Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 35

Folio Society Article

Hi - I hope I'm in the right place. I ran across the article on the Folio Society, read it, thought it sounded a bit like ad copy, and tagged it as such. The article isn't a disaster; I just think that it has too many peacock terms in it and needs some minor cleanup (the article has been edited by Foliosociety, which is suggestive). The tag was quickly removed without consensus. I wonder if an admin would be willing to look the article over and assess its neutrality? TreacherousWays (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Several editors have looked at the article and notwithstanding the edits by user Foliosociety there really doesn't seem to be very much wrong with it IMHO. It all seems to be sound factual information in the current version. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

By "several" you must mean "two", neither of whom have made any effort to discuss let alone remove the peacock terms I explicitly identified. If a neutral administrator from this board reviews the article and finds it to be satisfactory as it stands, I will withdraw my criticisms. As it stands, I think that you and I have an honest difference of opinion. TreacherousWays (talk) 21:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any comments on the article (I haven't looked at it) but you might have some misconceptions about this noticeboard and what to expect here. There are no "administrator[s] from this board" as administrators don't have special privileges related to this noticeboard or NPOV broadly construed. If you believe your concerns are serious enough to warrant administrator intervention, you're better off posting here. ElKevbo (talk) 22:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

And after looking at the article and its Talk page I don't see any egregious NPOV problems. That may be because others have already edited the article, however. ElKevbo (talk) 22:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your time, ElKevbo, and for your opinion. No,I didn't imagine that admins reading this board had any special rights or priviledges - just a little more depth of experience in reviewing NPOV issues. Philafrenzy has made some headway in removing some of the worst of the puffery; I still think that the article has a ways to go. I am (self-) consciously aware that I am coming off as something of a douche in this matter, and recognize that there are several honestly-held opinions of varying intensity on this topic. But no matter what, thanks for taking the time to comment. TreacherousWays (talk) 13:22, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! It looks like you're still making (slow, somewhat painful) progress on the article's Talk page so that's encouraging. I think that since several editors aren't seeing the POV issues you perceive you will have to go into specific details. Best of luck! ElKevbo (talk) 02:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

People's Republic of China/China and Republic of China/Taiwan

These articles(China and Republic of China) have been attempted or have changed their titles of the articles to a common name, but this is not politically neutral. Because of both Chinas have a claim to China and mentioned in the One-China Policy violates the neutrality of Wikipedia. And the People's Republic of China's article is politically incorrect as 22 UN nations and the Vatican City recognize the Republic of China as the legitimate government of China. Furthermore changing Republic of China to Taiwan is politically incorrect as Taiwan is not a country and the Republic of China is a country. This change in title can promote Wikipedia as indirectly supporting Taiwanese independence and the creation of the Republic of Taiwan which the People's Republic of China disapproves of and states in the Anti-Secession Law clearly. And the current party in power is the Pan-Blue Camp which supports Chinese reunification in Taiwan. Please read Taiwan's political status for more background information on the issue.71.184.217.18 (talk) 17:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

possibly this would be better addressed at the noticeboard for geopolitical and ethnic conflicts. I for one do not feel able to begin to attempt this issue, although the post itself does not seem all that neutral to me either. Elinruby (talk)

Qais Abdur Rashid

After some name-calling on my talk page I thought I should bring this here. Qais Abdur Rashid is described as legendary in the lead, and many sources describe either him or the claim that all Pashtuns trace their ancestry to him as either legendary or mythical. I removed an edit by the editor calling my removal fascistic because it states as though fact that he was not the "the blood father of all modern day Afghan (Pashtun) people and that all tribes are descended from him." A number of what look like reliable sources make this statement (mainly as legendary/mythical), but the editor has chosen to have Wikipedia claim that they are all wrong and that one book is right, "The Lost Tribes in Assyria" by Rabbi Avihail A. and A. Brin, Translation: S. Matlofsky, Jerusalem: Amishav, 1978, pages 97–106. -The authors don't seem to have any academic track record and the publisher Amishav is an orgiansation "dedicated to locating the Lost Tribes of Israel (with the objective of contracting the population increase of a “bourgeoning” Arab population by their mass return". See Shavei Israel. I'm not at all sure we can use this source for anything, let alone for a section headed 'Misconceptions'. The editor has longstanding problems with sources and I suspect that he is particularly upset with me over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oldest Afghan tribes. Dougweller (talk) 12:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello User:Dougweller, I received your request for me to comment here. I did some more research and there are references that refer to Qais Abdur Rashid as being a historical figure, while others refer to him as a legendary figure. In order to satisfy WP:NPOV, I would suggest that both perspectives are included. I found some information from the Census of India, 1901, Volume 18, Part 1, as well as from A Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North-West frontier province that can be used to ameliorate the condition of the article. I hope this helps! With regards, Anupam^Talk 04:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to clarify my position. I am not upset with Dougweller, and I am not upset he deleted my article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oldest Afghan tribes, though if it were upto me I would have liked for the article to stay. As for Qais Abdur Rashid, all Afghan and Muslim sources and many Western sources do accept his status as a real historical figure. He actually has a grave which I myself have visited, which people visit everyday. The grave alone or some reference alone might not be enough but both combined there is no doubt his actual historical status is more logical than legendary. Lastly, Dougweller seems to have a problem with my edits. In the past I used to provide the standard 1 or 2 references for each statement to which many Afghan users objected. To clarify to them it was a factual statement I had to provide 4-6 references or more. However, Dougweller didnt seem to like the idea, & instead of asking me about it he straight away deleted many of my posts. I do respect his services for Wiki which are numerous but my objection is, he isnt a specialist on the field, he even isnt an Afghan or from that area & so there will always be some issues an Afghan or a historian would be more capable of dealing. In all of this I find myself at odd with Dougweller on the one hand and local especially Afghan users on the other hand. I only want to bring Afghan history and related facts to Wikipedia. I hope Dougweller isnt offended and I would like him to try to understand my position. I am not going to do anything that is against Wiki rules or offends senior editors like Dougweller.

Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 06:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

This does clarify your position, but Anupam is correct. Our WP:NPOV policy requires us "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." This means the article should not be trying to argue for one view or another, but simply representing them proportionately. Anyone can edit an article, you do not have to be an expert in a particular field, what is needed is access to reliable sources, a neutral point of view, an ability to represent those sources correctly, and an ability to write so that others understand you. I can also bring to the table the fact that I've studied history at undergraduate and graduate level and have a good background in historical and archaeological research. I and other editors have had problems with your edits over issues including reliability of your sources and the way you represent them. These issues are in part what led to the deletion of the article you mention. As for the grave, there are a number of graves for people who almost certainly did not exist, so I'm afraid it proves nothing. except that there is a gravesite that people attribute to the subject of this article. I hope you've also read WP:NOR.

I presume you can find some reliable sources saying that he was a historical figure (the one you've used is not in my opinion a source that meets our criteria at WP:RS. Dougweller (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

A few things that I would like to say. I feel you're being too selective in this particular instance. I think the matter is more simple than that. There are people who consider him historical and others who dont. However, the truth is, there are more sources favoring his historical status than not. (Now dont ask me to go prepare a document on the ones that favor his historical status as you usually do) Off all of these sources the ones you should consider foremost are the Afghan people. There are dozens of tribes who cite their oral history with Qais/Kish being a real person, their historical leader and so on. It is good to know you do have a background in history. Now, the region we are talking about is not Scandinavia where you can still find in written form funeral and wedding details of people in the 9th or 10th century. The Afghan people dont preserve history in textual form but through Oral Tradition, why? because the region has always had a history of perpetual war and strife. There are key Afghan leaders throughout history like Khushal Khan Khattak, Bacha Khan and so on who made Afghan history and their family trees include the name Qais abdur Rashid. Now what seems more logical? a few Western historians who has never been to the region or had a 1st hand experience /account or the Afghan people, their leaders and many many historians Western & otherwise who say the man was their ancestor? Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 08:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Why the Misconceptions sub topic? I personally through my research do consider this man Qais /Kish to be a real historical figure. There are people who believe the Afghan people, all of them descended from this one man. This is completely illogical. Tribal populations, genetics, historical accounts especially of the Greeks and the Bani Israel story from the Jewish and Afghan accounts prove this. The Afghans didnt suddenly come out as the largest patriarchal group from this one man in the 6th/7th century. They were already living there. He was only an important historical leader of the time and this is why he has historical importance. The most important reason for which I can find in history is probably because he has a direct lineage or descent from the Royal House of Israel. He was the purest blood of Old Israel and that is why they must have chosen him as their leader. This is verified by historians like Farishta, many Prophetic (Muhammad PBUH) traditions and also by Western and Jewish sources. But I gave here the Jewish source because it is the most neutral in this case. It doesnt involve the supporters (Muslims and some Western historians) or the refuters (some Western historians). I completely feel I have been most impartial and neutral. Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 08:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

If you will accept input from someone who knows even less about the matter, the heart of the problem here is in the words "personally through my own research". There is a rule against that on Wikipedia. I have had my own issues with it -- let me tell you briefly. In an article I was working on, a public figure was making preposterous, obviously false statements, but explaining why the statements were false was running into this rule, and citations from textbooks were getting removed as irrelevant. Wikipedia is not perfect. I do hope to find a way to resolve that situation, but meanwhile, it seems to me that for yours, surely somebody somewhere in some language has collated some of these stories? An anthropologist. A soldier who spent a lot of time in the field. Somebody. Try scholar.google.com. You absolutely have to use a source other than your own knowledge of tribal oral tradition. That does not mean that these oral traditions are not valuable; if in fact they have never been recorded, I would encourage you to do so, but Wikipedia is not the place. Possibly Wikiversity? An alternative would be to write this as "these people say this, but these other people over here say they are wrong, and that this other thing is what *really* happened." If you do this then you do not have to weigh which of the several sources you say you have would be the "best" -- hope that helps Elinruby (talk) 11:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

A few things about that ^, this Oral History Traditions have been recorded and are given in the more appropriate and related article Theory of Pashtun descent from the Ten Lost Tribes, to which I will add more stuff (hopefully without DougWeller deleting it, lol), should those references be provided in this article as well which is about something else? As for different opinions, all have been represented, there are Muslim and Pashtun sources, then there are opposing references from Thomas Walker Arnold and then now with this topic Misconceptions I have also provided a fourth view. Why? All topics related to the story of the decent of the Pashtuns from the Ten Lost Tribes involves four different groups of people and their views and all are important. The Pashtuns themselves, various Muslim historians, Western historians and lastly sources as important as the Pashtuns when it comes to Afghan/Pashtun history, the Jewish historians, Rabbis and other sources.

By providing the last heading "Misconceptions", all four sources have been represented, which satisfies I think all Wiki requirements. Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 05:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

But you're calling it a "misconception" which may be why we're hearing about it on the neutral point of view board, not the reliable source board. Because it seems that the other editor has a problem with your sources too. Look, despite my comments above, we have to have these rules, or people would be editing in all sorts of statements they *know* to be true. Different people get taught different histories. If I get a chance I will look at the article itself to see if that sheds some light on exactly what the issue is here. But I agree with the other editor that the existence of a grave does not prove historical existence. Elinruby (talk) 21:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've taken a look at the article and understand a little better how sourcing problems wound up on the neutral point of view board. I have knocked out some of the low-hanging fruit as far as pov language is concerned. For instance I changed "points out" to "wrote" and in another place inserted the words "according to Pashtun legend." For example. I also flagged some other specific problems. If you are having trouble with deletionists I suggest you move the article to your personal user space while you work on it, then ask for input before moving it to the main space. Just a suggestion.

Your guy can't be both a myth AND a legend, by the way. I went with legend but have no strong feelings about the matter if you think he's a myth. Just be consistent. You definitely do have some source problems and I would strongly suggest that you address them. As I mentioned above, you don't have to decide who is "right". If there is disagreement, report the disagreement. Here is a list of source issues -- I do not know if they are of your creation, or someone else's but they do need to be addressed, and you seem to care about the article.

• Reference 1 is a country study, part of somebody's "world terrorism resources." It ascribes the belief to an anthropologist, and with very minor googling I found what looks like a better reference, if only I had access to JSTOR to be sure. If you can get to a college library perhaps you can do so.

• 2 is a dead link. Since you provide an author and a date, perhaps the reference is findable, but your reader is not supposed to have to work that hard. In any event, I did not find it through the site's search box, using "qais", "abdur", "rashid" or "mansoor", the author name provided. Possibly a transliteration issue, but it is, yes, an issue. On the other hand, the Reliable Sources Noticeboard has decided that this publication is usually reliable, so if you can sort out the link (or even if you can't, really) the reference is probably ok

• 3 is ridiculous."Pakistan pictorial, Pakistan Publications, 2003." What does that even mean? How is anyone supposed to verify it?.

• 4 looks plausible -- can't find a copy to look at though.

• 5 and 6 are the same text, which is clearly religious in nature and claims some startling facts. Any text written by someone who gives his title as "Messiah" is NOT an acceptable historical source, sorry.

• 7 is not the original reference; the author you cite is in fact quoting an unnamed book by Mountstuart Elphinstone, it looks like. That very long quote contains a lot of 19th century flowery language that amounts to yeah, the man went to Arabia. The space would be better spent on more detail.

• 8 has good reviews on Amazon, but I was not able to verify the reference. *Why* does he say the story has no basis in historical fact?

• 9 looks like an encyclopedia. You'll need a more specific reference. I made a good-faith attempt to find the text with a find function and did not succeed using either "copt", "pashtun" or "pashto". See above; your reader is not supposed to have to work this hard.

• 10 is bewildering. I *think* it is a website associated with a book you are using as a reference, but you do not cite it as a book; in fact you don't describe it at all. In any event, although it looks like this is supposed to be a reference for the existence of the grave, the only occurence of the name Qais Abdur Rashid is in a section devoted to the author's ancestry.

hope that helps Elinruby (talk) 11:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Catholic politicians, abortion, and communion or excommunication

Would appreciate more eyes on this article. I've removed some of the BLP violations (material about living people cited to press releases from organizations that campaign against them, etc.), but we've still got some agenda-driven sources with documented histories of running false claims about living people they oppose being cited for statements about living people they oppose, users claiming that we can't use neutral language because a religious leader wouldn't like us to, discarding views of reliable sources in preference for the views of another religious leader, total misrepresentations of sources, weasel words, jargon, etc. Catholic politicians, abortion and communion or excommunication (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you specify which sources or group of sources concern you? I could try to have a look if you point me in the direction that concerns you.Coaster92 (talk) 05:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I've since removed more of them and corrected some of the other issues, but I'll let you know if the problematic material is restored, which is likely. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Pre-existing POV issue on Academy of Achievement article

For anyone who is interested here, I've been asked by an organization called Academy of Achievement to help resolve an ongoing POV (and COI) issue on the article about them. To wit, the organization had edited this page in the past, resulting in far too promotional an article; uninvolved editors began pruning it back, but now I believe they have added too much tangential, negative material, while leaving the warnings in place. I've prepared a proposed replacement version and explained this in more detail on the article's Talk page, and would appreciate any interested editor's participation there. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 18:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier

I added a PoV template to Star Trek V: The Final Frontier as discussed on its talk page; it's been removed, with no attempt to address the issue in question, as were my addition of {{Cn}} and {{dubious}}, in turn, regarding the same issue. While it's not a major issue on the grand scheme of things, the wording in question doesn't sound neutral and I'm not sure how to proceed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I would recommend dealing with the specific issue rather than trying to put a top level POV tag on the whole article. Something you have also not done in your post here. North8000 (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the previous comment that the query really wasn't specific enough. But based on the Discussion page and the references, I sort of agree with you. Only sort of, mind you, because the other editor on the Discussion page is correct in saying that the LA Times plus Shatner's book, which was published by a large reputable publisher that surely vetted the text with a libel lawyer, does indeed constitute a reliable source.

However, the Times article says nothing about exploding vehicles. That leaves the article accusing the Teamsters of criminal acts, based on a citation that cannot easily be verified. I'd suggest changing "aware that", which implies knowledge, to "worried that" or "concerned that" which is far more easily demonstrated, unless of course you are able to find a quote at that page that says exactly "aware that", in which case you should insert it, in quotes, with inline attribution.

I believe that the other editor is correct in saying that in challenging a RS you carry the burden of making your case. So if you are wondering, really, how to proceed, the thing to do is see whether your local library or bookstore has a copy of the book, and see what it says on the given page. I do also think that you have enough basis, in the meantime, to make the change I suggest above. It's an extraordinary claim. Reliable source or not, if your concern is about the "aware", then I agree with you. Elinruby (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

That's precisely my concern; thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

[ec] Perhaps North8000 missed the bit where I said I'd done that, and had been reverted with no with no attempt to address the issue in question; and the pointer to where discussion had taken place. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Case at dispute resolution involving article titles

This case at Dispute resolution may be of interest to some of you here. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Allan Jones (businessman)

This one reeks of press agentry. The guy runs what is (according to him, anyway) the largest payday loan company in the United States. Whatever you think of that particular form of perfectly-legal activity, the article itself is full of fluff about how he give money to high school wrestling and how he started his own industry trade group and other garbage; and a lot of it is either sourced to his own company's website, or to an adulatory interview he's done with a local radio station (not exactly a reliable source). --Orange Mike | Talk 14:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Otherkin and Clinical lycanthropy

• Otherkin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Clinical lycanthropy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

On the article Otherkin, a see-also link to Clinical Lycanthropy has been added. I am very concerned that inclusion of this psychological disorder as a see-also for an article pertaining to the Otherkin subculture violates both WP:NPOV and WP:SYN, since the justification for the see-also is and continues to be "s'very obviously connected and it doesn't matter that otherkin people would find it's inclusion here offensive or whatever". I'm not sure how to link to a specific edit summary, but that can be viewed here: page history

Including such a see-also is akin to including a see-also to Paraphilia on the Furry_fandom article, or a see-also to Antichrist on the George_W._Bush or Barack_Obama articles. It cannot be considered NPOV, especially when the connection cannot be cited to a WP:RS making the claim that they are connected. And while Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#See_also_section states: "Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The links in the See Also section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, /--/ The links in the See Also section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of the See Also links is to enable readers to explore topics that are only peripherally relevant." that is clearly not carte blanche for using See Also to insert an editor's biases and personal theories into the article.

There's been a long history of debate regarding the inclusion of Clinical lycanthropy in this article: link Previously, there had been a whole section discussing clinical lycanthropy in the article, which was removed when it was found that there were no WP:RS making such a connection. I believe this is the last significant discussion of the issue prior to the current discussion: link

Currently, the issue has already been discussed on two user talk pages link link and the Otherkin article talk page as well. link Qwyrixan, one of the admins, left a message on my own talk page which suggested I bring the issue here. link — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarandhel (talk • contribs) 06:13 (UTC), 24 December 2011

If there was a reliable source that confirmed a connection or lack of connection between the subjects, then the source would be used as a reference for an addition into the article (addition about the connection or lack of connection) — and clinical lycanthropy would be removed from the See Also because it will have had already been linked to in the text.

Currently it hasn't.

Because we lack the reliable sources. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 21:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Also we have changeling and Furry lifestyler in the see also, are these any different? If I was otherkin, I'd be more offended by the connection to furries; but I completely fail to see how clinical lycanthropy is problematic (in fact it makes it more obvious that this type of thing (identifying as an animal) CAN be a psychological disorder but ISN'T NECESSARILY (otherwise these things would be covered in the same article)). I vote for keeping it because it's a very similar concept and including it can be helpful for people who are interested in but not knowledgeable in the general topic. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 21:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Been a little busy with the holidays. To respond: It seems odd to me to suggest that we would need a WP:RS to confirm that they are *not* connected. That's a bit like saying that you'd need to see a WP:RS to remove a see-also to Zoophilia from the Furry article. The connection there would be about as solid as the connection between Clinical Lycanthropy and Otherkin. On the other hand, the term changeling has actually appeared in otherkin FAQs as a synonym for otherkin, and the connection with the furry community is pretty undeniable given that the otherkin community's connection to both alt.fans.dragons and alt.horror.werewolves, two newsgroups that also figure prominently in the history of the furry community. There is, undeniably, overlap there. With clinical lycanthropy, the only overlap that exists is in the minds of the editors who believe that the symptoms of clinical lycanthropy are similar to the stated beliefs of otherkin. --Jarandhel (talk) 09:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing odd about it. It's possible that it has been said that otherkinnery is nothing like CL, just like it has been said that, for example, homosexuality is nothing like pedophilia and not even remotely the same. See the idea?

It's not only "in the minds of the editors", anyone may think that. Maybe it's difficult for you to see the subculture from the outside, but the average person won't make a difference between the delusions of those with CL and the beliefs of Otherkin. (And so it's helpful to provide that link to show that CL is a different concept.) — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 18:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Except a) you would be able to find WP:RS stating that there is no connection between homosexuality and pedophilia, and b) I think every editor would agree that putting a see-also to pedophilia in the homosexuality article, without a reliable source for the connection would be a clear violation of WP:NPOV. The fact that you're using it as an analogy for including clinical lycanthropy in the otherkin article should really show you how POV including that link is.

If "anyone may think that", and the average person wouldn't make such a distinction, then *find a WP:RS* that either states there is a connection or denies that there is one and include it in the article. Don't just try to include it on the basis of what you speculate people may associate it with. --Jarandhel (talk) 02:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

We don't need reliable sources for see-also links. At all. It is not required that we have a RS mentioning both Otherkin and CL, to insert the see-also link. You quoted the policy yourself, it's "ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense". That's all. Obviously those things are subjective so what we do need is consensus. And we seem to have majority consensus to keep the link (though I do wish more impartial editors would take the time to chime in).

I mentioned pedophilia/homosexuality because to you it seemed "odd" that we might have a source that DENIES a connection between two things. See here: Homosexuality#Heterosexism and homophobia, last paragraph. A source explains that there is no connection. How the comparison is relevant: if we had a source that denied the connection or similarity between O and CL, we'd put that in the article and so remove it from See Also. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 03:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The See also section is for topics related by theme or subject. In this case, people who believe they are animals. Now I can understand why editors whose pro-Otherkin lifestyle interests would not want the article to make statements about mental conditions that may or may not apply, but to object to the mention of the term anywhere on the article at all is pretty extreme. The fact that the article is there at all can be argued to be a promotion of a WP:FRINGE topic, and it desperately needs some balance, but because mainstream sources have routinely ignored it under its new name we don't have much of a balance there. Removing a related term from See also just because you find it offensive is an extreme amount of pro-Otherkin POV pushing, I'm afraid. If the people who believe in multiple personalities and think they are wonderful things to have create a new name for it, like, say, healthy multiplicity, and then created an article for Healthy Multiplicity and then forbid all mention of Dissociative identity disorder on the article it'd be the same situation. Or the pro-eating disorder people not wanting links or info about eating disorders on an article they create under some new name. DreamGuy (talk) 17:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

"People who believe they are animals" is neither the definition of otherkin, nor the definition of clinical lycanthropy. This has nothing to do with me having a "pro-Otherkin lifestyle interest", it has to do with removing anti-otherkin POV and WP:OR that you (and other editors) have tried to insert into the article in the guise of a see-also. And, just as a reminder, your theory that otherkin are clinical lycanthropes who have created a new name for themselves IS a personal theory and it is very much a violation of WP:OR and WP:NPOV to continue to push it into the article in the name of "balance" simply because you believe it to be true. --Jarandhel (talk) 09:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how there's anything anti-otherkin about it. Also he's not actually pushing his theory into the article and I'm guessing never has. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 18:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It's anti-otherkin in the same way that putting Zoophilia as a see-also in the Furry article is anti-furry, or Pedophilia as a see-also in the Homosexuality article is homophobic. And yes, he is pushing his theory into the article... he clearly states that this see-also needs to be there to provide balance against what he views as a pro-otherkin tone. diff As for the contention that he "never has", he is the editor that previously pushed for an entire section in the article on Clinical Lycanthropy which had as its sole sources a link to this abstract, for an article about clinical lycanthropy that made absolutely zero mention of otherkin, and an article on Kuro5hin where the anonymous comments connected an article about clinical lycanthropy and werewolf mythology to otherkin, and he fought for quite some time for it to be included on the basis of those sources and his contention that the symptoms of clinical lycanthropy as described were exactly the same as the stated beliefs of otherkin. He even, at one point, attempted to edit the definition of clinical lycanthropy given in the otherkin article to make it sound more like otherkin belief ("or are otherwise nonhuman in some way"). diff]. --Jarandhel (talk) 02:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Are were and changeling being challenged? Or is it only things that might imply its all ‘in the mind’ that are at issue?Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

As were and changeling are undeniably connected to the subject of the article, why would they be challenged as see alsos? It is specifically attempts to diagnose otherkin with clinical lycanthropy or other specific mental disorders without WP:RS that is being objected to. If a reliable source can be found that suggests otherkin fall under any given mental disorder, by all means include it. Hell, include it as more than a see-also, add it to the article itself. But using a see-also to slip the imagined connection into the article, when a whole section on clinical lycanthropy was previously removed from the article due to a lack of reliable sources (the only links were to articles on clinical lycanthropy that did not mention otherkin in any way) is a clear attempt to continue inserting a particular anti-otherkin POV. Particularly from a user who has previously stated: If I was really pushing my side the Otherkin article would start out something like "A bunch of raving lunatics who need psychiatric help claim to have animals and other species inside of them based upon their need to be highly dramatic and self-important because they can't get any self-worth in their pathetic, miserable lives any other way..." link --Jarandhel (talk) 09:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

So Weres are part of the movement, but the psycological condition that is a feature of Weres is not linked to the movement? [1] nit RS, but its an otherkin site.Slatersteven (talk) 11:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The page you're linking to as evidence of the connection is actually quoting older versions of the Otherkin wikipedia article. So it doesn't just fail WP:RS, but would also be a circular reference. And considering that Clinical Lycanthropy is not a See-Also for, or even mentioned in, the Were article, how do you suppose that Were being a see-also for Otherkin (an umbrella term which includes those who self-identify as "weres" or "therians") in any way makes the case that Clinical Lycanthropy should be a see also for Otherkin?

"The psychological condition that is a feature of Weres"... by this reasoning, should we add a see-also to Hypertrichosis as well? --Jarandhel (talk) 14:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Slavic Neopaganism article

The Slavic Neopaganism article (which has been tagged after [the previous two versions]) is currently written pejoritavely (calling it a cult/quasireligion, with an either misrepresented or fringe source that makes a sweeping generalization about all adherents) and does not give the whole picture that it used to. Galassi, with a long history of violations and being blocked, ignoring/denying discussion--the head of the mediation is recused from mediating with him--has reverted the article on two or more days twice or more each day, continually destroying reliable third-party citations and restoring incorrectly referenced information. Perhaps I should have reported it here before I reported it to the admins, who he is defying and wasting their time arguing with.--dchmelik (t|c) 00:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I found the current version of the article almost incomprehensible, at least on a fast read. Possibly it should be broken off into separate articles about beliefs in Poland, beliefs in the Ukraine, etc. Just a thought. Right now the average English speaker is not going to get past the long list of alternate names in Cyrillic under the Definition section.

But yeah, again based on a fast read, there definitely do seem to be some neutrality issues. Without getting into who did what to whom, which I did not take the time to follow and which might come dangerously close to being off-topic for this board, I have the following thoughts.

This is an article about a belief system. It should dispassionately and without adjectives report the characteristics of that belief system without calling them "fakelore" or conflating them with Satanism or anything else which could reasonably be predicted to outrage people who believe these things or come from families or cultures which believe these things. Particularly not based on a single dictionary of philosophy in Russian. Slavic-language sources are quite possibly needed on a slightly off-the-beaten-track topic in Slavic culture, but that dictionary's not exactly a specific scholarly source, and English-language sources would be highly preferred.

There also seem to be multiple reliable source issues you could take to that noticeboard and thereby winnow down the issues at ANI. I have not looked to see is taking place there, but that's the place, I gather, to take issue with the behaviour of a particular user. I do not know if anyone was, as alleged, trying to introduce points they *know* to be true based on cultural or family tradition, but yes, this *is* in fact a no-no, and if so these points need to be sourced. I suggest JSTOR, scholar.google.com, Google Books, and/or the corresponding Wikipedia articles in the relevant languages, if any of the editors of the English-language article speak them. If not, with a little digging on the community portal you will find a place where it is possible to request a translation. I have done one or two there, but I don't have a language that would help you. If I get a chance to do a second pass on the article I may add a specific point or two below to the above comments. HTH Elinruby (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

P.S.: Just got to the diff -- and cough, yeah, changing "sect" to "cult" would seem to be an issue. Assuming it is not a question of familiarity with English, then neutrality would definitely seem rather questionable. Elinruby (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I moved a chunk of unsourced POV from Common Themes to the Discussion page. In addition to the five issues with the material that I raised there, it does not appear to be a common theme -- even if utterly accurate and completely true, which seems dubious, the statements are about Russian groups only. Don't have time for more right now but the article does appear to need further review. Elinruby (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Indians in Afghanistan

• Indians in Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• TopGun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Could someone have a look into the way that User:TopGun has been aggressively adding propoganda to articles on India and Afghanistan, in particular Indians in Afghanistan? Thanks --66.36.243.94 (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any "propaganda" in TopGuns edits on the above articles in fact the ip above seems to have been engaging in pov pushing seeing his talk page littered with warnings back to the topic at hand all the information is well sourced its best if users do not bring in nationalistic sentiment into Wikipedia and accept well sourced data 109.154.105.168 (talk) 10:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• I've added it in line with India's refutation and attributed the claims. You are just attempting to censor it because you don't like it. And I've shown no aggressiveness... you haven't even attempted to discuss there as far as I can see, unless you are Darkness Shines commenting here without logging in? --lTopGunl (talk) 11:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Fereydoun Farrokhzad

About two years ago, I got involved in a discussion between 2 editors, Alefbe and Mehrshad123, on the talk page of this article. It ended up as an AN/I thread: [2], and Mehrshad123 was indef blocked by Atama (more for losing his temper over the course of the discussion and inserting crap into a lot of articles that I had worked on than for what he had been doing on the original article, although that wasn't especially helpful either). I took a look at the edit history of this article recently, and it looks like there has continued to be a slow edit war on this article. I haven't touched the article for over a year and a half, but a recent edit summary includes a personal attack on me, presumably because it's by a sock of the blocked editor, so I'd rather if someone else would take a look at it. It seems that it could use some eyes on it to prevent edits like this on the one hand and this on the other from creeping into the text. Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 15:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

hehe..."the" is a weasel word? Apparently I missed something; am I really reading that right? I have not had a chance to look at the article though. Will try to do that. Elinruby (talk) 01:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

OK well, this is not a BLP, but it *is* an article about a murder victim who apparently was a beloved singer, comedian and activist, and who has living family. I removed statements saying that he mocked Islam as YouTube would not be RS for statements that could be considered defamatory. Suppose he was in fact a devout Muslim? I moved some less inflammatory unsourced material to the Discussion page. Experienced NPOV editors please review and revert if appropriate. I am not normally a deleter, but this seemed a case for it. Thanks. Elinruby (talk) 02:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't do anything at the moment, but I did have a quick look at the changes from February 2010 to the present (after Elinruby's edits). There are lots of differences, but the only NPOV issue I noticed was that the lead used to say "political opposition figure" where it now says "anti-Islam activist". A quick check did not show a source verifying "anti-Islam" or "activist". Not NPOV, but I'll mention that the article used to say he was born in 1936, but now says 1938, and the infobox and lead include "PhD" which I think is not style. I am watching the article and will try to get involved. Johnuniq (talk) 04:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Assuming others agree that the edit summary CordeliaNaismith mentioned was a personal attack, I have welcomed the editor and left them an NPA warning. See here - 220 of ^Borg 03:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It was. Thanks for doing that. I did not look at the YouTube links I removed, as I do not speak Persian and my sound card is on the fritz -- and no matter what, it's non-RS and OR -- but it might be interesting to compare the links I removed to the YouTube links the editor who was blocked was citing. Maybe this should be referred to Sockpuppets? I don't have a lot of experience with that but there's quite a similarity in editing patterns, based on the links she provided. Elinruby (talk) 05:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt and helpful response. IMO, the "anti-Islam activist" phrase and the phrase about how his show was "critical of Islam," which are still in the lede, are defamatory & don't belong in the article. (As far as I can tell, the assertions are based on the fact that Farroukhzad's comedy shows featured edgy humor on religious topics. There's some old discussion on this on the talk page. The source just says that Farroukhzad was also involved in producing a radio broadcast for a political opposition group before his murder). Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I was thinking about knocking that out after Johnuniq mentioned it. Guess I will go do that.Elinruby (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Good work. As it happens, I was getting ready to do that myself, but was called away. I did a couple of other tweaks which you will see. The UNHCR source says the subject was killed on "3 August" (1992). Search for "Fereydoun" to verify that as they spell the surname differently from the article. Johnuniq (talk) 02:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The Payvand site says Aug 9, though. I am really not sure which to believe. Payvand isn't exactly neutral (henchmen?) but hey, we're talking murder here. For what it is worth, the details of the DC assassination match up to what I remember of local news coverage. The UN site is more dispassionate but also at one further remove. I wish a Persian speaker would get involved. I can't verify the VOA citation, but maybe this requires more patience/time than I have right now. Elinruby (talk) 03:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Lotsa links and a discography at http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%B5%D9%81%D8%AD%D9%87%D9%94_%D8%A7%D8%B5%D9%84%DB%8C, the Farsi page on the man. Google translate struggles to keep up a bit, but there's some meat to the article there if anyone wants to slog through the translation and build the English page a bit. Btw there is a third date of death at http://radiokoocheh.com/article/6385 along with some other fascinating and barely readable text. Elinruby (talk) 12:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Never mind! That's the main Farsi page. Need to select backwards in Farsi apparently, learn something new every day.... trying again:

http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%81%D8%B1%DB%8C%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%86_%D9%81%D8%B1%D8%AE%D8%B2%D8%A7%D8%AF

Other pages that may contain relevant material if someone can get through the POV and the language barrier:

• http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%82%D8%AA%D9%84%E2%80%8C%D9%87%D8%A7%DB%8C_%D8%B2%D9%86%D8%AC%DB%8C%D8%B1%D9%87%E2%80%8C%D8%A7%DB%8C_%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86
• http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%AA%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%87%D8%A7%DB%8C_%D9%85%D9%86%D8%AA%D8%B3%D8%A8_%D8%A8%D9%87_%D8%AC%D9%85%D9%87%D9%88%D8%B1%DB%8C_%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85%DB%8C_%D8%AF%D8%B1_%D8%AE%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%AC_%D8%A7%D8%B2_%DA%A9%D8%B4%D9%88%D8%B1

These may be of most use for finding RS that have written about him. Elinruby (talk) 03:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Taliban

A quick question, This lot was reverted out, on the talk page I have been told it is not neutral. Could some uninvolved editors give me their opinions please. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I saw the RfC. There was also some huge argument about this either here or at reliable sources. I have not participated because the parties seem to know a lot more about the topic than I do. But this diff does seem to raise a couple of red flags. In one place a recent book which may be scholarly -- have not investigated, but it sounds academic -- was replaced by a citation to Shave magazine. Shave magazine? Another reference was removed altogether, although the statement it was supporting was not, which is hard to understand if the issue is neutrality. If there's no objection to the actual statement, why remove the citation? Even given the RfC. On the other side of the equation, the edit summary does not say anything about neutrality. Did that happen on the talk page? Elinruby (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Dammit, sorry. The content remove was what I had added, and yes the sources to academic publishing houses were reverted out as well and shave put back in. It is on the article talk page that the user who reverted is saying it is not neutral, which is why he says he reverted it all out. Sources and all :o) Darkness Shines (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I would make the changes one-by-one and see which are objected to. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I've added the two sources to the lead that weren't there before and/or are clear improvements. I think the other changes should be left for the RFC. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Yes, that would have made more sense :o) Ok it is mainly this [3] Because they gave aid so it seemed a silly section header. [4] This which is cited the Stanford Uni press. [5] This sourced the Human rights watch. The content he says is not neutral apart form the section header is From 1995-2001, the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence[12] and military[13] are widely alleged by the international community to have provided support to the Taliban in their rise to power and fight against anti-Taliban forces The RFC is actually about something else. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you should wait 48 hours, try and discuss it on talk, and if it isn't resolved then to seek dispute resolution. This seems reasonable enough if there are sources, but its not totally clear cut. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• I did not object to the citation improvement or addition. There was conflicting history by two users (including this one) who were adding content... some of the changes were exactly opposite to consensus on talk page. I noticed the changes in lead and a heading specifically. I then told this user to re add only the citations if he wanted via edit conflict (ie. directly or by reverting me and then removing other changes that I objected to) since it was an equal mess for removing both ways. Darkness Shines has missed to mention that here. There was a debate on this topic already on this notice board as Elinruby mentioned: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 28#Taliban. Instead Darkness Shines added more content (objectionable too) to the article. What exactly does this request here means (given that I said I have no problem with the citations but the content that was, and is being added)? --lTopGunl (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Well here, for example:"Most Taliban leaders were influenced by Deobandi fundamentalism." Why remove the reference and leave the statement? It would seem to be something that it would preferable to reference. The statement is still there. I feel like I must be missing something. There does not seem to be a contention that the author is biased, or anything else. I am putting off doing something else and spent a little time trying to parse the talk page, and still feel that I don't really understand the multiple issues. Perhaps I can try to restate them, and you can correct me as necessary, and this will help clarify what we are talking about, really.

• Does the Pakistani intelligence service support the Taliban, today? <- the discussion here was closed with an admonition to report both the reports that it does, and Pakistan's denial of these reports, right?
• Did Pakistan support the Taliban, ever
• Did Pakistan help found the Taliban?
• Is it good practice to use a source that says "people think that Pakistan provides aid to the Taliban, but Pakistan denies it" to support the denial? I can see that at first glance it may seem to verify a lack of aid, but (and I have not checked) the contention appears to be that the source does also say "Pakistan denies this".

The RfC seems to be about the reliability of sources on the above topic. Seems like a sensible step on a contentious issue. On the section header, no, "interference" does not sound neutral, but "aid" is not much better if Pakistan denies providing it. "Role of the Pakistani military" might perhaps be an alternate construction? Elinruby (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You didn't get my last comment I think... I didn't object to the references. I reverted it to the last standing version due to the messy conflicting edits and told Darkness shines to only add the references if he wanted. In doing so, a bad reference might have gotten back or some ref removed with the sentence still being there... but I've explained above why that was so. The object was on editing the content. Yes you've guessed the issues right. Also, the last issue about placing the claims and denials was already concluded in the previous NPOVN discussion (see closer's comments) but now again Darkness Shines has added content about founding of Taliban without attribution stating it as a fact and without any denial claims while Pakistan even denies supporting Taliban both before and after 9/11 attacks. Your suggestion for the heading is good. I already objected the current heading (and reverted the further change to 'aid') but that was neglected in the discussion before. How about adding "Role of other countries" and then adding sub headings for all the countries since there are references on that talk page for adding others as well. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

On the header, hmm, well. I thought the US was involved with the Northern Alliance as a way to keep the Russians busy, but I am not sure how strong the ties between them and the Taliban are, so(recent reading indicates this is a misconception, sorry) I hate to say anything that might get quoted over and over ;) If you can source a role for the US or anyone else in the creation of the Taliban, and get the other people who are fighting over the article to agree to a wording, then suuuuuure it could be "Role of other countries" or "Role of geopolitics" or anything else that your sparring partners agree to. Works for *me* -- I just suggested "role" as a neutral word. If other parties or powers had a role too, then be my guest. But it's not really my opinion that matters. I am just asking questions here. Elinruby (talk) 04:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh... I found it under the "pointless further comments" hatnote ;) and you guys wonder why nobody wants to comment on this, lol. There's apparently quite a history to this argument. Everyone needs to take a deep breath and maybe the outside editors will worry less about getting bitten. Now... the bit about the infobox, is that resolved? What about the lead? What is the actual issue here? Elinruby (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The info box was resolved. His current issue is this the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence[12] and the military[13] being in the lede, he seems to thin it reads that they gave military support. But if you look at all the sources below you can see it is well supported. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Taliban/Archive 20 might also help you to get the context. Yes the infobox issue was very clearly concluded and there's no chance for getting that back in so resolved. Darkness Shines, don't speak for me or tell what I think since you do it wrong every time. I've said that is a very slight variation of the same and so much of the same implication and also that this was concluded not to be added in the archived discussion (ensuing two months along with previous issue). Infact any amend to the lead and that sentence in specific was objected to and was not to be added without getting a consensus. This was a WP:POINT edit that JCAla made even after such a lengthy discussion. Elinruby, you're right.. it gets difficult to get into such contentious debates. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The actual issue here is that Darkness Shines added a claim That ISI founded Taliban without attributing it to who claims it in violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 28#Taliban and then he has not added a denial (as sourced in the lead) with it. The rest of the article also needs to be copy edited for any possible similar issues which state claims as facts in violation of that consensus. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

No TG, that is a separate issue. This section is to discuss the content you blindly reverted out. If you wish to discuss the neutrality of the edits made after that open another section. The current issue at hand is, do the sources support what you reverted out of the article From 1995-2001, the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence[12] and military[13] are widely alleged by the international community to have provided support to the Taliban in their rise to power and fight against anti-Taliban forces Darkness Shines (talk) 08:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

ok...well, this is not the reliable source board, but membership kind of overlaps. And nobody answered you? Is the post still up over there? Maybe we can get Fifelfoo to help out. I read both boards off and on and am willing to take a look -- it will however take me some time. Real life is calling now ;) And I dunno how authoritative I am. Maybe some other people will try it as well, but you're kinda asking a reliable source question on the neutral point of view board. I suppose given the history, this could be construed as a neutral point of view problem, but I am having to work at it a bit. Are you suggesting he should open his own post about the "founding" issue? Just wondering....

Elinruby (talk) 10:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

He's trying to get attention to only the things he wants where he has added objectionable content himself. There surely can't be a new thread... maybe a subsection if you suggest.. for clarity. But that issue is there and can't just go away by itself. Also, reliable sources is not the matter here. If you see the last archive of the talk page, it has been very thoroughly discussed that no more details can be added to the lead since it was balanced after much difficulty. It was agreed as neutral by all parties and put there by a user siding with him on the dispute. Now further information (though he wants to add) is objected. Reliability is not even contested here... weight is contested here. That content belongs to body, and requires attribution and denial when there. This already formed a consensus of not keeping in lead. Just after doing that... without even change consensus and attempting to add information similar to it is disruptive. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Didn't you both say that the matter of the lede was resolved? Or was it just you and he hasn't taken issue with it, or possibly just not yet? I'm not getting into who did what as there would be no point. As far as I can see you have both lost your temper, which is irrelevant here anyway. If you want validation that he's misbehaved then Wikiquette or RfC/U is the place for you. But I advise against it; I doubt they'll want to get into who was more wrong.

What I am trying to find is a resolvable question, such as an accurate and neutral wording for "some people say that Pakistan did something; Pakistan denies it" :) I do realize that weight may be an issue. That's why I am not blurting out a snap answer. I am hoping for reinforcements, who themselves may not know much about the question either, and have to examine the sources, and the question, and do some pondering. I am actually chipping away at this in the midst of other tasks though, so it's not that I am blowing this off. Elinruby (talk) 12:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the denial sources, I had amended those but was reverted so asked on the RSN board[6] Nobody replied :o) Darkness Shines (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

There's an RSN going on for this too? How many places do you have to post the same dispute to? And without informing the involved editor as you did here and at RSN, it doesn't seem that you'll either neutrally represent (which you haven't at both places) the issue or get a good response. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

No-one replied. Discussing it here instead seems perfectly reasonable and not worth getting excited about. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure it can be discussed here... but without even telling and missing my replies on no objection to citations which led Elinruby or any other thinking there's a red flag because I simply removed an academic ref and added one to a shave magazine is funny when I told him that the revert was to the last standing version. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Why use revert then? Seems like you could have manually moved or even deleted the parts you felt were not part of consensus. I don't understand why you would make the article *less* well-sourced, even if you disagreed with some of the changes he made. There is no wiki law of nature that prevents dealing with changes separately. by the way, I still don't see the discussion about other countries, but I can't say I have read the whole thing in depth either, so no worries... I'll come back to that. And yes, he should have notified you that he posted here. Elinruby (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I reverted for the time being and right away offered him to put the content back, I might even have helped in that since I was the one who reverted... but he started on the other issues and later added new objectionable content instead. Yes, there's no such law and I proposed to do it separately. The discussion I referred to got archived. There's another discussion in which I've asked to add USA (and CIA) in the article and a mention in the lead along with sources which is still at the talk page. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I had improved the references before the stuff you do not like, look at the article history, you just did a mass revert. However leaving that aside, now that the quotes are visible below what do the uninvolved editors think? Do all those sources support the edit? Darkness Shines (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

There were some intermediate edits. The current content is not neutral. Supported by sources at one place and the denial supported by sources already cited in the lead. Also, you've not attributed the claim of "founding Taliban" to the sources even when it was already decided to do so at the previous NPOVN. You've ignored all repetitions of this objection. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd say the statement that Pakistan founded the Taliban requires sourcing, yes, especially if Pakistan denies any ties to them at all. Was this decision in the same NPOV post that was just up here recently? Oh, a previous one. Doesn't matter though - not common knowledge, therefore requires attribution. It's hard to have too much attribution, really. The other "against consensus" things I will try to get back to. Elinruby (talk) 04:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you got it right. Sourcing, attribution, denials go inline when there's such contention. It was stated previously that it is not Wikipedia's place to state such things as facts. Ah, now I think we do need separate subsections. Chronology is messed up here.--lTopGunl (talk) 11:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Same question I just asked you on the article talk page, was this the edit you thought said Pakistan had given military aid to the Taliban? "From 1995-2001, the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence[12] and military[13] are widely alleged by the international community to have provided support to the Taliban in their rise to power and fight against anti-Taliban forces" Because it seems obvious to me you misread it. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Your reply is on the talk page... I didn't misread the changes. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

"Role of the Pakistani military" sounds good to me for the header. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec)That is an excellent suggestion Eli, thank you. Regarding sources. I have gathered these.

Why is mt reflist not working? You will not be able to see the quotes. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I've used the references element instead which does work. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, now that the quotes are visible what do you think? Darkness Shines (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Right, this thread is about this specific edit[7] TG, we can argue over the other edits once this particular issue is resolved. To the uninvolved editors, please look at the edit and the sources below. All those sources say the same thing, the ISI and Pakistani military helped the Taliban. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
• If my hatting is not done please revert me, I just want to focus on the question which began this threa. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I pretty much answered your question. The revert to your references were an edit conflict which have been added back I guess (or still can be and always could have been as I said on talk page). About JCAla's modification to lead... that was discussed and put there by him and yes he had given reliable sources but the issue here is not whether this sources are correct in their information or not... it is whether proper weight is being given to it along with the denial in the lead. Now as TParis said on the talk page, that if every detail of support is mentioned in the lead and subsequently every detail denied or some how other wise balanced by Pakistan's stance on it as we stick to WP:WEIGHT and per the closed NPOVN discussion, it wont remain a lead any more. That is why the lead mentions just that and the body mentions the details. I think this is reasonable enough. The lead currently is neutral (and considered so by all parties to the dispute given that User:JCAla put it there) but if we add the details it wont be neutral (or atleast would be come a dispute)... so this was a DRN issue and did go there as well with no consensus (which means it is fine as it is). Now that JCAla modified it without any reason and I reverted, how is it not neutral. There's no support for that change. I've also questioned your addition of "founding of Taliban" into the article which is significantly affecting neutrality of the article and is a major issue. I've reverted your hatting as that unilaterally closed the discussion going on there. Don't put hats like that when a discussion has not yet stopped. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

And I told you this section was started by myself to discuss one specific edit. We will discuss the other edits once this one has reached a conclusion. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

See WP:OWN. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

references

Well 3, 5, 8 and 9 -- ie the university press books -- have pretty strong presumptions in their favor unless there's some question about the specific author having a bias or personal agenda. I'd need to spend some time with Google before expressing a more specific opinion, or any opinion about the others. Wasn't 10 the one at RSN? The question I have about that is how independent that publisher is of the administration in office. I am not saying it's not RS -- just that that is one thing I would wonder as I was trying to decide what I thought of it. I will try to come back to this but now I really do have to go poof. Elinruby (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on the hatnote; I'll leave that to editors with more experience on this board. I have gotten this far with your sources: they all exist and I have verified that where you provide a quote it is on the page listed. I am not yet ready to say what I think about reliability or weight. A couple of specific comments though: a) a partial answer to a question I raise above -- the publisher of #10 disclaims affiliation with the US government and b) #2 #3 does not support your text. The words are there on that page but they summarize what the author calls a conventional wisdom, which she then proceeds to extensively rebut. More later. Elinruby (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

First thank you for taking the time to look this over, it is greatly appreciated. RE, #3 Have you read as far as pp268/269? The author again states ISI involvement in the creation of the movement. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Not sure without looking. I will take another look later if you like; I still need to do the read I promised TG for weight. Cannot this`second. Elinruby (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again for your time, I have added two more references. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

All have quotes and all of these would support what TG removed, Darkness Shines (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

May I add one? Cheers, Ankimai (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Golden Domes

Golden Domes is an article about two buildings built for the group practice of the TM-Sidhi program, including Yogic Flying and the Maharishi Effect. An editor complains that it is a WP:COATRACK because it contains material on various assemblies and studies that have been conducted in the domes but which could have taken place elsewhere. The material in question directly concerns the domes, or what happens in them, and is not duplicated in other articles. It is not uncommon for articles on buildings to describe noteworthy events or activities which have taken place in them. For example, New Orleans Mint, a featured article, includes a section on the coins produced in the mint. Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome has a long section on the usage of the stadium and The Forum (Inglewood) is mostly about the events that have taken place there. Many buildings are notable because of what happens in them. Must articles on buildings be restricted solely to information about the structures themselves or may they also cover noteworthy activities in the buildings?   Will Beback  talk  20:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

This is the second discussion on this issue. Will Beback in writing this article suggests the domes were integral to the research and included a research section which is already beyond the scope of an article on a building. The TM Sidhi research whatever its characteristics does not have as a parameter any building. A GE reviewer suggested the article had "fluff" aspects and on the OR notice board [8] an uninvolved editor clearly objected to the way the article extended beyond the scope of an article on a building.

This accusation won't have come as a surprise to you because "coatracking" was raised on the day after you created the article. And the GA reviewer called it "a rather shameless fluff piece" for TM. Since the article is about buildings it should contain the info about the buildings. Yes, you can briefly mention things that regularly happen or have happened in the buildings. But also, the article should stick to the point. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Clearly there is no concern with the former comments since he now wishes to expand the research section even further. If this is the way we write an encyclopedia, I have no problem with it, but in my mind suggesting research depends on a building when it doesn't is OR.(olive (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC))

I have not expressed a wish to expand the article further. However an uninvolved editor suggested making some small addition to the "Effects and studies" section for NPOV. Talk:Golden Domes#Pseudoscience.   Will Beback  talk  21:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

"However I'll do a search to see if I can find any other responses that were left out before. Will Beback talk 19:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)"(olive (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC))

That was in response to a request. In any case, the question here is whether articles on buildings must be limited to the structures themselves, or whether they may include material on events which occur inside them.   Will Beback  talk  22:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor comments:

• Being mindful of WP:OTHERSTUFF, articles on buildings such as Soldier Field or Madison Square Garden routinely discuss what notable events go on there. But, perhaps more to the point, the Golden Domes were purpose built for Yogic Flying with the intention of generating the Maharishi Effect. They are more like some large scientific apparatus - say like the Large Hadron Collider at CERN or the Tevatron at Fermilab - where the articles at Wikipedia discuss the discoveries claimed and research done about the experiments conducted there in great detail. Or, alternatively, they are like some religious sanctuary where devotees go to pray for miracles, like Sanctuary of Our Lady of Lourdes where the articles discuss the claimed miracles as well as skepticism about their authenticity. Either way one may want to look at it, to discuss what goes on within the buildings, the claimed effects of what goes on in the buildings, and criticism of those claims, is hardly what I would call a "coatrack" article. It is perfectly within the scope of what an article about this kind of facility should include. Fladrif (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• WTH The existence and design of the domes is notable, I suppose. And a limited amount of TM-related verbiage. The rest is neither POV nor NPOV - it is simply non-encyclopedic puffery/anti-puffery at this point. And all the excess TM verbiage is simply ArbCom fight fodder at best. Delete all but the bare bones, please, and then only add material which is specific to the domes. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It's all specific to the domes.   Will Beback  talk  23:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Would you say that material in stadium article not about the stadiums themselves, like games and concerts, should also be removed?   Will Beback  talk  23:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Where it devolves into endless lists - yes. This article should stop pretty much after it says the domes have been used for other gatherings - if the gathering per se was notable, make an article on it. If the gathering is not notable, it should not be in this article. Simple. Yankee Stadium does not include every gathering ever held there - just notable ones. The White House does not list every state dinner. And so on. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Likewise, the Golden Domes article does not list every assembly held there, just the ones reported. Which material are you talking about specifically? It's all sourced.   Will Beback  talk  00:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I've left a notice at Talk:Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome about this discussion, though it's just one of perhaps hundreds of articles on buildings which might have to have material removed if we agree that articles on buildings must avoid sections on events and usage.   Will Beback  talk  00:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Kindly read what I wrote. I did not say that buildings should have nothing on their use - but that only notable uses are of any value in an article. If we stick to notabile items we will have few issues - but the problem is the inclusion of material which is not notable. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

If by notable you mean covered in reliable sources then everything in the article qualifies.   Will Beback  talk  00:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Read the Wikipedia definition of "notable." Wikipedia does not assume that everything ever written is "notable" nor do I assume that because someone can find something somewhere that it is "notable" at all. Try again, Will. And use what I write. Collect (talk) 12:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTABLE concerns whether a topic is sufficiently notable for an article of its own. It has nothing to down with what material belongs in an article. It is contrary to policy, practice, and common sense to assert that every issue covered in an article needs to be sufficiently notable for a standalone article. Unless you can point to some actual policy or guideline language which disallows the inclusion of events in an article on a building, this looks like an "IDONTLIKEIT" argument.   Will Beback  talk  18:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

A quick look at the article suggests to me that it is a blatant example of coatracking. As for comparing it to the Large Hadron Collider, or Lordes, have any external reliable sources made such comparisons? And if you are going to claim that scientific research is going on in the building, any claims regarding such research must necessarily fall under WP:FRINGE policy - and in particular WP:ONEWAY: "Fringe theories may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way. However, meeting this standard indicates only that the idea may be discussed in other articles, not that it must be discussed in a specific article. If mentioning a fringe theory in another article gives undue weight to the fringe theory, discussion of the fringe theory may be limited, or even omitted altogether. If no independent reliable sources connect a particular fringe theory to a mainstream subject, there should not even be a link through a see also section, lest the article serve as a coatrack". We already have an article on the TM-Sidhi program, and it should not be duplicated here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

There are numerous sources, including independent reliable sources, for the material.   Will Beback  talk  23:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

That is irrelevant regarding the issue of it being coatracking. Are there 'independent reliable sources' comparing the domes to the Collider, or to Lourdes? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you serious? No one is suggesting that any article in Wikipedia should compare these buildings to the colliders, or Lourdes or Oral Robert's prayer tower.... so asking for sources to support that comparison misses the point entirely. Fladrif (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Given that it was you that made the comparison, what point is being missed? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The point is that these buildings were built for a specific purpose,and claims are made about things that allegedly occured as a result of the use of these buildings, with research claimed to prove it, and criticisms of that research. The builders and users claim that purpose and the research is scientific. Everyone in the scientific community who has not simply ignored these claims as preposterous on their face, have said that the so-called "research" is deeply flawed if not outright fraudulent, and would categorize them as either pseudoscience or religion or some combination of the two. With other things built for a purpose, like sports stadiums, or concert halls, or scientific apparatus, or pseudoscientific apparatus like E-meters or various quack medicine devices, or religious shrines, the articles about those kinds of things generally discuss why the thing was built, what goes on there, what it is claimed to do, and where the claims are disputed, what the disputes are. That's all. I was simply trying to use some examples of other articles dealing with purpose-built things, and those were the examples that occurred to me. You don't need secondary sources to make the comparison, because the comparison is not for the purpose of trying to say in an article "the domes are a scientific device like a collider" or "the domes are like a quack medicine device" or "the domes are like a religious shrine"; it is, rather, for the purpose of trying to reason through what an appropriate scope is for an article about a thing like these buildings. Fladrif (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

"The builders and users claim that purpose and the research is scientific". So what? Their claims are ludicrous, and taking them seriously would be a gross breach of WP:FRINGE, not to mention common sense. Find a reliable source outside this loopy cult that takes their assertion that this is a building constructed for scientific investigations and maybe this might justify a sentence or two in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure I understand your issue about FRINGE. Let's say astrology is considered a fringe topic, and lets say we have an article about a purpose built astrological observatory. Why would it be incorrect to review the specific research done on astrology at the observatory? BTW, there are published scientific papers on the effect generated by the domes, and about their construction.   Will Beback  talk  00:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

"published scientific papers"? Bollocks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Your comment makes it appear that you have not actually read the article. First, the domes are compared to particle accelerators. Second, the references clearly include scholarly/scientific papers.

• Davies, John L. (1992). "Assessing the Impact of Coherence-Creating Groups on the Lebanon War". Modern Science and Vedic Science (MUM Press) 5 (1 & 2).
• Orme-Johnson, David W.; Dillbeck, Michael (1987). "Maharishi's program to create world peace: Theory and research". Journal of Modern Science and Vedic Science (MUM Press) 1 (2): 207–259.
• Orme-Johnson, D. W.; Cavanaugh, K. L.; Alexander, C. N.; Gelderloos, P.; Dillbeck, M. C.; Lanford, A. G.; Nader, Abou (1990). "The influence of the Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field on world events and global social indicators: The effects of the Taste of Utopia Assembly". In Chalmers, R. A.; Clements, G; Schenkluhn, H. Scientific Research on Maharishi's Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi Programme: Collected Papers (Vol. 4). Maharishi Vedic University Press.
• Orme-Johnson, David W. (1992). "Theory and Research on Conflict Resolution Through the Maharishi Effect". Journal of Modern Science and Vedic Science (MUM Press) 5 (1–2).
• Rabinoff, R. A.; Dillbeck, M. C.; Deissler, R (1981). "Effect of coherent collective consciousness on the weather". Scientific research on Maharishi's Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi Programme: Collected papers (Vol. 4). MUM Press.
• Trumpy, Franklin D. (Winter 1983/84). "An Investigation of the Reported Effect of Transcendental Meditation on the Weather". The Skeptical Inquirer 8 (143).
• Hatchard, G. D.; Deans, A. J.; Cavanaugh, K. L.; Orme-Johnson, D. W. (1996). "The Maharishi Effect: A model for social improvement. Time series analysis of a phase transition to reduced crime in Merseyside metropolitan area". Psychology, Crime and Law 2 (3): 165–174. doi:10.1080/10683169608409775.
• Lowe, Scott (2010). "The Neo-Hindu Transformation of an Iowa Town". Nova Religio: the Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions 13 (3): 81–91. ISSN 1541–8480 1092-6690, 1541–8480.

Scholarly/academic books also refer to the topic:

• Humes, C.A. (2005). "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi: Beyond the T.M. Technique". In Forsthoefel, Thomas A.; Humes, Cynthia Ann. Gurus in America. SUNY Press. ISBN 079146573X.
• McBurney, Donald H.; White, Theresa L. (2009). Research Methods. Cengage Learning. ISBN 9780495602194.
• Williamson, Lola (2010). Transcendent in America:Hindu-Inspired Meditation Movements as New Religion. NYU Press. ISBN 9780814794500.

Yogic Flying and the Maharishi Effect may be considered fringe topics, but like many fringe topics they have been the subject of scholarly and quasi-scholarly research. The Golden Domes are the most important centers of this practice, and the specific practice of Yogic Flying there has been the subject of considerable attention. Hence it is relevant to report in the article those studies o activities inside the domes.   Will Beback  talk  20:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

'Vedic' bollocks. And yes, this movement has been compared to a religion by perfectly acceptable sources - which proves the point. The movement isn't scientific, and to misrepresent what they are doing in the Domes as in any way 'science' is an outright lie. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

They purport to be scientific and they have published their findings in some reputable scientific journals as well as in their own publications. But whether the concepts are scientific, pseudoscientific, religious, or just vedic has no bearing on whether the usage and events inside the building qualify as coatracking. The issue there is whether the events and usage are an entirely different topic and whether the article is being used as a coatrack to support unrelated material. Since the buildings were constructed to practice Yogic Flying, the purported effects of practicing Yogic Flying in the domes seems directly related to the topic.   Will Beback  talk  21:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a building down the road from me where they regularly stage events intended to transform food and drink into a god - which they then consume. They also attempt to communicate with their god by thinking at him, and by singing (usually out of tune). The proclaimed purpose of the building is to convince everone that their god is the right one (or possibly three), and if you do the right things according to his rules, you will be magically transported after you die to a place of everlasting happiness. Do you think all our articles on buildings like this should describe the minutiae of activities there, complete with a scientific analysis of their success rate? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

This is unecessarily offensive. You can make this point more effectively without offending other editors. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I assume AndyTheGrump is referring to a Christian church and to the sacrament of Eucharist. The situations are in some analogous, in that a group purports that their activities inside a building (more specifically praying) has an effect far outside the building. We have a very long article on Prayer, and numerous articles on individual prayers or practices (Category:Prayer), including scientifically oriented articles like Efficacy of prayer and Studies on intercessory prayer. Further there are articles on the conduct of group prayer, like Church service, Mass (liturgy), Easter Vigil, etc. Even further, there are countless articles on buildings built for the purpose of group prayer. Now imagine compressing that range of information into one or two articles. If there was only one notable church, would it be coatracking to explain how services are conducted there or the purported effects of the prayers given there? I don't think so, because those would all be directly related to that building.   Will Beback  talk  23:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

(←) I agree about the coatracking. For example

1. MUM researchers have conducted numerous studies on the Yogic Flying practiced in multiple locations including in the domes. Proponents assert that lower crime rates, increases in stock market indices, the reunification of Germany, fewer air traffic fatalities, and other quantifiable changes are the result of lowering tension in the world by practicing TM-Sidhi in the domes. This is not really about the domes.
2. A paper by Maharishi University researchers found correlations between the Taste of Utopia assembly and improvements in a number of indices, including air traffic fatalities, stock markets, crime rates, infectious diseases, and patent applications in localities as far away as Australia.[108] Another paper said that a security plan in the Lebanese Civil War was agreed to during the assembly but that the deal fell apart when the assembly ended.[109] Daily press releases during the assembly took credit for myriad improvements around the world but not for the unusually harsh weather conditions in Fairfield, including a wind chill of -83ºF (-64ºC).[100] Michael Dillbeck, an MUM dean, reported that "world stocks went back down and infectious diseases went up" after the assembly ended.[37] The assembly was seen as a success by Dillbeck, David Orme-Johnson, and other MUM experts.[37] Does not appear to be about the domes at all.
3. A spokesman for MUM, John Revolinski, said in April 2001 that the nation had been on an upward trajectory since the first dome was inaugurated. "There is a greater orderliness, greater peace, greater friendliness among countries that has emerged since 1979."[110] According to the University Report, the post-9/11 assembly led to feelings of euphoria on campus and unexpected moderation by President Bush but the US bombing of Afghanistan began when the number of practitioners fell below 1,200.[45] Again, not about the dome.
4. John Hagelin, three-time Natural Law Party candidate for US President, Raja of Invincible America, and an MUM professor, predicted in 2007 that when the number of Invincible America assembly participants reached 2,500 America would have a major drop in crime, and see the virtual elimination of all major social and political woes in the United States.[111] Hagelin also said that the assembly was responsible for the Dow Jones Industrials stock index reaching a record high of 14,022 earlier that month, and predicted it would top 17,000 within a year.[111][112] Does not mention the domes.

Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

For convenience of replying, I've numbered your examples.

1. Everything in example is about the domes. It was activity in the domes which is purported to have lowered crimes rates and airplane fatalities, etc.
2. The "Taste of Utopia" assembly took place in the domes. How is this different from the entry in the Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome article which says, "On January 9, 1983, the Vikings defeated the Atlanta Falcons, 30-24, in a 1st-round game that was the first playoff game at the Metrodome."?
3. This is about the significance of the domes and their (purported) impact. The list of coins produced in the New Orleans Mint is not about the building either, but it is very closely related.
4. Likewise, this is a major claim for the importance of the activity inside the domes.

Again, the core question here is whether articles on buildings may contain material on how those buildings are used, including significant events. Based on common practice in many Wikipedia articles, it appears that it is fairly common to include such information. A determination that it is impermissible coatracking would require deleting material from countless articles, including featured articles.   Will Beback  talk  20:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Cusop Dingle, I see you've worked on Ballechin House. It contains descriptions of the events which took place in the building, most of which are unrelated to the physical structure. How are they different?   Will Beback  talk  21:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The analogy is inexact. The correct analogy would be an article about an allegedly haunted house which devoted hundreds of words to descriptions of paranormal phenomena in other places. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks like about 2/3 of the article on Ballechin House, and hundreds of words, concern spiritual/mystical events or beliefs about the house. In the case of the Golden Domes, the activities there are explicitly purported to affect people and events elsewhere. That's a significant part of their notability and so it makes sense to include that material. There is (purportedly) a direct connection between the activity in the domes and effects elsewhere, even quite far away.   Will Beback  talk  23:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

You reinforce my point. The material describes events in the house or beliefs about the house. It's about the house, not about ghosts. The four quotes I gave are about the alleged effects of yogic flying, not about the domes. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

And what 'significant events' are you suggesting have occurred in the Domes? Please provide reliable third-party sources that explain what the events were, and why they were significant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Every event is covered by reliable sources. There's no need for each one to be 3rd-party, though the bulk of them are.   Will Beback  talk  21:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Comments on the numbered points above.

1) No, it is about activities carried out in the domes and elsewhere. The article is about the domes.

2) This is 136 words about the alleged results of an activity in the dome.

3) This is about things that happened elsewhere since the dome was built. It does not mention the domes.

4) This is about things that were predicted to happen, and may or may not have happened, as a result of things that might or might not have been done in the domes. It does not mention the domes.

It is quite clear that these are very long slabs of texts with the intention of talking up the practice of TM or Yogic Flying. The domes are physical structures and yet we have nearly 400 words in these examples about the alleged benefits of Yogic Flying. It's as if we had hundreds of words on the benefits of Obama's health policy in the article on the Oval Office or on Cameron's economic policy at Palace of Westminster.

Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

"the core question here is whether articles on buildings may contain material on how those buildings are used, including significant events" No. It is about the extent to which such material should be added and how relevant it should be. Those editors who have given an opinion, which is what this board is about, are largely of the view that the hundreds and hundreds of words about Yogic Flying are excessive in amount and insufficiently relevant in content. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Referring to the numbered entries:

1. The activities engaged in elsewhere are not directly related, that's right. However it is a very brief mention. I am not tied to it and would be fine with removing the existence of studies conducted elsewhere
2. Yes, 136 words. The Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome article has over 2000 words about things that happened in that dome. Do you think all of that material is coatrack?
3. Maybe we can make it clearer. The sources indicate that these were the direct result of what a happened in the domes, including the post-9/11 assembly.
4. The "invincible America" assembly is an ongoing activity/event in the domes. We can make that clearer. Thanks for your input.   Will Beback  talk  22:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I removed the coatrack section discussing effects that have been reportedly achieved by activities at the Golden Domes "and other flying halls". The article is about the domes, not about other nonsense or other buildings. Binksternet (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Even if some of the material is so extensive as to be viewed as "coatrack", the complete deletion of the section was excessive. I propose that we move the deleted material on the "Taste of Utopia" assembly, and perhaps other assemblies, to a standalone article, and that we retain a smaller portion of the material, the first and last paragraphs in particular.   Will Beback  talk  23:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The point Will is missing is that whatever claims were made, whatever research was done was not dependent in any way on the domes, but on the activity itself. Research is on the activity. The Domes as I have said before are not parameters for the research. That same research could have and has been carried out when the activity occurred in other buildings in other places around the world. So all of the information about the research which links the research to the domes as if the domes were integral aspect of the research is just inaccurate, and is a form of OR.(olive (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC))

Research is an important issue, however the material I suggest restoring (above) is not principally about research.   Will Beback  talk  00:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Will, my deletion of the whole section was not excessive, it was specific and precise—surgical. I don't see any reason why someone who sees value in the deleted material moving it to a relevant article or starting a new one. To me it's all nonsense, but I won't stand in the way of believers. Binksternet (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that there isn't a single sentence in that section which was directly related to the domes? If so I disagree. Almost every sentence mentions the domes. The "Taste of Utopia" material is significant is significant enough to merit a standalone article, which might make sense combined with other assemblies. However there is also material on other things about the domes which would make more sense to keep. Again, I'm looking at the first and last paragraphs of that section:

Practitioners assert that, when done with sufficient numbers in the Golden Domes and other flying halls, the TM-Sidhi program creates the "Maharishi Effect" which results in lowering the incidence of crime, illness, and conflict in the US and abroad. R. Keith Wallace, founding president and MUM professor, said of the domes' effect, "When Germany was unified, that was our doing." MUM Executive Vice President Craig Pearson said in 1999 that "Participating in large group programs in the Golden Domes is the single most important thing each of us can do. We have the power to create the coherence necessary to bring about a positive change to our nation's actions in Kosovo." Robert M. Oates Jr., director of public affairs at MUM, suggested that the US government should move to Iowa to be closer to the domes. In regard to campus emergency procedures, Tom Brooks, chief operating officer of the university, said "the coherence from our Golden Domes and meditation halls will help to keep us all safe."

Hagelin wrote in 2008 that a disappointing nomination for United States Secretary of Agriculture was the consequence of fewer Yogic Flyers in the domes. A study published by MUM Press found that the stress hormone levels of non-meditators in Fairfield was inversely proportional to the number of group practitioners in the domes. A doctoral dissertation for MUM found there was a direct relationship between the number of practitioners and the quality of life in Iowa, and concluded that every missing Yogic Flyer resulted in 3.6 fewer jobs in the state. Some Maharishi supporters blamed the on-campus killing of an MUM student in 2004 on declining numbers of dome attendees. One member wrote that hundreds died in an airplane crash when the group program had to be suspended for a day due to construction. Former MUM president Wallace said a shortage of Yogic Flyers was responsible for the 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

Any objections?   Will Beback  talk  00:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

No, the material is relevant not only to the Golden Domes but also to "other flying halls", so the material is about activities that are larger than the domes. The material should go elsewhere. Binksternet (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

"A study published by MUM Press found that the stress hormone levels of non-meditators in Fairfield was inversely proportional to the number of group practitioners in the domes."

"Robert M. Oates Jr., director of public affairs at MUM, suggested that the US government should move to Iowa to be closer to the domes"

How are those not about the domes?   Will Beback  talk  01:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Those are from MUM and are not indicative of outside sources taking notice. Those are not worth being in the article. Binksternet (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they are from MUM. Are you saying that you think MUM is a poor quality source in particular, or that we cannot use the owners of buildings as sources for articles in general?   Will Beback  talk  03:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The MUM sources are not enough to make me want to save any of the deleted text. They add undue weight to the article in favor of MUM's fringe position. The mainstream view is that it is all nonsense, so the deleted text we are discussing is not helpful to the imbalance in weight. Binksternet (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

"The mainstream view is that it is all nonsense" - according to whom? Whether it is nonsense or not, there is a substantial community who believe it is real and they spend 3 hours a day in the Golden Domes. It is fair to describe their beliefs. How or where should we do that instead?   Will Beback  talk  04:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The walled garden of believers is not worth discussing at length if nobody outside the garden takes notice. If someone does take notice, the discussion of beliefs is best left for a description of the people, not the buildings. Binksternet (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Note. Given the claims regarding 'scientific research' being made in relation to the Domes, I have added a {{Fringe theories}} template to the article, and ask that the matter be properly addressed, in accordance with policy, before the template is removed. I will post a link to this discussion on the Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard to attract further comment. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. Above, Littleolive oil complains that I was planning to expand the section by adding (if available) further sources on the mainstream views. Then, just recently, Binksternet deleted the bulk of the material on what could be considered "fringe" views. This discussion started out on the coatrack issue, which is NPOV-related. Maybe we should have the fringe views discussion on that noticeboard.   Will Beback  talk  00:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible coatracking of fringe material into an article is a NPOV issue, and as such properly discussed here. I see no merit in splitting the discussion over several noticeboards. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Andy. There is an article on the TM-Sidhi program which gives a sense of the response to the research, pros and cons, in the general scientific community The point is not whether there are claims that there is research. There is. Nor is the the question about the legitimacy of that research. Its whether the domes are parameters for that research. They aren't. I hope this explanation makes sense.(olive (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC))

If the Domes article is to contain any references to 'research' being conducted there, it needs to conform to policy regarding the presentation of fringe theories. We regards to the TM-Sidhi program, that is another matter best not discussed here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

If the problem with the Golden Domes article is fringe material, then TM-Sidhi program deserves attention too, as it is the main article on Yogic Flying and the Maharishi Effect, the purported fringe material in the domes article.   Will Beback  talk  01:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

We are discussing the 'Domes' article here. Please stick to the point, and do not try to drag in other matters. Do you accept that the references to 'research' in the Domes article fall within the remit of WP:FRINGE? And if not, on what basis? Neither 'Yogic Flying', nor the 'Maharishi Effect' are remotely compatible with mainstream scientific understanding - and yet the article seems to present them as things that are actually occurring in the Domes, and as things that are being investigated 'scientifically'. That seems to me to be fringe material of the most obvious type. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

There have been many discussions of the fringey-ness of TM-Sidhi. I don't see how that helps us resolve the coatrack issue.   Will Beback  talk  03:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

So your response to a simple question is more waffle? What part of 'a coatrack for fringe material' do you find so hard to understand? And there can be no question that pseudoscientific bollocks about levitation, 'Maharishi effects' and the rest is fringe - if not just plain idiocy. It belongs nowhere on Wikipedia except in an article which shows what bollocks it is. If you want to promote nonsense, you are entirely entitled to - but not here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know where you get the idea I'm promoting this "nonsense". Whether Yogic Flying is pseudoscience is immaterial to the issue of whether talking about it in an article about a building built for the specific purpose of Yogic Flying is coatracking. Based on your earlier posting, I'd guess that you consider various Christian beliefs to be "bollocks" as well. But our personal beliefs are not important to providing an NPOV discussion of a topic. It sounds like your saying the real problem is that the article doesn't show "what bollocks it is". If so, can't it be fixed by adding that material?   Will Beback  talk  04:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I give in. You are clearly avoiding addressing the issue here, which is that an article purportedly about a building is in fact being used to promote other things - we don't need to 'balance' it we need to cut it out, as irrelevant. I'm not going to waste any more time here, but will instead simply delete such material as the blatant violation of policy it is... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. You don't just delete hundreds of words of sourced, relevant material just because you found you were losing an argument. That's petulant and disruptive. No policy-based reason was given for that deletion, which was grossly inappropriate.   Will Beback  talk  06:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

But you do remove it if there is a consensus that it is inappropriate. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

There's no consensus here on any given material. The main issue here has been about the Yogic Flying/Maharishi Effect material. However AndyTheGrump's deletions went far beyond anything discussed here, including descriptions of its constructions, its interior, etc., etc. He hasn't asserted that any of that is "coatrack" material, nor is it.   Will Beback  talk  08:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

If this discussion moves to the fringe NB the focus will move away from the issues, my position has always been that this is a coatrack article which includes inaccuracies, and will shift to a focus on the research. If you want to discuss the research go to the appropriate article talk page. If you as editors want to deal with the issue at hand, the coatrack article, don't get sidetracked by discussions on research that deserves only a mention in the article in the first place.(olive (talk) 00:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC))

If there are sources that say this is a fringe theory a short mention could be included. The issue is not about accurately presenting the research, its about whether this article should veer off onto a long harangue on the research at all . No one is arguing one way or the other about how to label the research. And I would assume that anyone adding a label will have looked at the research first. Right?(olive (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC))

Olive, most of the uninvolved editors here seem to be saying that Yogic Flying ans the Maharishi Effect are fringe views, per WP:FRINGE. Am I correct that you disagree?   Will Beback  talk  05:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Please read: "If there are sources that say this is a fringe theory a short mention could be included." (olive (talk) 05:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC))

• As it appears that the discussion has now moved to the article talk page with some welcome input from previously uninvolved editors, I would think that his particular discussion could be closed. Fladrif (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

What appears to me is that there is a clear consensus here to the effect that the article was overloaded with irrelevant TM puffery and that since this discussion started there were seven comments on the article talk page, followed by this proposal which completely ignores this discussion and rather astonishingly proposes to revert the changes as if this discussion had never taken place. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

K Street

You'd think "K Street" would be about Washington's lobbyists. A Google search of "K Street" will come up with lots of hits about lobbying. The WP article K Street gets hundreds of readers a day. What will readers find there? Only two or three lines about lobbying. Rest is traffic patterns. Why? There's one article owner insisting the article should be about the physical street.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The basic shape of the dispute is pretty clear at Talk: K Street under the heading neutrality concerns, but the tl;dr version is that the article as it stands notes that the term K Street is a metonym for the lobbying industry; but it also details the physical roadway in Washington DC. Tomwsulcer wants more weight placed on the lobbying aspect, but I feel that material of that sort would be better placed at lobbying in the United States (to be clear, K Street links to lobbying in the United States prominently in the lead paragraph). I'd appreciate others chiming in, since Tomwsulcer and I haven't been able to come to an agreement on what the article should look like and have been butting heads on the talk page all day. Thanks! Meelar (talk) 05:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I would recommend that both sides of this debate look at our article on Wall Street as an apt comparison. That article does a really nice job of balancing what it talks about... discussing both Wall Street as "roadway in New York City" and Wall Street as "financial center". Blueboar (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Blueboar. I wrote perhaps 65% of Wall Street here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia really need and want an article about the shape and traffic patterns of a street? There might be very interesting information about K street and its significance, including the lobbying industry, but I don't see that information in this article. The Wall Street article explores a variety of significant characteristics about Wall Street. The K Street article does not, at least so far. I question whether this article, as it stands, passes the WP:Notability test.Coaster92 (talk) 05:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The statements about the roadway are well-referenced and easily pass WP:GNG; moreover, they're important, since it's one of the key routes in downtown DC and a critical component of future transit plans. I'd have no problem with a neutral expansion of the lobbying section, but it's difficult. Unlike Wall St., which really does have a critical concentration of financial firms and the NYSE, K Street doesn't have a recognizable center of lobbying activity--there's no equivalent to the NYSE, and lobbying firms are scattered throughout downtown Washington. I haven't been able to track down a good history of the metonym to find out why K (as opposed to L or Pennsylvania) became another name for lobbying. So most material on lobbying doesn't necessarily belong in the K Street article, or at least I can't think of a good way to shoehorn it in there. And I'd rather not have the NPOV tag on the article until someone manages to dig up better history for the metonym. FWIW, at the beginning of this whole discussion I looked up the addresses of the top 10 lobbying firms in DC; only 2 were located on K Street, with the rest scattered throughout downtown. Meelar (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, most major thoroughfares in most cities are considered notable. And there are more than enough sources about K Street as a roadway to say that it is notable as a roadway. The problem is that there are also more than enough sources about K Street as a political term to say that it is notable as a political term. I suppose we could turn the title K Street into a disambiguation page... and create two separate disambiguated articles: K Street (DC roadway) and K Street (political term). I am not saying that that would necessarily be the best option, but it is an option. Blueboar (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

K Street (disambiguation) does exist, and currently reads:

K Street can refer to:

• K Street (Washington, D.C.), a street located in Washington, D.C.
  • By metonymy, the U.S. lobbying industry, many of whose firms have offices on this street

. The problem, if anything, is that there isn't enough content about K Street (political term) as distinct from lobbying in the United States. I'm tempted to make K Street the disambig page and put the current content at K Street (street). Tomwsulcer, does that make sense to you? Meelar (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I'll go along with what people here decide. I like Blueboar's approach. I can see some wisdom in the Meelar approach as well. My sense is that when a user types in "K Street", they probably are not interested in the traffic but want to know about the lobbying -- consider that 2000 people, on one day within the last month, typed in "K Street" and I don't think they were looking to find whether it was one-way or two-way. although there are probably people out there interested in the concrete aspects of this. And I'm guessing that "K Street" is somewhat distinct from "Lobbying in the United States", since K Street will refer to Washington DC lobbying, while the latter term will encompass all kinds of lobbying activity in the US (even in state capitols). That's my two cents. I'll go along with what you fine people decide. I'd like to improve the "K Street" article subject to your oversight, Meelar, and hopefully come up with something which makes all us Wikipedians looks on the ball and supremely smart. Next week I have lots of handyman projects so it might not be until the week after when I can get a crack at this, so let me know what you people decide and I'll try my best.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Reciprocal inter-insurance exchange

The article Reciprocal inter-insurance exchange seems to have been written from a point of view that is downright hostile toward the three insurance exchanges covered by the article. I don't know enough about the subject to rewrite it myself, but it would be desirable if someone could do so. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Not many sources, either - it reads like an editorial. If somebody removed the unsourced screeds, there would be very little left of the article... bobrayner (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Will do a bit of cleaning, and will watchlist, but it would benefit from more expert attention. Hard to get good sources. bobrayner (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Liberalism

There is a dispute on phrasing a sentence in the Liberalism article. Editors disagree over whether to include "the question of whether or not the US will accept a return to social liberalism remains in doubt". I would welcome comments on how this sentence should be written or whether it should be included at all. See discussion at Talk:Liberalism#Another issue.

Article: "Economic woes in the early 21st century led to a resurgence of social liberalism with the election of Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election, but there was a strong conservative backlash, and the question of whether or not the US will accept a return to social liberalism remains in doubt." (my emphasis)

Source: "...watching the first major signs of an emerging market meltdown,... they chose a man who...urged the adoption of liberal policies.... But will they use their power to advance liberal ideas? Th answer to this question, as it happens, is anything but self-evident." (Wolfe, Alan, The Future of Liberalism, Vintage Books, 2010, p. xiv)[9]

TFD (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Given that the section of the source quoted says nothing about "whether or not the US will accept a return to social liberalism" I'd say it doesn't appear on the face of it to support the sentence - though one would need to study the source more fully to be sure. Is there anything in it that does relate to 'acceptance'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Have editors given due regard to WP:RECENT on this one? It seems to me to be the kind of surmising that respectable news sources promote in their opinion sections, but liable to get out of date really quickly. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Jesus Seminar and, possibly, related articles

Please see Talk:Jesus Seminar#POV concerns. As a fairly regular editor of Christianity-related content, I have noticed that much of the editing done related to the topic of Christianity is done directly on matters relating to individual churches, beliefs, etc., and comparatively little done on the recent criticism of groups and individuals like this one. I tend to think that much of the editing on these articles may have been done from editors who may espouse a New Age or atheist/agnostic perspective, and that those individuals might be perhaps understandably more likely to include content with which they agree than balancing material. Some of you might remember the "religion and violence" controversy here about a year ago as well, which bore similar characteristics. I would very much welcome content relating to the recent theories and conjectures on the historicity of Jesus getting perhaps a bit broader attention, hopefully from editors from neither the Christian or atheist/agnostic perspective. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Murder of Ross Parker

I have raised a number of specific issues regarding neutrality on the talk page of this article, but I do not seem to be able to get even the most basic points understood. Perhaps I am off-base here. Can someone please have a look at the discussions? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it is question of your points not being understood, but rather with some editors not agreeing with your points. This is a difficult issue. On the one hand, the right-wing press often shows prejudice against all Muslims based on the actions of a few, and pretends, contrary to fact, that Whites and Christians are routinely discriminated against. On the other hand, these particular murderers do seem to have been motivated by religion as well as race, and the article should say so. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Rick, the article and discussions really could use some input from some uninvolved editors, especially anyone uninvolved with disputes with the creator of the article.--Shakehandsman (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

When I run up against an editor who suggests that statements made as argument by defence lawyers are neutral, I choose to think that the issue goes beyond a simple difference of opinion. For the record, I have started an RFC/U on Shakehandsmans' editing, which is the "dispute" referred to above. This article is not a part of that RFC/U. I think that comments from uninvolved editors familiar with WP:NPOV guidelines are preferable to starting multiple RfCs on the article talk page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Moons of dwarf planets template

Article

Template:Moons of dwarf planets

Diff

[10]

Discussion

Template_talk:Moons_of_dwarf_planets#Which_bodies_to_include

It is pointless to go on. User:Ruslik0 has proved on other talk pages that he refuses to negotiate in good faith: Any point I make is illegitimate, and when I have the sources to prove it, I'm "lying", as if he thinks others won't bother to check.

Dispute

This is a nav template, and therefore should include articles which interested readers might want to navigate to. Various authorities accept different numbers of bodies as dwarf planets (DPs), as on the basis of current knowledge it is difficult to be sure which ones actually are. (It's thought that hundreds may be, but that's impossible to demonstrate at present.) Per NPOV, since there's a dispute among experts, we should reflect that. At the advice of User:JorisvS,[11] I added the disputed bodies in a separate row that was clearly distinguished form those accepted by the IAU. Even that was reverted by User:Ruslik0, though it follows the layout of the tables at Dwarf planet#Official and "nearly certain" dwarf planets.

We have a running dispute over how to best portray the different opinions in an NPOV way, but everyone except User:Ruslik0 agrees that there is a difference in opinion, and that some authorities accept more dwarf planets than others. Only User:Ruslik0 maintains that "there is no dispute" (as in his edit summary of the diff above), and that I am somehow making this all up.

The International Astronomical Union (IAU) has accepted 5 bodies as DPs, three because they have been demonstrated to be (of which Eris and Pluto have moons and are therefore in the template), and two more because even at their minimum possible size, they're thought to be too big not to be (of which Haumea has moons and is in the template). However, the IAU has not addressed the issue for several years, and our knowledge has since improved.

Mike Brown, the foremost expert on these bodies, accepts four more that "must" be DPs on the basis of current evidence, using the same logic as the IAU.[12] Two of these (Orcus and Quaoar) have moons, and these are the two I added to the template in the 2nd row. Scott Sheppard accepts as "bona fide" Eris and Pluto, and says that Haumea, Orcus, and Quaoar are "likely", cross-cutting the two rows. Tancredi & Favre accept twelve bodies as DPs, including Quaoar and Orcus, though not any others with moons. That is, in the sources we've been able to locate, Brown, Tancredi and Favre accept Orcus and Quaoar as DPs, and Sheppard thinks that they, like Haumea which is already in the nav template, are "likely". José Ortiz also states that Orcus qualifies as a DP.

Personally, I think that all five systems should go in a single row, arranged by distance from the sun for esthetics and ease of navigation, as here,[13] though with a footnote to mark those accepted by the IAU. Either way, the persistent attempt by User:Ruslik0 to exclude RS'd points of view that he does not like violates NPOV. — kwami (talk) 03:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

World war two destroyers

HMS Petard (G56) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

On the HMS Petard page....it is stated that the ship had FOUR shafts. This is not true, It had only TWO

No destroyer had Four shafts ever since these were first built in WW1 as the beam was not large enough to accommodate four....that is one reason.

I served on H.M.S. Petard in 1960.....my last RN ship.

Regards.

Stephen Bentley.

ex-Royal Navy 1953- 1961. and Chief Engineer, Merchant Navy 1967- 2001 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollmax36 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. While I have no reason whatsoever to doubt your statements, we do require articles to be based on published reliable sources, rather than personal knowledge. It should be possible to resolve this matter fairly simply though - I'll see what source is being given for 'four shafts' and if there isn't one, delete it, with a note on the article talk page asking for this to be looked into. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

On checking, there didn't seem to be a cited source for 'four shafts', and our O and P class destroyer article states two. For now, I've deleted 'four shafts' from the infobox, and left a note on the talk page. Fortunately, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history is fairly active, and I expect we'll be able to resolve this definitively soon. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Your Favorite Enemies

• Your Favorite Enemies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I tagged the article for NPOV language on December 9, and it got reverted yesterday without consensus. Its main contributor openly admitted to a financial tie with the band, which presents a conflict of interest, and it appears that this user feels as though (s)he owns the article. I've provided a few tips on how to proceed, but the article needs quite a bit of work. For our discussion about neutrality, see here. SweetNightmares (awaken) 06:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

In fact, I kind of question this article's notability per WP:BAND. SweetNightmares (awaken) 16:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Would appreciate some help, please; the NPOV tag keeps getting removed. SweetNightmares (awaken) 18:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Are musicians/music groups not under the scope of this project? Where can I turn to get some assistance? SweetNightmares (awaken) 16:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Dutch Caribbean Airlines

I am unfamiliar with dealing with NPOV issues and was about to copyedit Dutch Caribbean Airlines as part of the January copyediting drive. However the article seems very chaotic and biased and is completely unreferenced so I felt it needed scrutiny by someone more familiar with these issues than me. Pending this, I am removing most of the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not a Wikipedia priority to edit extensive histories of commercial companies. Such work would not contribute to understanding any field, and if the company is popular enough to have fans then they will sort this kind of data. You were right to remove this from the article, but you commented it out instead of deleting it. I am going to delete it outright. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Advertising?

Lightning detection

A section titled "Professional-quality portable lightning detectors" was added to this article back in June/July 2009 that reads like product advertising. It even includes a subsection with links to related patents, almost all of them held by the company mentioned in the disputed section.

I raised the issue in the article's talk page, but, since the additions were so old, and the user ("Soargain") doesn't appear to have been active since the additions, it's unlikely that a remedy will be found that way.

Perhaps a clean up is in order, either by removing the seemingly product-related content and links, or by adding content pertaining to the products (and patents?) of other companies and manufacturers from the same field.

203.86.206.206 (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

You could just boldly edit it yourself and explain your reasoning on the article talk page. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Soargains's contributions do indeed appear to be promotional. They can be deleted in their entirety. There is no encyclopedic value in adding information about the products of other manufacturers. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Ordinary mathematics

This looks like an essay from a personal point of view. 94.197.2.9 (talk) 07:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks like an essay to me also. I proposed its deletion. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Bunt (community)

On 29 December I removed a quotation of Edgar Thurston on the Bunt (community) article - see this. It appears to be a sweeping opinion and therefore likely to be undue. Today, User:27.4.212.123 reinstated the content here, I reverted here and it was again reinstated here.

I opened a discussion at Talk:Bunt_(community)#Thurston, raising various concerns including that of WP:FRINGE. There is a somewhat complex subtext to the issue, involving Thurston's methodology. I have recently done a lot of work at Herbert Hope Risley and related articles that cover this particular area & therefore have also done a lot of reading around. To understand Thurston and his ethnographic methods requires an understanding of the bases laid down by Risley, who was a leading figure in the school of scientific racism.

The IP has responded on the talk page but is mixing up the debate by querying another source relating to another point - I feel that the two issues should be dealt with separately. Comments on the Thurston issue would be appreciated. - Sitush (talk) 12:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thurston is an endemic problem on Indian ethnography articles. Not a reliable source, far too old. Views not relevant. Just remove all mentions. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality for Presidential article Bingu wa Mutharika

the article Bingu wa Mutharika has been drastically changed/vandalized and is not neutral. The original versions of the article prior to changes mainly by the user: Bgb2011 violates most neutrality requirements. The article is about the President of Malawi, who did well in his first two terms but is no longer popular. The country had a nationwide strike/protest 2011 Malawian protests because of his policies and no leader has no criticism- I contacted the writer on his talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bgb2011 but his opinions are so over the top and biased. This page my need to be semi - protected in the future as Malawi heads towards its election year in 2014, and political fanatics try to 'control' or distort accuracy.

"President Mutharika has a proven track record in using smart, appropriate and resource efficient technologies to advance rural community development." From the wiki article. It currently reads like a presidential advertisement so any negative opinions are hard to argue against. You can of course since it's POV, but the article is currently POV. Change the article from "This guy is great, really great, you should vote for him since he's so great", then lock it with a review every three months or so to add recent news. Chrissd21 (talk) 08:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Use of the term "cult" to refer to Aum Shinrikyo

An editor 108.83.242.71 (talk · contribs) went through this article and changed nearly all mentions of "cult" (about 30) to "Aum" /"group" / "organisation" or similar in this edit. They have given no edit summary to say what their rationale is. This seems very NPOV, but is there a consensus to use/not use 'cult'? I am unsure of the exact policy on this.

Aum Shinrikyo is referred to as a cult by reliable sources such as Australias' ABC Radio News (ref #14)[14], Britains BBC (ref #13)[15] and The Japan Times (Online) (ref #25)[16].

I have reverted, but would like to know if my actions are proper, or if the long standing use on this page (back to at least January 2008) of the 'cult' terminology is against policy. I have also mentioned my reasoning at Talk:Aum Shinrikyo#Cult or not ? - 220 of ^Borg 04:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I took issue with it in an above section and consider it a loaded term. However it may be appropriate for a religious group that engages in terrorism, especially if there are reliable sources for the characterization. I believe there are specific criteria in certain fields for the use of the term. It's generally pejorative though. If there is a policy I would be interested to learn it. My personal opinion is that the IP engaged in excessive political correctness, which I personally would not have bothered to revert. But then, I never hit the revert button for anything but blatant vandalism ;P (Although I sometimes edit drastically...) No, I do not think your actions were improper. Personally. Elinruby (talk) 05:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply Elinruby. I thought that 'cult' might be one of those "words to avoid" like terrorist. It is certainly labelled as contentious, see WP:LABEL.
(My POV) A religious group that has murdered opponents, Sakamoto family murder, and then manufactures Sarin-a nerve gas, and then carries out not one but 2 attacks (Matsumoto incident & Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway) with it, certainly seems to meet most peoples perception of a cult! ie. mindless loyalty to the 'leader'.
Even the Centres for Disease Control call Aum Shinrikyo a cult (54 times!) in this article, see "Aum Shinrikyo: Once and Future Threat?".

 • More views are of course welcome. - 220 of ^Borg 09:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Cult is a controversial term, which is why it should often be avoided; but if we were going to use the label for anything, Aum Shinrikyo is surely near the top of the list. It's in line with dictionary definitions, and a wide range of reliable sources describe Aum Shinrikyo as a "cult". I think of "cult" the same way as I do about "criminal", "genoicide", "discredited", and other controversial terms about emotive subjects - sometimes it's deliberately added to articles as a slur (which we should remove), and sometimes it's better to err on the safe side, but sometimes it really is the best word to use... bobrayner (talk) 14:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Concur entirely, 'cult' it is. The term has been on the page for at least 4 years (won't be surprised if it was in the original first draft of the page!) and that is huge amount of unspoken consensus. I'll come back if it gets reverted again. (Or the article talk page where I have commented and mentioned this discussion) - 220 of ^Borg 15:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Nod. I realize that I may have sounded as though I was damning with faint praise -- I get lost in my own shades of grey at times, hehe -- so I wanted to add that this sounds like a good plan to me. Elinruby (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Long standing usage of a term doesn't give it legitimacy, and the term is generally pulled out of every single page on Wiki. There's even a section above which is where a page on a possibly fringe group(haven't read much, don't care either) is being debated between sect and cult. Given how normal Wiki policy is not to use any sort of defamation on living persons, and how cult is seen as an offensive term, would "sect" be more appropriate? It's not aggressive, it's not seen to be aggressive, it stays within the norm for the rest of Wiki. It also doesn't give other editors an excuse, "Cult is used here, there's exceptions to the rules, so we can use it here as well". That would be nice to avoid. Chrissd21 (talk) 08:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, our Cult article calls it "a new religious movement or other group whose beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre". Looks like someone felt the term had a bad connotation. Is what they did with the sarin gas an abnormality? I guess so, if it "violates the standards of society". But were there religious beliefs so bizarre? That's harder to say. Claims of curing physical illnesses or realizing life goals are pretty ordinary; but should Christian Science be called a "cult"? --Uncle Ed (talk) 04:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Magnetobiology

Magnetobiology appears to be an attempt to push the POV that harm from low level electromagnetic fields is an established fact.

This is inconsistent with Electromagnetic radiation and health, Wireless electronic devices and health, Mobile phone radiation and health, and Electromagnetic hypersensitivity, which appear to have a neutral point of view and to give due weight to the theory.

As an example: Magnetobiology says "World Health Organization considers enhanced level of electromagnetic exposure at working places as a stress factor" (no citation), but Electromagnetic hypersensitivity quotes WHO as saying "EHS has no clear diagnostic criteria and there is no scientific basis to link EHS symptoms to EMF exposure."

Note that a discussion about a closely related issue is here.]

Magnetoelectrochemistry might also be worth examining. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Article is also terribly written, will try to go over it in the next few days. a13ean (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The safety stuff is very dubious, but a lot of the science stuff, especially on free radical reactions and bird navigation, actually looks quite accurate (albeit completely unsourced). Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

User who seems to have an anti-Christian (or pro-Islamic) agenda

• 130.204.43.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm reviewing this user's edits, and s/he seems to be systematically trying to add Islam as a religion when it is only a marginal belief among certain demographics [17][18][19][20], and removing Christian religions when they are similarly marginal [21][22]. All of the edits are unsourced. I'm assuming the user is pro-Shia based on this edit, and anti-Armenian based off this edit and this edit (failure to add Islam to the group's adherents is probably a negative thing in this user's mind).

Not all of the edits are negative,[23] but most certainly are. I'm not very familiar with how to handle this type of edit, so I'm bringing it here asking for help. If no one has any better ideas, I'm just going to blanket revert the user's additions. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I would recommend reverting it. These info boxes are not meant for exhaustive enumerations. If we would add any denomination there is in a country, we would have also have to add Buddhism in Ireland and Jews in China, basically every world religion and many others to every single country. This edit is even factually wrong because Han Chinese who are Muslim are actually grouped under Hui Chinese (at least historically speaking). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs

I came into this discussion as a neutral editor. User:Willietell keep stating that there are several NPOV and COAT issues with the article. I boldly removed his NPOV tag and Willietell retagged it six days later, however failed to continue to discuss his problems. Dougweller removed the tag the same day, and Willietell restored it today. He is stating that the five editors attempting to disprove his claims are biased and that the tag needs to remain until consensus is reached. Willietell's actions are starting to become somewhat pointy and difficult to bear. No editor wants to get dragged into an edit war or neverending "consensus" discussions. We are requesting that more uninvolved editors lend there eyes to the article and the ongoing discussion at the article's talk page to see if they can aid in pushing the discussion to a close. 132.3.33.68 (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to note that when I removed the tag earlier I asked Willietell not to replace it but to bring his issues here to see if others agreed with his understanding of NPOV and agreed there was a problem. In December Willietell, through a sockpuppet (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spudpicker 01/Archive nominated this article for deletion, providing no reason Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs. He then tried to get the article deleted as copyvio, deleted as a fork, etc. He seems to think he can keep the NPOV tag on the article until other editors make whatever changes he wants, which is a misuse of the tag. Unless there is a consensus here that the tag is appropriate, the next time he replaces it I'll take him to ANI (I'm an involved editor so can't use my tools here). Dougweller (talk) 07:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

First, I don't appreciate being vilified here as if I had some sinister intent. user:Dougweller's WP:sock claim is false and it getting old as this is the only user account I have and I only created it at the insistence of the editors who filed the WP:sock complaint(anyway read the details on my talk page, but he knows better so he is attempting to be deceptive). This group of anti-Jehovah's Witnesses editors seem to feel that through larger numbers they will be able to keep POV material that violates WP:NPOV, misrepresents cited source material with POV spin and is basically a coatrack anti-Jehovah's Witness attack page. I am trying to make good faith efforts to make the page conform to WP:NPOV by presenting a balanced article on Jehovah's Witnesses Beliefs, however, I am met with extreme resistance at every turn by editors who have publicly stated their disdain for the religion, yet claim to present themselves as unbiased. user:Dougweller has removed the POV tag multiple times as well as the WP:COAT tag (which I eventually let him remove hoping the issue would be resolved in discussion) and is now attempting to permanently remove the POV tag without reasonable discussion. These editors in my opinion are engaged in a mob effort by biased editors to maintain a page that violates WP:Npov Please come and give an unbiased viewpoint, but only if you are willing to devote the time necessary for a thorough investigation of the cited source material. Willietell (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Having watched this discussion for a while, ever since Willie tried to have the page speedied as an attack page, I've become concerned about his behaviour here. His claims that every editor who disagrees with him, including several previously uninvolved 3rd party editors such as myself, are biased suggest that he is the one who is biased, and I have yet to see a convincing argument that the page in question is NPOV. In addition Willie quite clearly states on my talk page that he iniated the afd in December: [24]--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Willietell, did you imagine that nobody would check the link Doug provided? The conclusion was "Willietell blocked and tagged as a sock."

As for your accusations that there is a "Mob" of "anti-Jehovah's Witnesses editors", I went to that page because of a request for help asking for uninvolved editors, and I am about as uninvolved with Jehovah's Witnesses as it is possible to be. I really have no negative or positive opinion of Jehovah's Witnesses. I have met a few and they seemed nice enough, but I never had the time or interest to hear their message. This lack of involvement is why I accepted the invite - I would never jump into a NPOV dispute on a topic I care deeply about such as Harvard architecture or Modified Harvard architecture.

I looked at the page without prejudice, and came to pretty much the same conclusion that every editor except you came to. You can disagree with my conclusions, but please do not accuse me of bias. The only bias I have is towards making Wikipedia better. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I also examined the page and found it to be a rather even-handed treatment of the subject, well grounded in the sources provided. I could not identify any POV problems, either pro- or anti-JW, and have no idea what Willietell is talking about when he characterises it as an attack site. I've read through all of his posts, and he has failed to concretely identify any NPOV or sourcing problems despite repeated requests to do so. His arguments basically add up to a whole big bunch of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Several other editors have told him either that his arguments were invalid, or that they were not specific enough to be of any use in improving the article. Willietell, however, continues to repeat them, disregarding WP:CONSENSUS, WP:DEADHORSE and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. At this point, his activities here on WP seem to be purely disruptive, and I have grave doubts about his good faith, especially when resorts to calling everyone else who disagrees with him "anti-Jehovah's Witnesses editors" that are "engaged in a mob effort". To me, that signifies that Willietell is either unable or unwilling to cooperate with other editors on a community-based project lke WP, and probably will never be. He appears to be a dyed-in-the-wool POV warrior, and his aims and agenda seem to be incompatible with those of the project. There are clear competence issues here that are very troubling, and his accusations against other editors are inexcusable. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I've gone back and looked at Willietell's talk page again, the hatted stuff which I'd forgotten about. He pleaded innocence and said a friend was using his computer. His first unblock request was denied with a statement that the other account would be unblocked. He appealed again saying it was a friend using his computer, so instead that account was indefinitely blocked and the Willietell account unblocked with the comment "OK. I will assume good faith, give you the benefit of the doubt, and unblock this account, leaving Spudpicker 01 blocked. However, please be very careful as to whom you allow to use your computer and login in the future, as this excuse will probably not work a second time." Leaving one account indefinitely blocked with the other being given only a short block is pretty usual. I don't know what actually happened, only Willietell knows that. But Willietell was definitely involved in initiating the AfD. Dougweller (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Willietell began the AfD process, but at the time was editing from dynamic IP accounts. After he was told that an IP editor could not complete the process, he 'threatened' to create an account ("Do you honestly think I cannot create a user account? really?"[25]). Shortly thereafter, Spudpicker01 was created specifically to complete the AfD process. A CheckUser confirmed that the anonymous IPs, Spudpicker01 and Willietell originated from the same ISP in the same town, and he later claimed that the other editor was his friend. Even if he was not personally acting as Spudpicker01, there was sufficient reason to suspect sock- or meat-puppetry.

Since the initial AfD, he has subsequently attempted to have the page deleted as an attack page, and later on false copyvio charges, and then as a coatrack. However, the basic problem is that he just doesn't like it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Dominus Vobisdu I am sorry you have doubts about my good faith and I assure you that my actions are an honest attempt to make the page conform to Wp:npov. I am neither unwilling nor unable to cooperate with other editors, but as the discussion on the talk page will indicate, several editors have made no real effort to cooperate with me in correction of the page. To state that I appear to be a "dyed-in-the-wool POV warrior, and his aims and agenda seem to be incompatible with those of the project" is simply off base and in denial of the fact that this is the only page I have stated to have any major issue with. I am not certain as to what your perceived "competence" issues are, but I am relatively new to Wikipedia and an still not certain of every rule that needs to be followed or how to go about posting proper templates and thing like that, but I am slowly learning. And as far as your concerns that I have made " accusations against other editors" I suggest that you examine their history of first making accusations against me as I have been accused of multiple things and repeatedly vilified without merit as you now also appear to be doing based on no previous contact with me.

User:Jeffro77 is more correct about the circumstances surrounding the WP:Sock accusation, and at the time, being very new to Wikipedia (I hadn't even created an account yet), I knew nothing about the rules of WP:sock or WP:Meat, otherwise I might have objected more when a friend of mine (he's not a Witness by the way, but someone I work with) decided to set up an account and complete the AFD on the page. But I didn't know and that is history that can not be changed. In any case I was blocked for being a sock before I could proceed with the Afd, which was speedily denied in less than a single day after allowing little to no time for discussion. I did place a template on the article as an attack page, not realizing that this would mark it for speedily deletion, because I still feel that the main purpose of the page is just that, to attack the basis of the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses with POV slant and/or spin. As far as the copyright violation, I submitted that only after being shown a site that any reasonable person would conclude was the source material for the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_beliefs

"*Same source as before [26] they say this themselves. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)"

And this post by myself:

I still have serious questions that perhaps you could answer. UserBlackCab claims that the page has been in existence since 2004 and that the sight http://www.watchtowerinformationservice.org/doctrine-changes/jehovah-witness-beliefs/ shows the article written in 2009, however, the site also notes that the page was reconstructed in July 2009 after it crashed in Jan. 2009 http://www.watchtowerinformationservice.org/ , which would seem to indicate that the article was simply replaced back in July 2009 as the site was reconstructed. This site shows a copyright from 1999 and I still have serious doubts as to whether this is a not copyright violation.Willietell (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Jeffro77 later pointed out that the site still contained article dated prior to July 2009 and I am therefore willing to concede that it is possible the Wikipedia page existed first, though I am still not 100% convinced, I decided to pursue the matter no further.

It was therefore a legitimate copyright concern, and being still relatively new, I still don't know how to research these type of things for verification.

User:Dominus Vobisdu You state that I have "failed to concretely identify any NPOV or sourcing problems" , yet I cannot see where that is true because I have identified on the talk page under the heading of Willietell to indicate specific neutrality concerns , broken down by user:BlackCab into nine subsequent subheadings, several instances of POV spin and misrepresentation of source material for examination. I can list them all here again, but that seems somewhat unnecessary when they are listed on the talk page. But if necessary I will take the time and copy/paste them here for examination. Willietell (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Willietell has had ample opportunity to convince others of the aspects of the article he considers to be either biased, attacks on the religion or containing hidden agendas. He has stated repeatedly that this is just the start of his complaints, and indeed has indicated several times that his preference is that the entire page be deleted and rewritten from scratch. (He has tried varying avenues to achieve his goal of deletion; none have been successful). The issue here is that not one other editor has agreed with him. The page is exhaustively sourced, written in editorially neutral language, accurate and fair. His answer immediately above mine here indicates that he still does not accept anyone else's view; he insists that his view is correct and everyone else is wrong. He cannot or will not accept the concept of collaboration or consensus, so I think it's time he left Wikipedia. BlackCab (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Willietell's claim that he is 'still not 100% convinced' about the copyvio issue, of what is clearly a mirror, is laughable. As I told him at his User Talk page, "the specific version of the article that was copied from Wikipedia was this version of the Wikipedia article from 5 July 2009, the day before the date of the post on 6 July 2009. Ignoring that obvious fact, you are claiming that the article existed on a different site, was copied to Wikipedia as a substantially different version several years ago, then after many hundreds of edits by many different editors somehow happened to co-incidentally end up exactly the same as the page you allege was posted in 1999." The only reason he could have for saying he's not absolutely convinced that his original assertion was entirely wrong is a poor attempt to save face.

Initially editing as dynamic anonymous IPs, Willietell complained for weeks that the article is not neutral, but refused to elaborate. Only after weeks of other editors begging him to be specific, he provided his more specific complaints at article Talk. Each of those complaints has been examined by other editors, including several editors not involved with JWs or the JW WikiProject, and none of those editors agree with him. It would seem to any reasonable person that at that point, it is time to accept consensus and move on.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree 100% Consensus is clear, time to move on. I am now going to stop following this topic, so if anything comes up that looks like it needs a response from me, please drop me a line on my talk page. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

National Socialism

Has a dispute, ongoing, and also formerly in Talk:Nazism concerning wheher National Socialism should simply be a redirect to Nazism or should contain a short article on older usage. A request was made for added sources (the asker purported that none exist) answered with [27]. The responses to the belief that making this solely a redirect were on the order of [28] Collect this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. If you want to pursue your ideosyncratic belief that Nazism is socialism then please be open about it rather than trying to slip it through by creating a POV fork. (odd since this article history shows I did not "create" it at all - and this "POV fork" dates to 2004!) and [29] which simply asserts that the article must be a redirect to what people have to be looking for, and that (for good measure) Therefore this article is complete original research and/or synthesis, and its existence is not justified. It tries to establish a theory that links completely unrelated ideologies, movements or phenomena, that have nothing in common but the name.. Which is odd for an eight-year old article. [30] makes a similar assetrtion that a person reading an encyclopedia article must only be interested in Hitler and not the usage prior to Hitler in multiple countries.

What has happened now iis an egregious post which I fear violates several policies all at once, where the "real reasoning" is presented: [31]

Let's face it, and acknowledge the "Elephant in the Room." This is simply one of many attempts by Right-Wing POV Warriors to somehow equate Nazism with the Left and Socialism. It is not based on scholarly consensus, and the editors will not be deterred by any kind of scholarly consensus, because the Right believes in conspiracy theories that academics are trying to "trick" people. No amount of academic sources will make these people stop making these edits, as they have been shown multiple times, in many instances, and through many WP forums, that this kind of argumentation is absurd and not backed up by facts. They will not desist, and treating them with respect, as if their anti-intellectual weltanschauung has some kind of "merit," only wastes the time of other editors and raises blood pressures. The discussions have already happened. They lost...and they always will...because their position is not backed up by RS. And no, finding the words "national" and "socialism" in the same sentence by cherry-picking on Google Books is not a relevant way to conduct research. Under the ignorant reasoning that this article should exist under the "Socialism" portal (i.e., "It's got socialism in its name...huh huh huh..."), I guess I should go over to the page for the Deutsche Demokratische Republik ("German Democratic Republic") and put it under both the "Democratic Party" and "Republican Party" portals. It really is that ridiculous. Stop feeding the trolls. That's all they really are.

Presents the actual basis for the problem present quite clearly, though likely not in the way the poster intended. He makes clear a concerted aim to prevent RS sourced claims from being present in Wikipedia in a properly titled (for 8 years) article. Attempts to retain the article (note I iterated that AfD is the place to delete articles, and not use of a new redirect) are met with edit summaries of :

Remove POV fork (odd for an 8 year old article!),

per WP:V, especially WP:NOR, WP:SYNTHESIS + WP:PRIMARYUSE' (also known as a "kitchen sink summary),

This has been discussed. A consensus was reached. We can discuss it but it is not to be undone without a new consensus. Which is absolutely wrong as there was not only not such a consensus but WP:CONSENSUS gives that argument as an exceedingly weak one in the first place!,

and the surreal No agreement on talk page for this edit which means that all one needs to do to get rid of articles clearly written 8 years ago by "Right-Wing POV Warriors" is to redirect them, since then the talk page is not readily found <g>.

But all of this basically boils down to NPOV -- is it POV or is it NPOV to use a redirect to remove a page which a person asserts was written by "POV Warriors" 8 years ago? Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

So the claim is that for eight long years nobody reading a high traffic page noticed a major violation of Wikipedia policy? Nope. I don't buy it. anyone wanting to delete something that has stayed for eight years must first get a strong consensus that it is a POV violation that everyone somehow missed. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

For your information, the discussion is not on Nationalist Socialism, but on National Socialism, which is a subtle, but essential difference. --RJFF (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Um -- the first sentence from the OP does not use "Nationalist" so I doubt that cavil at all applies. Collect (talk) 13:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

(But both currently redirect to Nazism) Rich Farmbrough, 01:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC).

We're writing an encyclopedia, not an dictionary. We're supposed to use the most common name in English. Most people don't know that Nazi is a shortcut for National Socialism. Therefore, National Socialism should just be a redirect to Nazism. The article on Nazism may, and probably should explain that they mean the same thing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Except there is anteceding usage of the term ! Surely this means that the antecedeng usage can have an article - and that is not a "dictionary" issue at all. Collect (talk) 13:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

For the anteceding usages of "national socialism", there is National Socialism (disambiguation). --RJFF (talk) 14:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

There's definitely an ongoing dispute as to whether "Nazism is socialism". Some argue, purely on the basis of the socialism part of "National socialism" that it must be. Others note that "the left" is against Nazism and for socialism. Then there's the tricky question of whether Communism itself espouses socialism. Surely there was some intense antagonism between the Communist USSR and the Nazis - er, I think they called it World War II? Anyway, I like the redirect. --Uncle Ed (talk) 05:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Alas - that is not the issue. The question is whether an 8 year old article is a "POV fork" and whether there is usage of "National socialism" antededing the Hitler usage. RS sources show quite well that the use does antecede Hitler, and thus an article thereon is proper. And "communism" has no relationship at all to this issue. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see it this way. I think the issue is whether "National Socialism" should redirect to "Nazism" (because it's the WP:PRIMARYUSAGE) or not. And that is not a question of NPOV. By the way, it is not honest to claim that the article has existed for eight years, because until 20 March 2009, the article still stated in its first sentence that "National Socialism typically refers to Nazism, which was the ideology of the Nazi Party led by Adolf Hitler." (see here) which is quite different from "National Socialism is the name used for political ideologies which propose to merge nationalism and socialism." (Collect's version of 25 January 2012) And until 1 October 2008, it was a disambiguation page, very similar to what we now have at National Socialism (disambiguation) (see here). And the very first version of the article was this one: [32] - a redirect to Nazism. --RJFF (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: It is disingenuous to assert that it is "Collect's version" as I made no edit therein other than to revert a clearly improper edit. I make no claims as to any perfection of the extant wording whatsoever - only that the change (that is blanking the extant article and making a redirect) is improper. In fact, I reverted to [33] which is quite specifically RJFF's version (the result, in fact, of a sequence of four edits by RJFF, and with which he presumably agreed as the editor making those edits. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, the reference to the article's age is not a good argument: the article before its conversion into a redirect page was just a stub [34]. It contained just two references, and only one of them described an example of anteceding usage of this term. I conclude from that that the examples of antecending usage are scarce, so they deserve just few words in the Nazism article (in the "history of the term" section). However, if reliable sources will be provided that demonstrate that the term had been in use more or less widely before Hitler, that would be a demonstration of the notability of the subject, so the article could be restored in that case. I think that the best way to resolve the dispute would be to go to a library and to look for good quality sources on the subject.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh? I referred to its status in 2004 when it had this revision [35], was not a dab page and was not a redirect to "Nazism." It was a redirect from 20 June 2004 to 1 July 2004, then was not a redirect until [36] with what is, by current policy and guideline, an improper dab page.

If the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing the broad concept, and not a disambiguation page.

Is clear. So that claim is errant, and makes no contribution to this discussion. The concept of dab pages on 2004 was not well established. From July 2004 the dab page was not used, and this continued until early 2007 when several editors tried making it a redirect again [37] with summaries like "Wikipedia is not a democracy." Vision Thing got a block for his behaviour about that time at Anarchism. R-41 then tried making it a redirect again in May 2008, with a comment that it "almost always refers to the German movement" which, as has been noted, is errant as a claim. From 1 Jun 2008 on until March 2011 it was never a redirect. In 8 years, it has been a redirect for a matter of a few months only - and an article for well over 8 years total. And the dab status before 2004 is strange as such a page would not be called a dab page under current guidelines. Cheers - I trust the gross misstatements about the dates above are noted by outside editors. I hate tosee such claims made when thay are sufficiently errant as to cause doubts about any claim's accuracy. Collect (talk) 01:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC) .

(unindent) whether there is usage of "National socialism" antededing the Hitler usage

If that's the problem, then it's like Definitions of Palestine. If the term is ambiguous, we may need a page just talking about its shifting meanings. National Socialism (disambiguation) makes a good start.

Is there enough well-referenced material on a variation of National Socialism that is distinct in any significant way from Adolf Hitler's brand?

By the way, one obstacle to describing socialism in the context of mid-20th century Europe and Russia is that advocates of Communism frequently insist that the kind of socialism they want has nothing to do with the "National Socialism" of the Nazis. (Opponents of Communism dismiss this stance as deceptive posturing.) That's why we need to dig into this deeply.

We may not be able to provide our readers with a definitive objective answer, because the matter remains highly controversial. All we can do is describe the controversy (see essay Wikipedia:Controversial articles). --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Both the antedating French and German examples, as well as Lassalle's example, are sufficintly differentiable from Hitler to make it misleading to readers to lump them in under the "Nazism" name. There are sufficient reliable sources thereon, and thus the use of a redirect to eliminate such is against Wikipedia core principles. Disambiguation pages, by the way, are not supposed to have appreciable content - only the list of pages which the reader might be seeking. Thus the proper course is to retain and improve this article, and provide clear links to the other pages, including "Nazism." Simple indeed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• WP:DISAMBIG is clear. WP:PRIMARY TOPIC says, "If a primary topic exists, then that term should be the title of the article on that topic (or should redirect to an article on that topic that uses a different, more appropriate title)." WP:TWODABS says, "However, if there is a primary topic, then the question arises whether to create a disambiguation page...." So we have "National Socialism" re-directing to "Nazism" which has a link to "National Socialism (disambiguation)". Exactly what the guideline recommends! I suggest Collect take this discussion to the policy talk page if he is unhappy with the current guidelines. TFD (talk) 01:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  • • • Your problem is that you regard the older article as the POV fork when it is clear that the article you insist be redirected to is, in fact, the "fork" contrary to Wikipedia policy, and that the article you wish to be the focus does not cover the material in this article, and that a dab page is not supposed to have content which belongs in a separate article. Other than being you wrong on all the issues and polices, I shall say you are right to avoid further colloquy. Cheers. `Collect (talk)

(edit conflict)First of all, despite your claim that "sufficient reliable sources" are available on the subject, you provided no sources. I don't think it is a productive way to conduct a discussion. In future, please, show more respect to your opponents, and try not to force them to do the job you are supposed to do. I've done a brief literature search and I found few articles connecting Lassalle with national-socialism. One of them says:

"Professor Hayek bases his argument on two types of evidence. First, he reminds us that pre-1914 German socialism counted among its forbears the same men-Fichte, Rodbertus, and Lassalle-who are at present recognized as the intellectual fathers of national socialism. Second, he quotes several authors whose ideas he claims were formed by their study of Marxian writings and who expressed strongly nationalistic views. These two facts he considers sufficient evidence to convict the German socialist movement of adherence to extreme nationalism, to a glorification of state power at the expense of the individual, and to an ideology diametrically opposed to that of traditional liberalism.

A proper analysis of the economic and political ideology of any group consists in tracing the historical influences operative on the representative exponents of the group and in fully discussing their views. With the exception of Bebel, none of the men referred to by Professor Hayek can be regarded as having held leading positions among socialist writers or politicians. The appeal to Fichte, Lassalle, and Rodbertus is also deceptive. The fact that these men are regarded as intellectual forbears of socialism and of national socialism does not mean much by itself unless a thorough analysis is made of why they have attained this position and which parts of their theories have been taken over. How misleading the simple appeal to spiritual fatherhood can be is shown by reference to contemporary America, where we find such diverse groups as the Republicans and the Communists appealing to Lincoln as their political ancestor; where we find monopolists calling on Jefferson to protect their "freedom of enterprise" from the trust-busters who claim to act on principles of that same Thomas Jefferson." (Bert F. Professor Hayek on German Socialism. The American Economic Review, Vol. 35, No. 5 (Dec., 1945), pp. 929-934)

The author concludes:

"The original national socialist writers were not acquainted with either Lassalle or Rodbertus. Their names do not even appear in the writings of Rudolf Jung, Count E. v. Reventlow, and Gottfried Feder. It is likely that Lassalle and Rodbertus were not introduced in the national socialist literature until 1934 by Sombart in his Deutscher Sozialismus. After that, occasional references to Rodbertus and Lassalle appear, but I have been unable to locate a single source which treated their views with genuine understanding." (ibid.)

I failed to found more or less serious discussion of this subject in more recent literature, so, if you have some sources, please, share with us.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

OTOH, you could read the other cites furnished which encompass far more than your overview indicates. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

You made some claim, so the burden to provide the sources supporting your claim rests with you. By this moment you appear to be failing to sustain this burden (a vague reference to my potential ability to find such references is just a demonstration of your incivility: by writing that you imply that I selected the sources, that is an indication of my bad faith, although that is simply untrue. In actuality, I typed "Lassalle "national socialism"", and the work I quoted was the first relevant work in the list. Therefore, I did not pre-select the sources).

Again, the source cited by me confirms that Lassalle was one of intellectual fathers of national socialism, however, it clearly states that he was not a national socialist author. Moreover, the source identifies three true national socialist authors Rudolf Jung, Count E. v. Reventlow, and Gottfried Feder, and none of them referred to Lassalle until 1934. In other words, we can speak about some roots of national socialism in the works of earlier socialists, however, we can hardly speak about national socialism as a phenomenon before Nazi.

Conclusion: redirect is justified.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The question of a German nationalistic socialism; or Italian (Mussolini had been a leading militant socialist); or Russian (Socialism in One Country); is complicated; there were leading Nazis - before Hitler got rid of the competition, who were socialist (most famous the brothers Strasser (Otto Strasser, Gregor Strasser). There were National-Bolschewist propagandists/activists outside the NSDAP, like Ernst Niekisch, Ernst Jünger in his Der Arbeiter (The Worker)-phase, just before 1933. The first five-year plan interested German thinkers from both extremes (incl. Lukacs and Jünger: Arplan (Workshop Soviet-PLANed economy). There were older independent thinkers of Prussian Socialism (Oswald Spengler), including perhaps Walther Rathenau. --Radh (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

How about creating the List of all ideologies that have somehow tried to combine some sort of socialism with any variant of nationalism?--RJFF (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

"Nationalistic socialism" as opposed to "national socialism" is virtually non-existent term. The latter term has just a single commonly accepted meaning (see, e.g. Encyclopaedia Britannica, which says that National Socialism, aka Nazism or Naziism, was a totalitarian movement led by Adolf Hitler, and it had purely German roots.).--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Albert E. Burke

Can someone help me to reword this article for neutrality? I believe the writer is acting in good faith, but that some of the wording is questionable "early environmental activist", "pioneer" (WP:PEACOCK). I would kindly request that people could edit the article for proper wording but not give it a drive-by "this article is written in an ugly fashion" tag or leave a templated message on the article creator's page, as both of these actions tend to upset the newcomers (WP:BITE). Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Allameh Helli No.3 High School

I was editing this page (as it was flagged for grammar/spelling) when I noticed that the article had a clear bias in favor of the school. There are many instances in which it seems like the author is blatantly promoting the school itself. The author seems to mention the school's accomplishments at every chance he/she gets, and it also discusses how popular and elite the school is compared to other schools in the area. It is clear that someone without a bias (I imagine that either a student/teacher created the article) should take a look at this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nycrotak (talk • contribs) 21:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I partially agree with you here, however, I do not think the bias is as widespread as you found. The only places that seemed to have any bias are in the two sections "Achievements" and "NODET". Perhaps you should comment on the talk page of the article to discuss with any previous editors about changing word choice and adding citations to verify the claims. --Eems.p (talk) 05:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Jaish-e-Mohammed

Jaish-e-Mohammed are a UN and US designated terrorist organization. They have also been designated a as terrorists by the United Kingdom, Australia, India and Canada with Pakistan outlawing them. Is it against NPOV to use terrorist in their description? The edit in question is this. Pakistani-based, Terrorist Islamic group Darkness Shines (talk) 13:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. Why not just say Pakistan-based, Islamic group designated as a terrorist organiztion by X, Y, Z. ? What is the source for "UN designated terrorist organization" by the way ? Sean.hoyland - talk 19:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

According to the article Here. To write it as you suggest would be cumbersome indeed. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Where in that source does it say that they are a UN designated terrorist organization ? All I can see is the part "United Nations Security Council Resolution 1267 was vetoed by China on the grounds of lack of sufficient information to merit such action". Also, does that website qualify as an WP:RS or do statements sourced from there need attribution ? I couldn't see a case where this source had been checked at WP:RSN. The about page suggests to me that statements probably need to be attributed to the organization. Anyway, if it is the case that Jaish-e-Mohammed are a UN designated terrorist organization it should be easy to find the UN source that says so or a secondary source reporting that. Regarding "cumbersome", the Wikipedia article can't say Jaish-e-Mohammed are a terrorist organization using Wikipedia's neutral unattributed narrative voice, so, cumbersome or not, "Terrorist Islamic group" is not an option in my view. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Various Soviet Union related subjects

Hello, I recently noticed a new user by the name of Eratov make numerous contributions to pages that may be in violation of NPOV. The articles Lavrentiy Beria and Gulag, as well as Arnold Deutsch may have been edited to remove cited criticism of the Soviet Union. I ask for advice here because I am not familiar with the subject, and it's difficult for me to tell whether the rewritten content itself was appropriate or not. Thanks for your responses. Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 03:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The content of these edits is not problematic. These edits occurring over references, and thus distorting the verifiability of the claims, without new references introduced are problematic. But not for all of them. In many cases unencyclopaedic political propaganda was inserted, or the unencyclopaedic language of far right wing cold warriors was accepted into the encyclopaedia. However, these edits, while correcting such problems introduce unencyclopaedic absences of citeable information, and similar biases. Writing material on historical accounts should be based on the highest quality scholarly sources available; not on the unsupported opinions of an editor. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted him, removal of vast tracts of sourced content[38] are not on. Darkness Shines (talk) 03:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps someone should direct the new editor to scholarly reviews of the field (Fitzpatrick, a communist but no Stalinist, doi: 10.1177/0047244107074186). Sebag-Montefiore is sufficient for the content, there's no reason for its removal. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd reached the same conclusion as FileFoo, on balance. Sadly, some 'contributors' seemed to think that an article on Beria needs Cold War slogans and stereotyping in order for our readers to realise that he was a nasty piece of work, rather than letting the facts speak for themselves. Likewise, the Arnold Deutsch article seems to have been used as an excuse to tell us that the USSR in the 1930s wasn't the paradise on earth it liked to portray itself - again unnecessary. As for describing Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago as a "largely fictional novel", I'd say this was an oversimplification - but to represent it is a factual account, as the previous version of the article seemed to imply, is also questionable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Our articles should portray the current scholarly consensus, and WEIGHT the appropriate views within that consensus. We do not editorialise bastardry, nor sign paens for "class" warriors. We are not here to praise or condemn, "It was in the reign of Fordism that the aforesaid personages lived and quarreled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now." Fifelfoo (talk) 03:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

To clarify - I was commenting on the edits indicated in the initial posting - the diff that Darkness Shines provides is another matter - that definitely is questionable, at best. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Swiftboating

{{uninvolved|close|an uninvolved administrator is requested to help ascertain if there seems to be a consensus (and if so what it is) and if appropriate, close it.}}

The article Swiftboating currently contains the following content...

Since the political smear campaign[3] conducted by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth against John Kerry,...

This is a declaration of FACT, in '"Wikipedia's Voice"', that the Swiftvet campaign is/was a "political smear campaign". Per the guidance offered in WP:NPOV, I twice offered the following edit as an improved NPOV presentation of the related content for consideration...

Described by critics as a political smear campaign[3] conducted by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth against John Kerry,...

Those edits were twice reverted.

IMHO, the following guidance example from WP:NPOV...

...an article should not state that 'genocide is an evil action', but it may state that 'genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil.'

is clearly relevant and controlling here. Replacing the example text...

...an article should not state that 'swiftboating is a smear campaign', but it may state that 'swiftboating has been described by critics as a smear campaign.'

...should demonstrate, IMHO, that this is a WP:NPOV no-brainer.

I recently raised this issue as an NPOV objection (with the additional placement of an associated "POV Section Tag") elevated to a formal "Dispute" within the referenced article talk page. Comments/observations/opinions from those versed in NPOV presentation issues are solicited and would be appreciated, preferably within the designated talk section and related RfC, 14:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC) but here as well if anyone is so inclined. Thanks for your consideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

And on multiple occasions you have been asked to provide some reliable sources to back up your position and to date you have failed to do so. All the reliable sources we have say that swift boating was a smear campaign, and the article reflects those sources. More experienced editors would be welcome --Snowded ^TALK 20:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Really? Are you sure that there are no reliable sources which don't describe swift boating was a smear campaign? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure, last time I looked there were none. JakeInJoisey has asserted that he can provide them but has refused to do so. If he does then I am sure all will be happy to look at them. At the moment *(see below) he appears to be playing semantic games and/or attempting to wikilawyer his way out of not having any. --Snowded ^TALK 06:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

QFK: Are you sure that there are no reliable sources which don't describe swift boating was a smear campaign?

Snowded: I'm not sure, last time I looked there were none.

Simply untrue. One has been provided already (see the AP citation) to establish a predicate for my objection. Every examination of the Swiftvet allegations ever written that doesn't use the word "smear" or even suggest it as a characterization or any treatment of the subject identifying the source of the "smear" assertion as partisan could be offered in rebuttal to an assertion that characterizing the Swiftvet initiative as a "political smear campaign" is something more than "opinion". But the "source" issue is premature and irrelevant anyway, as the first "source" authority for consideration of this issue is the guidance offered within WP:NPOV itself. Please see my recently revamped submitted RfC. RfC comments would be gratefully appreciated. 19:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC) JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The AP quote simply reports a controversy as a news item. It does not say it was not a smear campaign. Also you really need to understand that WIkipedia has to represent the balance of what is in the reliable sources, not a balance of US political views. You have to supply sources to maintain a position. At the moment they basically are very very clear that it was a smear campaign --Snowded ^TALK 13:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

...you really need to understand that WIkipedia has to represent the balance of what is in the reliable sources,...

I understand that quite, quite well...but what YOU really need to understand (and are resisting mightily) is that an NPOV presentation of "what is in reliable sources" is predicated upon an editorial determination as to whether that content is a statement of "opinion" OR a statement of "fact". JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Well I suppose we could remove the word smear and replaced it with "deliberately lied" or similar. However the sources we have make a simple statement that it was a smear campaign. The sources we have are clear that these statements are not based on ambiguity but on what actually happened. Do you have any third party reliable sources which say the accusations were true or based on truth? Any source from the many you say you can provide would help here. --Snowded ^TALK 16:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any third party reliable sources which say the accusations were true or based on truth?

Would "up the kazoo" be an appropriate descriptive for a WP colloquy? And would you believe me if I told you that I relish the opportunity to present them? That being said (and somewhat to my surprise), we appear to be making progress towards a meeting of the minds on this subject of "sources" and just where and when they come into play in a consensus resolution of this WP:NPOV issue. Hopefully you've considered my proposed RfC 20:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC) RfC submission and might come to better understand that an issue far more basic than "dueling sources" is at issue here...and that is the postulate that this SVPT "smear" allegation can ever rise to a level of WP:V, WP:RS supportable, objective "fact" as opposed to an assertion of subjective "opinion". In fact, as the ultimate refuge for the defense of a POV-biased presentation of content has now been officially invoked (Academia), this current discussion will, IMHO, be relegated to rhetorical child's play by comparison...and I look forward to the ultimate debate on this issue. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Sources are at the heart of wikipedia so for their to be an NPOV issue there would have to be "duelling sources" If you have then, present them its all people have been asking you to do. The existing sources as several editors have pointed out to you are very clear in saying that the accusations were not true --Snowded ^TALK 17:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

...that the accusations were not true

Then I guess Kerry's "Christmas in Cambodia" fabrication must have escaped their collective memory. Here's Douglas Brinkley (Kerry's biographer) on that point...

"I'm under the impression that they were near the Cambodian border," said Brinkley, in the interview. So Kerry's statement about being in Cambodia at Christmas "is obviously wrong," he said. "It's a mongrel phrase he should never have uttered.[39]

From there you can move on to Michael Dobb's reporting in the Washington Post...but all that is irrelevant to the question at issue here anyway...is the characterization "smear" an assertion of "opinion" or an assertion of "fact"...a Wikipedia editor determination to be made for the NPOV presentation of content. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Were there an infinite number of sources stating uncategorically that "The Swift Vet campaign was NOT a 'smear' campaign", those citations would be no more a statement of "fact" than is the obverse claim that it was. The editorial assessment that must first be made under a WP:NPOV consideration for appropriate NPOV presentation is whether or not a "smear" appellation represents an assertion of "opinion" or an assertion of "fact". If it is considered to be an expression of "opinion" (which is, IMHO, the only rational conclusion), then any subsequent consideration as to whether or not the asserted "opinion" is "uncontested and uncontroversial" is rendered moot as an "opinion" cannot, per WP:NPOV, be represented as a "fact" in "Wikipedia's voice". JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

This was clearly a smear campaign since the people behind it knew or should have known that their stories were false and would be harmful to John Kerry. However, as with genocide, I agree that we should not say "smearing is an evil action". TFD (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Edited claim expanded from the body and placed in toto plus in the lede. Also placed one "smear" in quotes - heck the word is iterated a lot in the article, and we need not use sledgehammers in edits. Collect (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

That change blunts the word "smear", moving it from Wikipedia's voice to only the opinion of The New York Times. I don't think such a blunting of the meaning is suitable. If the NYT quote makes for too many instances of the word "smear", then it can be shifted to the article body. My stance is that the word "smear" must be stated in Wikipedia's voice. The scholarly book Campaign Finance Reform: The Political Shell Game says that the Swift Boat political attack was based on the veterans' anger regarding Kerry's anti-war protests following his service rather than based on any "truth" regarding his service record and Silver Star medal. Binksternet (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Placing the word "smear" twice in a single sentence seems rather like overkill. Heck, I suppose we could use "smear" fifty times in the article -- would that help any readers? I rather think not. And I would suggest that "smear" is, in fact, an "opinion" which ought not be asserted in Wikipedia's voice. So one occurence is sufficient IMO. NPOV does not say "neutrality is improved by iteration" that I can find. Collect (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that smear ought not appear in the same sentence twice but I hold that we should use Wikipedia's voice to say what all scholars agree on, that it is a fact that SBVT initiated a smear campaign. Which is why I put the NYT quote down lower and brought the smear campaign wikilink up higher. Binksternet (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

All of this discussion about whether reliable sources call it a smear campaign are completely irrelevant. WP:YESPOV clearly states that "an article should not state that 'genocide is an evil action', but it may state that 'genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil.' " Nowhere does it say that it is OK for an article to state that genocide is evil if reliable sources say it is (which they do). NPOV is not negotiable. It is a policy that we all must follow. Change it back to something that conforms to WP:NPOV. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The article Swiftboating concerns what that term means, and its background: the analogy with genocide is false. We do not say "genocide is evil", however (where appropriate) an article must say what genocide is (the systematic killing of a group of people). The term swiftboating is a smear, so that's what the article has to say (with sources of course). It is not the case that "swiftboating" means to go for a fast ride, but some people use the term as a smear—the only meaning of "swiftboating" is an attack on an opponent based on false premises. Johnuniq (talk) 03:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you seriously going to argue that "smear" is neutral language? Perhaps we should go over to the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard and ask them. Oh, wait... <smile> Seriously, though, are you sure you want to argue that "smear" is neutral language?. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The term swiftboating is a smear, so that's what the article has to say...

The definition of "swiftboating" is irrelevant to this POV objection and is not in contention. It is the presentation of an assertion of "opinion" as an assertion of "fact", in "Wikipedia's voice", as reflected in the unattributed and unqualified existing language "Since the political smear campaign conducted by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth..." that clearly violates WP:NPOV. JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

And is there any third party reliable source which says the SBVfT campaign was based on truth? All the sources that I can see use smear, or tissue of lies or similar. --Snowded ^TALK 07:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Your question/observation is irrelevant to a WP:NPOV consideration of the existing text. Whether sourcing asserts that they were the antithesis of truth or the bastion of truth or something in between is irrelevant to a WP editorial determination as to whether a characterization of the campaign as a "smear campaign" is an assertion of "opinion" or an assertion of "fact". Amen. JakeInJoisey (talk) 07:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI, here is a list of all the places this is being / has been discussed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Swiftboating

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Swiftboating#RfC_-_NPOV_and_.22Smear.22

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Swiftboating#.22Smear.22_RfC

--Guy Macon (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

John Kerry military service controversy says:

"Several members of SBVT served in the same unit as Kerry and one, Stephen Gardner, served on the same boat. A number of Kerry's later SBVT critics claimed to have been present on accompanying Swift Boats, at some of the salient events of Kerry's enemy engagements in Vietnam. Other SBVT members included two of Kerry's former commanding officers, Grant Hibbard and George Elliott... Defenders of John Kerry's service record, including nearly all of his former crewmates, have stated that SBVT's accusations are false."

Note that the article did not say "SBVT's accusations are false." That, like the "smear" assertion, would have Wikipedia coming to a conclusion and taking sides in a dispute rather than reporting what is in the sources. A thousand sources that all are of the opinion that SBVT's accusations are false would not justify putting it in Wikipedia's voice. Nor should the opinion that swiftboating is a smear be put in Wikipedia's voice. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

In Wikipedia's voice still the initial allegations are "claimed" while those opposed are "stated." Does NPOV suhhest that "Claimed" for one side and "stated" for the other is "neutral"? Also is the "nearly all" based on any count of some sort of count of all those who would have had reasonable knowledge? Collect (talk) 09:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

A quick glance through the sources on the Swiftboating side shows a near unanimity of third party commentary to the effect that the accusations were a deliberate and politically motivated smear. Wikipedia's voice is meant to reflect the balance of sources. We can of course note continuing controversies. However this is the same as the pseudo-science arguments and the same solutions apply. --Snowded ^TALK 09:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's voice is meant to reflect the balance of sources.

That is a blatant misrepresentation of the conceptualized "Wikipedia's voice" as presented in WP:YESPOV. "Wikipedia's voice" is specifically reserved for the presentation of "uncontested and uncontroversial" "facts", not contested and controversial "opinion". JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Its a more or less direct quote from policy. Please provide reliable third party sources which says there was any foundation in fact for the SBV's claims, if you can then there is a case to say it is opinion, but only then. All the ones we have to date say that it was a smear, did not stack up against the evidence etc. etc. --Snowded ^TALK 18:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Nor should the opinion that swiftboating is a smear be put in Wikipedia's voice.

Assuming you mean that "swiftboating" is "smearing" (verb), absolutely, 100% correct and, as you've noted, is also an assertion of "opinion" whose article presentation language is mandated by the provisions of WP:YESPOV...but it is critical to the resolution of THIS POV dispute that the substance of this specific dispute be both clearly understood and clearly stated so as not to impede its resolution with an introduction of related issues. This article is, IMHO, awash in POV problems...one of which you have also correctly identified, but let's take this one issue at a time. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Sources

OK, here is an example text from PBS. I use it as the PBS reference originally came from JakeInJoisey. It says "The record is clear. As a young man John Kerry did what the men in our Civil War story did, he went to war for his country, and in his case was awarded medals for his bravery. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was organized in advance of the 2004 election and funded by operatives with close ties to the political machine seeking the re-election of President George W. Bush. The media campaign by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth which attacked Senator Kerry's military record was reported and judged to have been a successful political effort to undermine Kerry's deserved and honorable credentials as a decorated veteran. In this regard it can accurately and fairly be described as a smear. (At the time Senator John McCain judged the group's attacks "dishonest and dishonorable.")" (my bolding) Now there are other similar quotes also referenced on the article. I won't list them all. Would those who claim the use of smear represents and POV position please provide counter sources to the above. --Snowded ^TALK 18:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

As has been explained to you before, you are on the wrong track with your repeated requests for sources. Elsewhere you claimed "The only way you can determine if something is a fact or an opinion is based on what the sources say." This is patent nonsense. If I say Laura Kaeppeler was born in 1988, I can say it in Wikipedia's voice, because it is a factual claim. And of course if someone disputes it, we would go to the sources. If I say Laura Kaeppeler is beautiful, that's an opinion and should not be put in Wikipedia's voice. I don't need any sources to establish that it is an opinion. If you tried to say that Laura Kaeppeler is beautiful in Wikipedia's voice, I would revert it no matter how many sources say she is beautiful - and there would no doubt be a lot of sources that say that, seeing as she recently won the Miss America pageant. Even if 100% of your sources said "she is beautiful and that's a fact" you still could not put it in Wikipedia's voice. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Your obduracy on the point notwithstanding, ample sourcing has already been provided (see the RfC) to support an editorial determination (not that sourcing should even be required) that a "smear" assertion is an assertion of "opinion". Some indices (and by no means an exhaustive list) of that rather obvious reality are the sourcing which identifies the partisan genesis of the characterization, the predominantly partisan employment of the characterization and acknowledgement by a reputable source (who, in fact, agrees with the characterization) that it is far from universal in its acceptance as legitimate. Amen. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

So in other words, neither of you have any sources which counter the multiple statements in reliable sources that it was a smear, or a set of deliberate lies etc. etc. You can establish (and this is not disputed) that the term is controversial and that there are people who want to believe the allegations were true, just as there are people who want to believe the Moon is made of green cheese or the earth is flat. Wether something was a deliberate lie or not can be established from the sources. Beauty is I agree an opinion. JakeinJoisey, if you think the sources currently in use are not reliable but partisan then raise that, don't hide in generalised accusations; keep to policy --Snowded ^TALK 06:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: "So in other words, neither of you have any sources": WRONG!!! What part of Sources are irrelevant are you having trouble understanding? Disagreeing with me is OK, paraphrasing me so as to twist my words is not. I never said I don't have sources. I said sources are irrelevant. You also lied michracaterized about what JakeInJoisey said. He didn't say he has no sources. he said (direct quote), "ample sourcing has already been provided."

Re: "Beauty is I agree an opinion": Then you are inconsistent in your definition of "fact" and "opinion." The sources say that Miss America is beautiful, but in the case of beauty you fully accept the reality that sources are irrelevant - that those sources, no matter how many or how reliable, do not turn turn beauty into a fact. Then you change your standards when deciding whether smear is an opinion. That's inconsistent. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

WRONG!!! What part of There are no reliable sources with the required reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that state "she is beautiful" as an objective fact (yes, I checked) are you having trouble understanding? Disagreeing with me is OK, paraphrasing me so as to twist my words is not. I never said the sources were irrelevant. You are arguing that the "smear campaign" description is just an opinion, despite being sourced to multiple reliable sources, and despite your failure to produce a single reliably sourced refutation. Your "she is beautiful" analogy is false and non-applicable. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Parroting, (which in this case ends up with you accusing someone of improperly paraphrasing you when nobody paraphrased you at all, properly or improperly) is a technique best left on the schoolyard. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

This whole argument ("Because I said so!" — "But can't you please explain why?" — "Because I said so!" — "How about just one bit of proof?" — "Because I said so; proofs are irrelevant!") has never left the schoolyard, so I don't understand your complaint. But hey, if you can not make a reasonable argument, then attack the arguer's "technique" ... whatever floats your swiftboat. We agreed that the "beautiful" description is a subjective description; one that can not be factually asserted — as opposed to the objective "smear campaign" description, which can be factually asserted. You twisted those words to imply that we "fully accept the reality that sources are irrelevant" -- say what? Improperly mischaracterize your opponent's argument again, and you'll find yourself parroted again (strawman much?) - don't make me tell the teacher on you. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

JakeInJosey has provided no sources that counter those already there. He has provided sources that say the term is controversial which is not disputed. He also consistently says, inconsistently to his actions, that "ample sources have been provided" or that they "could be". Unfortunately reality lacks somewhat against the claims. Sources are highly relevant in determining if something is a fact or not. Telling lies can be established as a fact or not and the meaning of smear is pretty clear in English; therefore sources count. Beauty on the other hand is subjective. --Snowded ^TALK 07:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Please try to understand the nature of your error. The sequence was:

1. Snowded: "You have no sources"

1. JakeInJosey: "Ample sourcing has already been provided."

1. Snowded: "So, in other words, you have no sources."

The phrase "in other words" introduces the following clause as a paraphrase. If the paraphrase does not match the words being paraphrased, you are stuffing words into someone else's mouth. That's wrong. Please don't do it again.

Please do not respond to this with a claim that he didn't provide sourcing or that his sourcing was somehow deficient. That's not relevant. Even if a statement is wrong, you still have an ethical duty to paraphrase it correctly. You didn't do that. What you are supposed to do is to disagree in a civil manner. What you actually did was to set up a straw man and attack your own creation rather than addressing what was actually said. When I see you resorting to this sort of cheap debating trick, it leads me to believe that you are seeking victory instead of consensus. I invite you to have a calm, rational discussion. In other words, more light, less heat. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Your confusion, Guy Macon, appears to stem from your misreading of Snowded's question and Jake's response. Here, I'll try to paraphrase the discussion so that you can correct your misleading transcription above:

1) Snowded: "Please provide counter sources to the above policy-compliant, reliably sourced assertion of fact.

2) JakeInJoisey: "No, I'd rather not argue that point at this time. Instead, I can provide ample sourcing to show that others do (or might, depending on interpretation) hold a point of view similar to mine, and I would like to have an "editorial determination" that my view can be represented in the article about the "Swiftboating" phrase."

3) Snowded: "So, in other words, you have no sources to refute the factually sourced "campaign smear" description. So instead of providing reliably sourced refutation of the description, and instead of providing reliable sources showing the description to be mere opinion instead of fact, you would rather appeal to "editorial determination" to allow your POV to be inserted based on "ample sourcing" instead of reliable sourcing?

4) Guy Macon: What part of Sources are irrelevant are you having trouble understanding?

5) Me: Yeah, yeah, we heard you. Wikipedia policy disagrees with you. It sounds to me as if the argument is "Since we can't refute the findings of multiple, independent reliable sources that have determined the SBVT conducted a campaign of vilification - a "smear campaign" - then let's see if we can at least get our opposing opinion slipped in to cloud the issue sufficiently for the readers, on the grounds that our opinion "exists", even if supporting facts do not. Surely we can cite enough ditto-head commentary and maybe even get some like-minded Wikipedia editors to generate a favorable 'editorial determination'".

I'm sure you'll correct me if I have misunderstood any of you.

Macon: Could you please refrain from the condescending lectures on how to debate an issue? It's rather insulting, and frankly, a little beneath you. Your participation is appreciated, but without the offensive patronizing, please. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, I believe that you are too involved with your political agenda to be able to treat this topic with a NPOV, and I am convinced that you are immune to being convinced by any argument, so I am withdrawing from further interaction with you and will leave your attempt to violate WP:NPOV for others to deal with. You can reply if you choose, but I will not read the reply. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

You also believe the "smear campaign" description is inaccurate, and simply "opinion" -- which says all that needs to be said about your "beliefs". Please do return to the discussion if you ever acquire an interest in discussing facts and information, instead of pushing stale memes and hyperbolic talking points. Cheers, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Macon, you are the only one throwing around various insults and creating heat. I'm sorry if you disagree with me, but sources are very very relevant to this determination and the failure to provide them makes it impossible to make progress. I am not under any ethical duty to tolerate an editors statements that he can provide sources, but who then refused to do so, or provides one which say other things completely. --Snowded ^TALK 22:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Snowded, for the record, I do not believe that your description above has any basis in reality. What you described did not happen the way you said it did. I believe that you are too involved with your political agenda to be able to treat this topic with a NPOV, and I am convinced that you are immune to being convinced by any argument, so I am withdrawing from further interaction with you and will leave your attempt to violate WP:NPOV for others to deal with. You can reply if you choose, but I will not read the reply. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is this on the NPOV Noticeboard?

• WP:YESPOV clearly states that "an article should not state that 'genocide is an evil action', but it may state that 'genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil.' " --Guy Macon

No, that is not what it clearly states. I've seen that confusing snippet extracted several times now from the actual, clearer wording on the policy page. You are semi-quoting one of five interconnected stipulations that must be followed to "achieve the level of neutrality which is appropriate for an encyclopedia." Here's what that one stipulation really says:

Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."

See that part in bold print that everyone keeps leaving out when quoting this? This is instructing us to not state opinion — such as what does or does not qualify under the vague, subjective and still-debated definition of "evil" — as fact. It does not instruct us against stating a fact — such as what does or does not meet the clear, objective definition of a Smear campaign — as fact. Any statement about "evil" will be, because of its undefined nature, "opinion" — and therefore must be presented that way — and that's why it is used as an example here. Conversely, a statement about a "smear campaign" can be factually true or false only — stated clearly as meeting that definition or not. Please be careful to not misrepresent what this policy is advising.

• If I say Laura Kaeppeler was born in 1988, I can say it in Wikipedia's voice, because it is a factual claim. And of course if someone disputes it, we would go to the sources. --Guy Macon

Exactly. A Birthdate, like a Smear campaign is an objective, defined fact; something that can be definitively determined by going to reliable sources with reputations for fact-checking and accuracy (i.e., not opinion pieces).

• If I say Laura Kaeppeler is beautiful, that's an opinion and should not be put in Wikipedia's voice. I don't need any sources to establish that it is an opinion. If you tried to say that Laura Kaeppeler is beautiful in Wikipedia's voice, I would revert it no matter how many sources say she is beautiful - and there would no doubt be a lot of sources that say that, seeing as she recently won the Miss America pageant. --Guy Macon

Also true. "Beautiful", like "Evil", is a subjective opinion/description, and needs to be presented in our articles as attributed opinion.

• Even if 100% of your sources said "she is beautiful and that's a fact" you still could not put it in Wikipedia's voice. --Guy Macon

There are no reliable sources with the required reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that state "she is beautiful" as an objective fact (yes, I checked). Also, no one involved in this discussion is suggesting that we insert a subjective statement into a Wikipedia article in Wikipedia's voice. Your example adequately makes the case supporting the reliably sourced "smear campaign" description, and rejecting the "say it ain't so" opinions "no matter how many sources say" it.

• ample sourcing has already been provided (see the RfC) to support an editorial determination (not that sourcing should even be required) that a "smear" assertion is an assertion of "opinion" --JakeInJoisey

I checked that RfC again, just to see if any reliable sources have been added to support what you just said. I don't see any. Reliable sources that meet Wikipedia's requirements for assertion of fact describe the SBVT attack campaign as a Smear campaign. Only Non-reliable sources and opinion pieces try to claim otherwise. A couple editors here, quoting their favorite blogosphere echo-chamber non-rs sources, does not make properly sourced assertions of fact suddenly "contested", nor does it renew a "controversy". There isn't an NPOV issue here to resolve; for that we would need two competing, reliably sourced assertions of fact, then we could decide how to present those facts. Instead, we have a sourced fact, and a request here (presented incorrectly as a NPOV concern) to qualify/muddy that sourced fact with the insertion of opinion and/or attribution. The campaign is properly described as a smear campaign. You have failed to show that assertion of fact to be contested, despite repeated requests to do so. And it hasn't been controversial for years; the election is over, guys.

Naval records and accounts from other sailors contradicted almost every claim they made, and some members of the group who had earlier praised Mr. Kerry's heroism contradicted themselves. Mr. Kerry's defenders have received help from unlikely sources, including some who were originally aligned with the Swift boat group but later objected to its accusations against Mr. Kerry. One of them, Steve Hayes, was an early member of the group. A former sailor, he was a longtime friend and employee of William Franke, one of the group's founders, and he supported the push to have Mr. Kerry release his military files. But Mr. Hayes came to believe that the group was twisting Mr. Kerry's record. "The mantra was just 'We want to set the record straight,' " Mr. Hayes said this month. "It became clear to me that it was morphing from an organization to set the record straight into a highly political vendetta. They knew it was not the truth."

Xenophrenic (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Very well said. Bravo. Binksternet (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

And very, very wrong. He completely glossed over "Even if 100% of your sources said 'she is beautiful and that's a fact' you still could not put it in Wikipedia's voice" by ignoring the "if". That's his exact argument in favor of "smear campaign." He says in effect that if reliable sources say that swiftboating is a smear campaign, then Wikipedia should say that swiftboating is a smear campaign. That's exactly the same logic as saying that if reliable sources say that Laura Kaeppeler is beautiful, then Wikipedia should say that Laura Kaeppeler is beautiful. Putting your fingers in your ears and loudly singing "FactFactFactLaLaLaFactFactFactICan'tHearYouFactