discussion. What new information would you see being added to "a more detailed FAQ?" John2510 (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "birthers" are indeed the entrenched POV-pushers. If evidence emerged that Obama was not in fact a natural born citizen, it would be accepted by the mainstrem. So far, no such evidence has emerged. And in the opposite case, if new and further-solid evidence were provided that should satisfy most doubters, the true "birthers" will continue to claim that it's a lie, just as the Apollo moon hoax believers and the flat earth believers do. It is not wikipedia's purpose to aid and abet their crusade. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John, the bottom line is that we have to follow the sources. If they are calling this a conspiracy theory, then it's against NPOV to call it something else. We don't introduce bias to counter the bias of reliable sources. To answer your question about what I would like to see in the FAQ, in the RfC, several editors mentioned past arguments but an uninvolved editor will have no idea what those arguments were. I'd like to see a good paragraph or two explanation summarizing these past discussions. Can FAQs be misused to stifle debate? Sure. But we're supposed to assume good faith. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quest, maybe I did it wrong but it looks like "Obama+birth+certificate+controversy" pulls up 973,000 while "Obama+birth+certificate+conspiracy+theory" pulls up 391,000.[28][29] Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great minds must think alike, I just did a google hit count for the article talk page, and got 6.8 million hits for "Obama + citizenship". Probably "eligibility" is the most general concept, but not the most used term. The birth certificate is a part of it, but not the whole issue. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

US Google, no sets of terms in quotes unless noted:

Obama citizenship controversy: 1,960,000
Obama citizenship conspiracy: 2,110,000
birther: 3,100,000
birther controversy: 404,000
birther conspiracy: 477,000
"where's the birth certificate" controversy: 297,000
"where's the birth certificate" conspiracy: 230,000

--NapoliRoma (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.Grantevans2: This is the type of argument that would impress me. However, the problem with Google hits is that it returns web sites that don't qualify as reliable sources. When you limit it to sources which are reliable, I get:

Obama birth certificate controversy - 383 hits[30]
Obama birth certificate conspiracy theory - 217 hits[31]

Another metric I like to use is the Google News Archive Search.

Obama birth certificate controversy - 551 hits[32]
Obama birth certificate conspiracy theory - 519 hits[33]

NapoliRoma: There's a flaw in your first search string. "Obama citizenship controversy" returns hits on other topics such the controversy over the citizenship of illegal immigrants. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, many of the results from the "Birth certificate controversy" hits are from non-reliable sources concerning this issue. Two of the top hits are from DavidDuke.com and WND. Google News is the search that should matter most, and the results speak for themselves.

Obama "conspiracy theories" 490 recent results
Obama "citizenship controversy" 0 recent results
Obama "conspiracy theories" 3,390 Archive results
Obama "citizenship controversy" 7 Archive results Dave Dial (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Google counts vary from minute to minute, but using the above as a model I tested another choice:

birther 2,216 recent results (2,222 on a rerun)
birther 3,140 Archive results

Unlike "conspiracy theory", these would not include hits based on religion conspiracy theories, and are less likely to be inflated by hits to the Wikipedia article or its clones and mirrors. It's also more concise, already deemed widespread enough to be a redirect to the present article, and arguably no more POV or deprecatory than the current title. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... This really cuts to the core of WP objectivity and standing behind NPOV. Who officially defines "reliable sources" in your search engine? Sources generally don't support the current POV of the article. We're apparently now getting into weighing "reliability" or, as you would have it, deferring to an oracle of reliablity. Does WP want to trust that source? Doesn't it make more sense to have a free exchange of ideas and let the listener decide? I guess that's a uniquely American and obsolete approach I have. John2510 (talk) 02:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Search engines are a tool but used this way all they can do is show notability and NOT "reliability". There are "tags" you can use to eliminate the garbage. For instance in the books section of google you can use "inpublisher" to limit the search to only know reliable publishers. THis is what is needed to sort the wheat form the schaff--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Received opinion is that Obama was born inside the United States. Deviant opinions should not be presented as if they had parity. TFD (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John2510 seems to not understand about WP:WEIGHT, especially in regard to fringe theories, and that WP is not a WP:SOAPBOX for the trumpeting of little discredited views. It is a disservice to the readers (listeners) if unequal views are given "equal" status. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John2510 has received several warnings and advice on his talk page about these matters, and was also informed that the article is under probation, so he's not ignorant about this. If he doesn't change his approach here, then the probationary sanctions may need to be enforced with a topic ban. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brangifer (talk), with respect, I don't see where John2510 has really done anything wrong here nor has he been as assumptive,ad hominem and combative as Baseball Bugs or Wikidemon,imo, (but I don't think either of them have done anything here to warrant sanctions either); since you bring this sanction matter up, could you please clarify specifically why you think John's approach is more worth mentioning here than Baseball's, for example? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 01:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's utterly unwelcome and uncalled for, Mr.Grantevans2. Please desist from broadside attacks on other editors here. We've had a lot of trouble on these articles, and as someone new to this it would be better to jump in on the side of improving the encyclopedia instead of championing the troublemakers. Take a step back, and try to comment on the substance of the conversation or the content of the encyclopedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ok; plus, the more I looked at this, the more I have come to the view that the pov pushing is emanating almost entirely, if not entirely, from the RSs rather than from the Editors. If so, this might negate the existance of a NPOV issue altogether. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable source can possibly claim that Obama was born anywhere besides Hawaii. They can, of course, report what the "birthers" are saying. Consider this,[34] from USAToday.com yesterday, which discusses the birther junk and also points out that the full BC that the birthers keep yelping about is confidential and cannot be seen by anyone who's not authorized, not even the person whose BC it is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody can say for sure what RSs are going to claim in the future. I just read the USA article and it just raises more skepticism of the claims being made by Reliable Sources. The main one being that the President himself can not get a copy of his original Certificate of Live Birth; USA Today includes this about the original long form certificate which Hawaii has; "But those documents are state government property that can’t be released to anyone, even the president himself." Most everyone knows that is utter bullshit. The President could do it by executive order, or, much more likely, by picking up the phone and calling the Governor. Then as a source they have a former health director who says, in part; “It should not be an issue, and I think people need to focus on the other bad things going on in our country and in our state and figure out what we’re going to do about those things.” as if the citizens care about the political views of a former state employee. Then, why is the grandparents' address used? Didn't Obama's parents have their own place? Then there is the misleading statement; ... “certification of live birth” released by the Obama campaign three years ago, the only type of birth certificate the state issues". which seems misleading by intent (by leaving out the word "currently" and giving the impression to some Readers that there exists no other type). Then I now see from our BLP on his mother that she appeared in Washington state with Obama when he was 1 month old and did not return to Hawaii for over a year. Anyone who has had a baby knows its unusual to be relocating and travelling that distance within a month of giving birth. All of this is to show why I disagree with Baseball about his view that no reliable source can possibly claim (in the future)that Obama was born anywhere besides Hawaii. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My goodness. I think you should just stay away from conspiracy theory articles. There is a conspiracy in every corner for you, and that can't lead to reasonable editing of those types of articles. Dave Dial (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just know when something is utter bullshit, and for USA Today to say, or give the impression, that the President of the United States can not get a copy of his own original long form Birth Certificate (which currently exists within Hawaii State records) is insulting the intelligence of every one of us, imo. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, I don't know or have an opinion whether there is any conspiracy at all regarding this matter; but I do think that its not unreasonable for Trump and others to be asking questions and that it is incompetent and/or biased the way those questions are being dealt with by main stream media. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence David Kusch said in the NOVA program "The Case of the Bermuda Triangle" that all that is needed for something to get into the mass public mind is to ask the question. Let's face it as far as Occam's razor goes, there is no more credibility to the Obama is not a US citizen claim then where was for Kusch's examples of Rhett Butler living in Ohio somewhere or aliens kidnapping a parrot to teach them human language.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable source right now can be claiming that Obama was born anywhere in Hawaii, because the only credible evidence says that he was born there. And by what magical authority do you imagine that Obama can override the state laws of Hawaii? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball, you may be correct about "right now".Also, I have concluded that I made an error in judgment by thinking that the article's Editors are being substantially non-neutral in their editing of the article. I don't believe that anymore...if I may borrow an old phrase,bastardize it, and address it to myself : It's not the Editors, "it's the Reliable Sources, Stupid!" Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what I'm saying is that if a source seriously believes the birther stuff, then that source is not reliable. Reporting the phenomenon is a different matter. Obviously, plenty of legitimate sources are reporting the fact that there is such a group as "birthers". Like legitimate sources that report on believers of flying saucers, bigfoot, etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I think we are together on the important aspects of this article's development; and in terms of what is a Reliable Source, that,fortunately, is not for me (or you) to determine unilaterally. It will be interesting to me if a copy of his long form, more detailed birth certificate is officially and publicly released(perhaps by Obama himself) sometime and to see what it actually does say. Just from a historical perspective. If you are correct, then it might do a lot to give these types of theories less oxygen in the future. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations to Baseballbugs,Wikidemon,Looneymonkey,Ravensfire etc. You were right all along, both in fact and (in retrospect) in approach. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1953 Iranian coup d'etat

[35] is presented as (edit summary) undoing User:Collect's major edits, for which he has no WP:Consensus

Is the change in lede back to the huge version (which, by the way, was not removed from the article) an advance to NPOV? Was the shorter lede more NPOV in any event? Does the article have significant POV issues? Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your shorter version is a good start to the general housecleaning needed at that article. Binksternet (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is an open RFC and an ongoing discussion about the Lead. One user, be it User:Collect or anyone else, cannot just take matters into his own hand in the middle of an ongoing process, and unilaterally re-write the lead, in order to bypass the RFC/Consensus-building process. This is not how Wikipedia works. Kurdo777 (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD has not been repealed. Collect (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manila hostage crisis

An editor added this note to one of the Chinese gov't response to the incident. I just want to know if this violates WP:NPOV.—Chris!_c/t 01:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please offer an opinion? Thanks.—Chris!_c/t 18:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Three other editors agreed that it met NPOV, yet you still want to drag ths here. Brilliant~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 07:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point of adding that information. There is already a link to the Global Times article. We don't say the BBC is an autonomous public service broadcaster that operates under a Royal Charter and is owned by The Crown. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It requires your intervention

The article is devoted to criticism of theory. But in fact protects theory against critics by hiding the facts.

There are others views:

But authors of articles do not want to see them. Пуанкаре (talk) 06:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:This is a piece of Forum shopping. The user has already started a discussion about this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#What is it?, and all comments should go there, rather than fragmenting discussion of the question. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He was instructed there to come here to the NPOVN. Lambanog (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lambanog is correct, this is the correct venue. The discussion required no administrator involvement at all, so he was directed to the appropriate noticeboard, which is this one. --Jayron32 05:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly true. It was a very careless mistake on my part. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asatric/Vanatric (Germanic) Christiantiy

Resolved

Germanic Saints?

Are there any official Germanic saints?

Grevenko Sereth 122.49.167.49 (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think? Which religion? What article does this pertain to?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place for this kind of question - you can find help for this at the Wikipedia:Reference_desk. When you do post this question there, please elaborate on what you want to know. You cannot give to much information. I am marking your question here as resolved because there is nothing more to be done here. Please post again if you do not understand what needs to happen next. Blue Rasberry (talk) 07:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thor (film) Idris Elba

We're trying to work out what to do with the Thor (film) page. Basically, there has been some controversy stir about Idris Elba and a very, very small minority of white supremacists threatened at the time to Boycott the film.

1 Here is the current version

What I am suggesting is that, it is not neutral, it gives far too much weight to this controversy stir. There is no mention whatsoever of anything except Idris addressing the controversy stir. Compare the character cast to all the others in this article and you can tell that there is something clearly wrong. I have attempted to rectify the issue, but have been unable to get through. I suggest only the following is needed on this section about the controversy stir:

News of Elba's casting was met by online complaints from some comic book fans and white supremacists who saw it as inappropriate for a Norse deity to be played by a black actor. Kenneth called the controversy stir "daft".

or

News of Elba's casting was met by online complaints from some comic book fans and white supremacists who saw it as inappropriate for a Norse deity to be played by a black actor. Idris called the controversy stir "ridiculous".

The rest of the article should not address the controversy stir at all, but how Idris felt playing the part, based on WP:NPOV. Therefore the following should be deleted: "In response Elba said, "We have a man [Thor] who has a flying hammer and wears horns on his head. And yet me being an actor of African descent playing a Norse god is unbelievable? I mean, Cleopatra was played by Elizabeth Taylor, and Gandhi was played by Ben Kingsley".^[2] At the moment, there is NO mention of how Idris feels, or his thoughts about playing the part. It's all just addressing this blown-out-of-proportion controversy stir. It's too weighty in my opinion. For the past week or so I have tried to get this through but to no avail. And just to clarify what Wikipedia policy says: "To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. " ~~KN→~~ ^{talk • contribs} 09:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of this controversy stir is even mentioned on the Heimdall (comic) page, which I have left a comment about: see here. ~~KN→~~ ^{talk • contribs} 11:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dont want to get into another drawn out discussion here but will offer a single rebuttal to the above and leave it at that. The current version is only two sentences; one stating the boycott and other is Elba's response. This is fair weight. Reducing Elba's response to a single word, unbalances the issue and reduces much of Elba's defense, that he so craftfully articulated. Unfortunately due to the media attention that the boycott has received, Elba statements have been mostly confined to addressing this issue and has not offered much information of any substance regarding the role itself. So any lack of content is not fault of Wikipedia or any bias, we work with what is available. Conficutus did suggest the following comment from Elba, "But Kenneth hadn't even given that a thought. He just needed an actor who has presence and command, and felt that I fitted the bill...It was so refreshing – and a testament to [Kenneth] as an actor and director that his casting was genuinely colour blind. I feel very proud of being part of that movie." Myself and couple of other editors stated that this particular quote offers no insight to the role itself. Elba here is simply stating that he was hired because he was right the person for the job (as is everyone else involved) and expressing his gratitude towards director Kenneth Branagh for hiring him (again not notable). The length of some of the other sections are longer because they do offer more insight (i.e. preparation, inspiration/influence, interpretation, etc.).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the issue isn't how to balance opinions about the controversy... the issue is whether to mention this so called "controversy" at all. I think mentioning it in the first place blows the idea that there really is a "controversy" way out of proportion, and gives undue weight to minority opinions. Blueboar (talk) 14:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so too originally, but it has received significant media coverage and is notable per WP:N. This was also discussed on the talk page, others have suggested to create an entire section detailing the "controversy" but we agreed a simple mention in its current location is fair weight.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Blueboar of course, and disagree with TriiipleThreat. WP:NPOV states "To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.", which is what exactly what is occuring on this article. In regards TriiipleThreat mentioning of what has been discussed, I disagree. The talk page shows very few and far between talks about this. If, this controversy should get a mention, it should certainly only be restricted to a sentence, or two maximum. As it currently stands, the Idris Elba Heimdall cast section describes nothing about Idris Elba's role and everything about the controversy stir. If that isn't WP:UNDUE, what is? As I wrote on 15:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC) WP:NPOV says: "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.""An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." and "Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view .". If this has been any other article, it would have recieved a ^{[undue weight? – discuss]} template a long time ago, and no doubt been deleted.
WP:FILMCAST says: "Background information about the cast and crew should be provided, ideally as well-written prose. There are several ways to provide such information: Halloween contains "Writing", "Casting", "Direction" and "Music" subsections within the "Production" section, which uses well-written prose to describe the casting and staffing decisions made, as well as discussing the reasons behind some of the cast decisions, the thoughts of the actors themselves about their roles, and some brief explorations of their careers before and after the film ". The Idris Elba section completely contradicts this policy. Currently the section is devoted to highlighting a small controversy stir. It's a contradiction of WP:UNDUE and WP:FILMCAST ~~KN→~~ ^{talk • contribs} 19:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And just to add, a recent development on the Thor page was a third opinion offered, which resulted in another dead end solution. [36] and of course User:TriiipleThreat's flawed reasoning [37]. ~~KN→~~ ^{talk • contribs} 19:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have concluded that if the WP:NPOVN decide that the controversy should be mentioned, it can be addressed in one sentence: ""Online complains about Idris casting for a Norse god were passed off as "daft" by Kenneth and "ridiculous" by Idris." that would be WP:BALANCE and wouldn't be so WP:UNDUE. I would like some input from others on the board though. ~~KN→~~ ^{talk • contribs} 20:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Despite User:TriiipleThreat's claims of little information to put in the WP:FILMCAST section of Idris, I have compiled this: information suitable for filmcast section I would appreciate opinions, thank you. ~~KN→~~ ^{talk • contribs} 17:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm only now seeing that this conversation has begun on the Notice Board, I'd like to weigh in as one of the editors working on Thor (film) and commenting on its talk apge.

First, I want to say that Conflictus, or KN, has been bombarding the talk page for several days and seems unable to accept consensus. He has made unwarranted, easily disprovable accusations of tag-teaming and unclean hands, without backing them up, and has shown bad faith in general. Most recently, he appears to be trying to circumvent consensus by putting his version of the article on the talk page.

The contention here, remarkably, is over a single two-sentence passage. The current page reads: "Elba's casting prompted a boycott by the Council of Conservative Citizens and a debate amongst some comic book fans, insisting it was wrong for a black man to play a Nordic god. In response Elba called the debate, 'ridiculous'.[30][31]" This plainly worded two-sentence passage has nothing WP:UNDUE about it. Conflictus believes we should not name the organization; other editors feel it would be irresponsible not to attribute the issue to a named organization when that organization is publicly known.

Conflictus shows an extremely high level of interest in Elba and in no other aspect of this film, leading me to feel, from past experience with publicists and others who come to Wikipedia and who have behaved in similar manner, that perhaps this interest is professional. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To me it looks like a relatively minor matter to get all excited about. Still if it was up to me I'd reduce it to a single line or two, one stating the call to boycott and another in response, then add information related to Idris playing the character unrelated to race issues. As it currently stands the wording could be interpreted as much a promotion for being a racial friendly film as white supremacist hate. Also is the film out already? The wording for the boycott is in the present tense. Lambanog (talk) 08:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. This is what I'm saying. Why is the boycott mentioned in present case and why has it stayed this way for months? Well whenever I ask these questions, I get told that I'm going against consensus. ":*News of Elba's casting as a Norse deity caused a small racial controversy which Idris called "ridiculous" and Kenneth called "daft"" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conficutus (talk • contribs) 14:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was released already in Australia; I think it's this weekend for the U.S. Not sure about anywhere else. From some blogs I follow that have pointed out the controversy, I gather that the race-based objectors are still actively trying to encourage/organize their little boycott so present tense may be appropriate (hard to tell since it's blog tag in sites reacting to the stupid). Millahnna (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Hovind

Resolved

I would like to dispute the neutrality of the article on this man, specifically one sentence in the first paragraph. This is what I stated on that page's discussion board:

Putting aside that evolution itself requires a belief that a creator DOES NOT EXIST (as pointed out by some prominent evolutionists,) the statement, "Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence and research" is a blatant POV violation. First, the footnotes to that sentence link to talkorigins.org, which is a pro-evolution site so it is clearly not even a POV source. Second, the footnotes in question from talkorigins misrepresent their sources. In reponse to Hovind's claim that the geological column does not exist anywhere except in textbooks, they state, "John Woodmorappe, a young-earth creationist, has admitted that representative strata from the Cambrian to the Tertiary have been discovered lying in their proper order in Iran, by the Caspian, the Himalayas, Indonesia, Australia, North Africa, Canada, South America, Japan, Mexico, and the Philippines!" However, that statement by talkorigins is contradicted by Mr. Morappe himself who had this to say in an article titled, "The Geologic Column: Does it Exist?" : "Sometimes the motives of creationist researchers are challenged in an attempt to defend the concept of the geologic column. Consider, for instance, Glenn Morton’s tale of how I ‘set out to prove that the geologic column did not exist’, and then was forced to admit that it did. This fantasy has been picked up and repeated by other anti-creationists on the Internet without first checking what I actually wrote. The fact of the matter is, I in no sense tried to prove that the geologic column did not exist. The truth is that I already knew it didn’t! Nor was I in any way surprised to find that there are some places where lithologies attributed to all ten geologic periods can be found. I had known that long before. So had other informed creationists,[9] as pointed out earlier. In fact, I said so plainly on the first page of my article."

Morappe also goes on to say towards the end of his article, "There are a number of locations on the earth where all ten periods of the Phanerozoic geologic column have been assigned. However, this does not mean that the geological column is real. Firstly, the presence or absence of all ten periods is not the issue, because the thickness of the sediment pile, even in those locations, is only a small fraction (8–16% or less) of the total thickness of the hypothetical geologic column. Without question, most of the column is missing in the field. " The Geologic Column: Does It Exist?

Talkorigins then goes on to cite as another peice of evidence a second-hand relay of a phonecall between Edward Babinski and Glenn Morton. the same Glenn Morton who Morappe disputed in the paragraph above. So to say that this is research and scientific evidence is TOTALLY not accurate and clearly point of view. The proper sentence in the first paragraph should read, "Hovind's views, not surprisingly, are challenged by evolutionists," which is a factual and objective sentence.

The page has been locked and the original POV sentence has been retained. Therefore, I would like a POV tag placed on this article until a proper substitute sentence is placed. Thank you. — Dimestore (talk) 13:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The information which you are stating is in the first paragraph is not currently in the lede, and I see no other problems with the lede. Besides that, an administrator unlocked the article today so anyone can make any changes or put any tags on it as they like. Thanks for trying to talk this through on the article's talk page. If you have any further problems, continue to discuss them on the article's talk page and if that is not effective then post on this board and someone from here will join the discussion on that talk page.

Because the information you opposed is gone and because tagging the article is possible now that it is unlocked, I am marking your request for help as resolved. Blue Rasberry (talk) 07:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

American Israel Public Affairs Committee

Resolved

A new editor is making some very problematic changes to the lede of American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Specifically, he's adding information to a reference that doesn't appear on the website referenced (that: "AIPAC traces its history back to 1951, the date its founder left the employment of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs in New York." and is replacing some general lede-appropriate summary information with a very specific reference to an FBI file that is mentioned elsewhere in the article. I am particularly disturbed that the editor chose to include a quote about an allegation made against the organization while leaving off the part of the quote that stated the allegation was "unsubstantiated". Here is his latest edit. (removed by Bluerasberry). GabrielF (talk) 19:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your link seems to not work; I think this is what you wanted to show. There is another user discussing this problem on the article talk page, and this person seems to have good ideas about solving it. Be bold and fix the problem and work with other editors on the talk page. If you have further problems then please state them here and propose what you would like done in response. Since you did not state any specific action which you wanted done, and since you have the attention of another user on that page anyway, I am marking your statement as resolved. Blue Rasberry (talk) 07:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coconut oil

I'm in a content dispute with some editors at coconut oil. Could people here give an assessment as to whether I'm being pig-headed or the other parties are being unreasonable? I'd probably accede to the wishes of the other parties more readily if their edits didn't overlap so much, if the article was being improved before I took an interest in it, and I got the feeling they're going to build it if I left it to them—but I don't.

They say I'm pushing a POV but in my defense I'd say the tone and POV of the version of the article I'm working on isn't substantially different from what one sees in this New York Times article: Once a Villain, Coconut Oil Charms the Health Food World. Moreover I'm backing up my additions with detailed sources that contain discussion and I've brought a great many of them to the RS Noticeboard where some were supported; and while others received no comment, IIRC I don't think any I kept in were rejected. The sources I am adding are then being removed wholesale at the article with little productive discussion and my edits reverted with seemingly little critical thought. Detailed sources supporting their position are not being provided by them, therefore there is an imbalance of material to work with, and that is used as a pretext to remove information I have added.

Here is a comparison of the article versions: (current) (my preferred version) (diff).

Thank you for your comments and suggestions on the correct way to proceed. Lambanog (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm partly involved but don't think I'm under the 'opposition' category. My reading here is that for medical claims about the actual scientific consensus we have to rely on MEDRS strictly, and although it's begun to change in the last year, is still pretty strongly in the coconut oil=saturated fat=bad camp. There might be some room for addressing the recent changes in literature, especially if they mention coconut oil specifically. There is a socio-cultural aspect, however, which is separate from that, which we can report on as well albeit in a different area. It might be the case that scientific consensus is still that coconut oil should be limited or avoided due to saturated fat content--but it also might be the case than many natural health advocates and consumers have turned on to it, believing the saturated fat link was overstated. What we can't due is equate the natural health popularity with a change in scientific consensus. And whatever we say about changing scientific consensus should be pretty conservative and sourced directly to meta-analyses and literature reviews which discuss any changing consensus specifically. Ocaasi ^c 13:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confuse by this notice. Perhaps Lambanog can explain better? He seems to be saying that the only (main? predominant?) pov for the article should be those expressed in a single NYTimes reference? --Ronz (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see non sequiturs creeping in that could confuse the issue. So here is a bit of background to the debate that people can follow up if they choose: Over the last couple of decades, researches that have bothered to re-evaluated the literature to try and square the contradictions that changing diets have brought to light, and have came to realise the fear of saturated fat was largely the invention of the oilseed rape industry. There claims where not simple over-statements (were that phase comes from I don't know) but untrue comparisons and poor science. Obviously, oil is a high energy source and one should not over consume. It is good science that should be sifted out from the bad and the bad identified for what it is, rather than a summation of decade old studies that still swamp the literature. Whilst I've seen many outlandish claims emanating from the health food sector, they are correct in the case of pointing out that saturated fats are better to fry with -if one insists on frying. They ought to be pointing out as well, that frying is not a good way to cook food in the first place. This is also based on science, it encourages the formation of harmful compounds in the food. The NYT is hardly a good reference though, as what standing does its author hold? It might be better to look for references that compare the suitability of fats for cooking with. --Aspro (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Ocaasi sums up pretty accurately the situation that I can see here (hey O - remember this next time we disagree :)). Statements as to what is backed by actual research should be sourced to nice, standard, reliable reviews, following the guidelines at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Check out CONSORT for more. To Aspro's statement I would add that some care is necessary when trying to determine the level of controversy on a medical topic. If the dissent in the literature stems solely a few primary reports in low-tier journals, a few research groups citing each other as a walled garden, or proposed study outcomes that are not borne out by the data, then the article should make minimal or no mention of it. If more recent reviews in top notch journals are mentioning some facet that older reviews missed, it is probably apt to mention the effect as an emerging development without taking a stance regarding the ultimate outcome. There is also a place for discussion of what other people say about coconut oil - its cultural impact, if you will. This latter section must tread very carefully around undue weight, provide explicit in-line attribution for specific statements, and provide necessary context where indicated. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue seems to be most editors would like to reflect the current consensus that coconut oil is a highly saturated fat, which has been associated in the past with heart disease and premature death. Several authors have noted that this may not be the case. Both these points are found on the coconut oil page. Lambanog seems to want to include a fairly detailed summary of all the reasons why coconut oil might not be bad for you - it's the same fats found in breast milk, it's medium-chain fatty acids, it has antibacterial properties in vitro, and more. I don't believe the inclusion of primary research articles and popular books should be used to source these sorts of statements, which strongly suggest coconut oil is a health food for humans and will prevent/treat disease/disability. I particularly object to including articles that don't mention coconut oil at all, but merely talk about some of the fats found in coconut oil, I see that as a synthesis (i.e. Medium chain fatty acids are bactericidal in vitro. Coconut oil contains medium chain fatty acids. Therefore coconut oil is an antibiotic). I am not opposed to the idea that coconut oil is good for you - I think that the research base and scholarly consensus is still equivocal and preliminary, and though investigations are starting in that direction, they have not yet arrived at that conclusion.

The Talk:Coconut oil#NPOV tag section was started yesterday with a purpose of figuring out what was non-neutral about the page - essentially three editors agreed to see what Lambanog's issue was. Lambanog instead posted on this noticeboard. I would prefer this discussion continue at talk:coconut oil since there is an active effort to describe and resolve the dispute and this simply scatters the discussion across at least two different pages. If it can not be resolved there, at least we could agree on what the core dispute was, and then we could bring it up here for outside input. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WLU, I'm not opposed to a few more opinions floating in. If I can conjecture, Lambanog wanted to make sure it wasn't a biased sample, if you will. I'm also more in the camp of 'attribute and explain'. If there's a minority/fringe view that lauric acid=antibiotic=antiviral=cures aids, I'm happy to include that in the context of saying the theory has no mainstream support. It's just interesting to describe the theory, and in this case where there is actually 1 clear minority opinion, mainly coming from the Price/Pottenger/Enig/WAPF/Fannon camp, it's not unfeasible to do. Maybe it needs to be made clear that that fringe idea doesn't even appear in literature, it's just bandied around natural health websites and communities and some popular science coverage in newspapers. I think you and 2/0 see that as a MEDRS/Weight violation, but I've never been opposed to sourcing those types of claims if they are represented as minority/fringe explicitly or included in the sociocultural section rather than the consensus literature section. That might also vary depending on the article, and those fringe ideas are more appropriate on pages more proximate to them, like Mary Enig. Anyway, I'm more concerned that if we cover the fringe theory at Coconut oil that we just describe it obviously as the fringe story that's gotten recent of predominantly non-academic buzz or some graduated version of that for the different levels of attention for respective parts. MEDRS-loyalists tend to avoid that approach, but I find it encyclopedic, too, if done carefully (2/0, are we still chummy?). Ocaasi ^c 18:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chummy like Chum Chum chumming chum in a chum. I generally see that sort of thing as a big red flag indicating extra caution to make sure that proper context and attribution are provided. Sometimes we need to dial the weight down to zero (mentioning David Icke at Elizabeth II would be a canonical example), but I actually like reading about weird stuff as long as it is not misrepresented. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean her majesty is not a reptile god?... I've thought about trying to propose a section related to ALTMED in MEDRS explaining how to handle alternate/fringe theories in serious articles, as either criticism of widespread consensus which has become socially notable or notable within altmed circles--or as fringe theory that can be explained without being endorsed. Despite the ahbvious benefits of such an approach, many scientifically minded editors respond to that idea like sharks in a chum-filled sea. Ocaasi ^c 20:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'm not even sure what the dispute is over anymore. Looking at the health section of Lambanog's "preferred version", there's only one real sentence I would outright remove (the importation of the saturated fat dispute using an article that doesn't mention coconut oil at all), and I'd move the information on breast milk to another part of the page, but otherwise there's some minor wordsmithing and reference checks that need to be done but that's about it. This is again why I would like to see a clear statement of what the problem is at talk:coconut oil rather than bother discussing it here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You as good as warned me on my talk page not to edit the article. Are you saying now that you will no longer prevent me from updating my preferred version? Lambanog (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I object to you updating "your version". I have no problem with you or anyone else making or proposing changes and then accepting the input of other editors to arrive at a consensus. I'm still not sure why you haven't stated what you think are the relevant issues on the coconut oil talk page so we can remove the NPOV tag. A variety of long-term, dedicated editors have engaged on the talk page, let's use all of our experience to produce an improved version rather than edit warring over what appear to be minor disagreements. The whole idea of one person having a preferred version is contrary to the spirit of a collaborative encyclopedia. I, along with the other editors, are happy to discuss changes in order to arrive at an acceptable version - but I don't think we are prepared to grant any one account sole custody of a contested page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on the article to improve it, make it more informative. That's my reason for editing it. Now tell me, what's your reason for editing the article? Are you there to improve the article? You've apparently been monitoring that article for a considerable time and I don't see you adding to it and improving it unless pressed. So what is your purpose there and in contesting my edits? My objection to the edits I see from others is the obstructionist nature of them and the apparent fixation on a narrow POV not reflected in sources that cover the whole subject. Looking at the article history and archives I notice there have been efforts to add information to the article in the past but they were reversed by you. Maybe you had good reason to but it does not seem clear to me you explained yourself and you aren't explaining yourself sufficiently now. Your consensus is composed of editors who have similar profiles patrolling overlapping pages and ignores statements by other editors made in the past; forgive me if I'd like input from a broader spectrum of editors to determine that there is as much consensus as you say there is especially when you speak in terms of granting custody of a page—it comes off too much like ownership. Lambanog (talk) 11:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lambanog, the problem was replacing the article wholesale with your version, effectively alternating the mainpage between two different drafts. It's hard to follow, confuses the article history, and doesn't actually lead to fusing the proposed changes. No one is stopping you from developing a proposal or keeping an alternate draft in your userspace or the article talkspace so others can see it and compare and comment (in fact, I'd like to see it). We just can't jump back and forth between two completely different drafts. Ocaasi ^c 21:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument doesn't make sense to me. By editing as I have, you see the incremental improvements I am making step-by-step. That is the opposite of the wholesale change you suggest is taking place. Indeed, if I was to follow your advice and edit in a subpage then dump it into the article history when done—that would be a wholesale change. As for we just cannot jump back and forth between drafts—why not? I've been able to improve the version I'm working on just fine. As I've explained to you already it's actually much easier this way: easier to access, easier to update, easier to assess, among other benefits. Lambanog (talk) 11:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is that after completing your alternate version, you would propose it for discussion. Also, you are not self-reverted consistently, leaving your version up on the page, which is some form of a slow edit war. I don't wish to track two separate articles. Please propose specific individual changes in specific individual sections. Or create an entirely separate draft not in article space and then propose it for review or RfC. This is just not how articles are edited. Imagine if I had my preferred version and WLU had a preferred version. We don't just rotate around multiple drafts. I'm going to move your version into a talkspace draft where you can edit it. I'll place a link on the talk page. Talk:Coconut_oil/ExtendedDraft. -- Ocaasi ^c 14:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of pre-emptive action and instruction that has been characteristic of edits on the talk page and article is not conducive to getting me on board with your wishes much as your tagging the article NPOV and saying it is done for me without my input was not optimal.

Could you explain your purpose in tracking the versions? Comparing selected revisions via diffs generated from the article history is much easier than comparing current version to a version in a subpage.

The version I am working on pretty much highlights all the areas where I see improvements can be made. You and WLU could just as easily comment on them instead of asking me to repeat myself on the talk page. I note from the preceding comments above it seems that WLU did not even look at my improvements to see what he could agree with before reverting them and you have not commented on the particulars of my edits either despite saying that you are tracking them. Lambanog (talk) 05:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The NPOV tag reflected the NPOV dispute. It is localized to that section primarily. If you don't have an NPOV dispute, then remove the tag. If you intend to replace the article with your version, then the NPOV tag has to stay (and possibly be moved to the top of the page) or your version-replacing has to stop, since it is an NPOV dispute.

If you want to propose changes to an individual section, do it on a paragraph by paragraph basis. That is the most efficient way to compare edits. WLU and I are not commenting because specific changes or proposals have not been mentioned rather than the entirely updated version. For controversial articles especially, proposing individual changes is typical, whereas making wholesale revisions to the entire article is almost reverted on sight by practice. If you want to highlight the differences between the entire versions, wait until your proposed draft is finished and then post a diff on the talk page. There's no reason that functionality should be achieved while confusing the edit history and alternating between to different mainspace versions.

If you think the current version does not have consensus, you can seek dispute resolution or page protection. Any of those options are fine, but not just switching between the two drafts without specific proposals to specific sections. Ocaasi ^c 17:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mention the difference between how we approach edits by other users. Before I revert another editor's work I generally check to see if there is any improvements made that should or can be retained. It appears you and WLU do not, but simply revert. The practice does not promote article improvement; I suggest you avoid it in the future.

If we're interested in efficiency, I think it is simpler to start from the version I'm working on since it has more to work with. It has more information backed up by more sources. Please identify the areas you think it isn't better, the nature of the problem, and suggest modifications. Lambanog (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a simple courtesy to other editors to make changes in manageable chunks so that they can be reviewed. Pick a single section, propose or add the change, then leave a note on talk explaining the differences. Dumping an entire draft in against other editors' objections is a good way to have it not looked at. Since I agree that many of your contributions are worth examination, I've requested you do it in a more manageable way. If you mistake that as dismissing your draft, you are confusing a preference for a manageable process with disregard. Ocaasi ^c 22:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have incrementally added to the version I'm working on, "manageable chunks" as it were, yet each time that was done despite tracking the article you said nothing and others reverted uncritically. You are also suggesting to work on a draft in a subpage first, but that will eventually lead to the same situation seen now in which you still seem unsatisfied. I find your advice contradictory and confusing. Lambanog (talk) 09:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lambanog, if you want your edits to have any lasting impact on the page it would be best to simply make your changes or suggest improvements on the talk page. Trying to determine who is in the wrong isn't helping anyone, and since the original disagreements seemed to consist of different interpretations of the same policies, there's almost certainly not a single correct answer. Based on a partial comparison of "your" version with the current page, I've made a variety of edits that incorporates information that was missing from the main page. Feel free to make more. You can keep trying to identify the wronged party and convince everyone else of it, or you can put that time and effort into improving the coconut oil page. You may be surprised at the reception your changes get, no-one here seems to have a personal grudge against you, merely disagreement over what appears to be relatively minor sections of text. Even those who disagreed with you in the past assumed you meant well, and are now trying to resolve the issues. An olive branch has been extended, let's just pick it up and move on. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WLU, I have made my changes; what is lacking is your reasons for reverting them. I brought this to NPOVN because discussion on the talk page didn't seem serious in resolving problems and I find the warning you made on my talk page an unnecessary and questionable impediment. If an olive branch is truly extended, please retract that warning and stop impairing my efforts at improving the article; I will become more amenable to discussing on the talk page. Lambanog (talk) 09:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the edit war warning was to get you to stop alternating between your version with another version. If you stop updating a version other than the one on the main page, there is no issue. Warnings aren't withdrawn, the behaviour is changed and the warning therefore becomes unnecessary. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm pretty much done here, these general discussions don't make any sense when the specifics are what need to be addressed on the talk page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Defamatory BLP on Vito Roberto Palazzolo by "Mafia expert" Don Calo

A BLP exists on Roberto Palazzolo, written by Don Calo, which is defamatory. Palazzolo has a case to answer, of which there is no question; aspects of which I have tackled in many places; see at Reliable Sources Noticeboard and Palazzolo Talk and User Talk Fircks and ANI 679 and ANI 684.

It is difficult to know where to go to in Wikipedia to resolve this very urgent matter, and I have made no progress to date. My apologies if I have been barking up the wrong trees, increasingly frustrated, but a few of the editors concerned appear to be more concerned with the letter of the law (Research, or Advocacy or Wikipedia as a court source or Verifiability or What constitutes a legal threat) while forgetting that a living man is being defamed by Wikipedia. And we all know that Wikipedia exists and thrives because it provides, or promises to provide, a Neutral POV. Roberto Palazzolo is anything but neutral. It is scurrilous and, given that I have pointed out it's errors many times, it is dishonest.

The existing BLP fails to note his side of the story, which has been distorted for many reasons, primarily by the Media. There is now a "given" version of his story, promoted by the Media, who then make weak disclaimers like, "Palazzolo denies all allegations". But the fact is that this is a long (running since 1982) and complex story, and Palazzolo claims he is the victim of a conspiracy. So it is not a BLP an amateur can simply churn out, using newspapers for sources. What I am saying therefore is that this article goes against Wikipedia's central tenet, which is to have a Neutral Point of View. This POV is biased.

It has been difficult to get my point across to Wikipedia. Don Calo merely excised my revisions to the article, as well as those put in by one of Palazzolo's lawyers, so an edit war began. Any interventions I made were treated by Wikipedia as if I had broken into someone's house. I came to warn that the house was on fire (one of your BLP's was defamatory) and was treated, in some cases, like a thief. Someone called [Quabar] on 9th Feb 2011 posted my "abuse" to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/fircks and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. See at Ongoing Vandalism.

There has been some ineffectual slander where, because I had posted Palazzolo's lawyer's presentation to Wikipedia (at http://www.vrpalazzolo.com/?page_id=1983), which was ignored, I must also be a "Mafia guy". Whoever wrote this paragraph failed to sign, with good reason: I'd also like to add that this mafia guy doensn't make the fact that he isnt happy with this article a secret ( see http://www.vrpalazzolo.com/?page_id=1983 ). Id like to point out that the IP (41.182.20.179) that helped vandalize this article is from namibia, and fircks claims that he is a 'friend' of palazzolo. In my opinion there is a big possibility that both firks and the ip are sockpuppets of palazozolo. ill look into the history of the article and see what else i can find. 109.160.184.79 (talk) 11:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Don Calo's defamation continued.

Suffice it to say that I went to the ANI, where you will see that I was advised on many aspects of Wikipedia law including Wikipedia as a Court source. Which was helpful to a degree but what I needed was to research is Wikipedia using court docs as a source (i.e. primary sources). Not the other way around. Palazzolo's case rests on what the judges in 4 countries have said about him, over nearly 30 years. His case does NOT rest on what the newspapers ascribe to him. Least of all the tabloid press. Hence my enquiry, again: Why would someone allow newspapers as the source for a BLP, but not a High Court judge or an internationally acclaimed lawyer? All that anyone can tell me is, in effect, "those are the rules". Allow me to draw your attention to Ignore All Rules, which is the 5th of Wikipedia's 5 pillars, filled with wisdom such as: "Don't follow written instructions mindlessly, but rather, consider how the encyclopedia is improved or damaged by each edit." etc

Well, there is a BLP out there, written by a man who knows nothing about Palazzolo except what he reads in the Mail & Guardian in South Africa. Therefore it is heavily slanted and, given that often the courts have said the opposite, highly defamatory.

I look forward to bringing Palazzolo's case to you. Not his innocence, which will be established in good time in court, if he is innocent, but his side of the story, which is not only compelling but will raise issues that will resonate for many years to come. All he must be allowed to do is match the charge or allegation with the explanation and the court judgement.

This is where everything to date has been written: Vito Roberto Palazzolo; and Reliable Sources Noticeboard and Fircks and Archive 679 and ANI re: Palazzolo

Thank you for your kind attention in this matter.

Fircks (talk) 11:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC) Fircks (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - what happen's now? Will someone look at this and adjudicate? Thanks - Fircks (talk) 11:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guidance requested re use of the word "claim"

Is the use of the word "claim" perjorative in the case of longevity claims about living people? I think it is. Especially when the "claim" may or may not be made by the person whose lifespan is in question. It could be a relative, government, or sloppy reporter making the claim. The World's Oldest People WikiProject could use some outside guidance here. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would a simple answer of "no" suffice?

This seems a bit silly. Are you suggesting that "merely" claiming something is some how more perjorative than a strong assertion of the same claim? Or did someone say that with a certain tone of voice? With a quick glance at the talk page, I think you all haven't really tried to discuss it; you need to work on it some more before coming here. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry it seems silly. I guess I haven't stated it well. I apologize. I'm concerned that a living person will be perceived to have made an untrue claim. But in many cases, the claim is by a reporter, a relative or a government agency. I'm trying to find wording that indicates the info is not verified without attributing the info to the person it's about. The person in question may not have claimed anything of the sort. If the info is not true, the living person ought not be tarred with attribution of a false claim. David in DC (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CLAIM. We normally avoid the word since it does, indeed, carry a slight connotation of doubt or skepticism. I'll reply a bit futher on the relevant talk page. – OhioStandard (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. David in DC (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CLAIM lumps "Assert" in with "Claim". But OS suggested footnotes rather than references to solve the problem. With guidance at WP:FOOT I've avoided "Claim", "Assert" and and another editor's concern about aesthetics. Please review the talk page discussion and my solution on the actual page and opine. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 01:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just use whatever word is supported by sources and is correct. We shouldn't avoid using a word because someone decided it sounds like it carries doubt or skepticism. We're not supposed to move the meaning of articles to suit ourselves, but to suit our sources (and hopefully a dash of common sense). In the case of the oldest person, if there are records supporting the claim, then you can say "according to the blah blah archive, Ellie Mae is 102 years old." But if the best source is just old Ellie Mae and no one can support her story, then it is simply her claim. We're not besmirching Ellie Mae by saying "Ellie Mae claims to be 102 years old, and her recount of events and vivid recall of Theodore Roosevelt visiting her at age seven lend a striking validity to her story."

I agree with Avanu: a dash of common sense. Important these days. That's my claim. :) --Tomwsulcer (talk) 04:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC) --Tomwsulcer (talk) 04:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a list. some of these birthdays are "claimed" by the person. But more often, it's family, local merchandiser/coupon-type press or, if Brazilian, a gov't agency. We're looking for a word that covers all of these cases without imputing negative intent to a living person. WP:CLAIM warns against "claim" and "assert". Reported seems best. For each entry, there is (or should be) a ref explaining who's doing the reporting. David in DC (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a list. If the claim is suspect, either attribute it directly to the person who made the claim (so that it's not wikipedia's problem) or mark it as 'unverified'. --Ludwigs2 23:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The word "claim" is fine. It is value neutral and casts no aspersions whatsoever on the claimant. If one puts a "claim" on a gold find, they may be successful in the claim or they may be not. It is just a "claim". Cam46136 (talk) 06:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)cam46136[reply]

Follow WP:CLAIM and avoid that word. If its necessary, for some reason, to qualify the statement, then attribute it to the person or source, in the text, so that the reader knows its not a widely held fact and can make their own judgment as to its relative merit. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hamid Karzai

The intro of Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai seems to be full of POVs. I don't know if that's how it is done with all other articles on Presidents or someone has with an agenda is at work. Thanks.--Hkrclu (talk) 04:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree the first paragraph is POV-ish. Maybe the controversial material should be moved into the body of the text?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 04:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's already mentioned in the body of the article. The Wikipedia articles should not be written like a news article. In the intro it states "half brother of the prominent drug trafficker and CIA contractor Ahmad Wali Karzai," and right there I find a contradiction because I don't think the CIA is a drug mafia. One would be arrested by the CIA if he/she was a prominent drug trafficker. It then states "Many members of the Karzai clan have engaged in criminal conduct and assumed positions of power and greatly enriched themselves under his regime." I don't see any media reports about the Karzais committing crimes, they became equally rich like all the other Afghans in the country and that's because they hold high positions in the country and are involved in the rapidly growing business sector. For example, one Afghan who was a taxi driver in New York in 2001 now owns one of the largest phone company called Afghan Wireless. There are plenty of other examples who struck it rich in Afghanistan in recent years. I don't see a point in adding this kind of irrelevant information in the lead intro of Hamid Karzai's article, who is reported to having about $20,000 dollars in his bank account and making less than $500 a month. While some people are becoming rich in Afghanistan some are also getting assassinated or being blown up by bombs, it's a risky place. The IP editor who added this info should go live in Afghanistan and he may become a millionair too.--Hkrclu (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the lead shows clear POV and needs to be revised, specifically the two sentences you have mentioned above.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tibet

I recently found out that there is simply no mention of Tibetan politics on the main article of Tibet. All articles of regions and territories around the world contain the mention of politics in the main article along with other aspects. It has been claimed by a few editors that the main article should only consist of ethno-cultural Tibet while there are separate articles about Economy of Tibet and Tibetan culture on wikipedia. I would request administrators to intervene. The present political section which was recently added still does not give due weight on politics and recent events. There have also been attempts to retain Chinese history on Tibetan article which clearly represents bias.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 11:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree somewhat. I found there is a discussion of politics in one section, but it's disturbingly short. There is mention of the ethnic conflict and controversy in the lead paragraph. My sense is the section on Tibetan politics should be expanded. Maybe the article needs an NPOV tag?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is this version was horribly biased. --Reference Desker (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is complex, because the term "Tibet", when used colloquially, has a variety of different meanings that are controversial, mutually exclusive, and split into different articles on Wikipedia—you can get a taste of the different definitions of Tibet by looking at the map at the top of the main Tibet article. UplinkAnsh's complaining that Tibet-the-ethno-cultural-region does not have enough of Tibet-the-political-region's politics is akin to his complaining that Macedonia (region) does not have enough coverage of the Republic of Macedonia's politics. Tibet, as a cultural region, is much larger than the area of the political region that has been recently the site of conflict. For example, while it is sometimes said that China in 1950 "invaded Tibet" when PLA forces crossed the Yangtze River, that is only true if we are only considering the "independent" half of Tibet. But if we are talking about the historical cultural region, then before the "invasion" China was already inside and already governing half of Tibet. During this time the histories of Tibet and China were intertwined, and mentioning the history of all of the regions of Tibet and their governments, including the parts governed by China, is clearly not bias but balance and comprehensiveness.

The issue of what is Tibet is further confusing because what the Chinese government considers "Tibet" is not what the anti-Chinese government-in-exile considers "Tibet", and a more expansive or diminutive view of Tibet is often switched by both parties for political expediency. The article shown by Reference Desker's diff was determined by years of consensus to take a broad, ethnographic view of Tibet, in which excess coverage of recent events would be inappropriate in the context of the bimillennial history of the region. Full coverage of the ancient and modern politics of the most important political subdivisions of Tibet were fully covered in their respective articles, and were duly summarized and linked to by the overview provided by the Tibet page. The page after UplinkAnsh's changes (compared to Reference Desker's diff) served to exaggerate the territorial extent of the various Tibetan dynasties; downplay the role of the Muslims, the Chinese, and the British in the region; and promote shoddily-sourced polemics and political arguments. Quigley (talk) 05:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a significant simplification to say that eastern Tibetan areas were ruled by China prior to 1949. In practice, in the period immediately prior, they were ruled by a complicated interaction between local Tibetan elites and Chinese warlords, with additional influence from the central Chinese government and the Tibetan government. The warlords mostly had the upper hand. The most notable warlord in Kham was Liu Wenhui and in Amdo, Ma Bufang. Phüntso Wangye reports an interesting story at the beginning of his autobiography in which Chiang Kai-shek's Kuomintang government sends a Tibetan agent, Kesang Tsering, to Bathang to try to start a popular uprising against Liu Wenhui, despite the fact that Liu Wenhui is nominally loyal to Chiang Kai-shek. This inspires Phüntso Wangye' dream of an independent eastern Tibetan republic. Prior to the Republican/warlord period and the Zhao Erfeng atrocities of the very late Qing, I think the eastern Tibetan areas were mostly run by local elites under the supervision, often minimal but continuous in principle, of Chinese ministers and magistrates.

I don't think that the Tibet article should focus primarily on politics, but I do think there should be some coverage. There are pan-Tibetan political issues, more so than in, for example, the region of Macedonia. For one thing, the 2008 protests occurred throughout the Tibetan areas, with protesters in and outside of the TAR making essentially the same demands and using the same flag.

I don't have strong opinions on the other content issues, but I definitely agree that the article should not promote shoddily-sourced polemics and political arguments, which can sometimes be a tendency among certain Tibetan-exile-friendly writers.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 01:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robb Thompson

This BLP of a minister of a suburban megachurch keeps getting prettied up by a series of s.p.a. editors, to such an extent that one suspects them of being either admiring members of his congregation or press agents. The latest of these is determined to add anything and everything that the guy does, and generally treats this as a hagiography of his Dear Leader. Could we get some fresh eyes on this? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlisted. — e. ripley\^talk 18:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sheldon Chumir

This article about a dead politician has a problem with a succession of s.p.a.s (User talk:Chumirethics, User talk:Chumirethicsfoundation, User talk:Publicengagement, User talk:Buffalomaverick) who keep trying to put back in the same worshipful language sourced to the website of the Sheldon Chumir Foundation (not exactly an NPOV source), complete with firstnaming and fulsome praise. When I revert one account a few times, a new s.p.a. takes up the cudgel. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A sockpuppet investigation might be called for as well; unless it's meatpuppets. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Goerges

In the article about women's tennis player Julia Goerges, the title misspells her last name as "Gorges", with an umlaut above the "o". This should be changed immediately if not sooner, as Goerges is the actual spelling of the woman's name. Also, anytime "Gorges" is used inside the article, it should be changed to reflect the correct spelling. There are many sources that can be used to verify the correct spelling of her last name, including her own website, so I won't go into that here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.160.47 (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Julia Görges#Move? for the previous discussion. You can use the Requested Moves process if you wish to start a new discussion. -- œ ^™ 12:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Russell

In an article about the actor Kurt Russell, I added several factual sentences about his minor-league baseball career, most of which is verified by BaseballReference.com, but the content was deleted. In editing the article, I noticed that several facts already in there used BaseballReference.com to back up their content. If the editor(s) had bothered to check the information for Russell in BaseballReference.com, they'd have noticed that I was correct and factual about the added content and it should not have been deleted. My additions included the fact that Russell played for the team that his father, Bing, owned (from 1973-1977), called the Portland (Ore.) Mavericks, a single-A short-season Northwest League independent team (no major league affiliation). Wikipedia even verifies the fact that Bing Russell owned the team in its own article about Bing, which means that deletion of that was highly inappropriate. I also included a fact about a story he told on "Late Night with David Letterman" regarding his days in Portland as a player, a fact that could easily be checked by contacting Letterman's production company, WorldWidePants, but editors failed to do so. Rather than simply deleting the accurate passages from the articles, the editors shouldn't have checked Bing Russell's article, BaseballReference.com and contacted WorldWidePants first to confirm whether they were true. This to me, was lazy and irresponsible editing. Wikipedia's editors must do a much better job in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.160.47 (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^ Photos: http://www.harappa.com/figurines/index.html
^ McClintock, Pamela (2011-03-04). "Black 'Thor' Actor Blasts Debate Over His Casting". The Holywood Reporter. Retrieved 2011-03-04.

[1] Photos: http://www.harappa.com/figurines/index.html

[2] McClintock, Pamela (2011-03-04). "Black 'Thor' Actor Blasts Debate Over His Casting". The Holywood Reporter. Retrieved 2011-03-04.

[1]

[2]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards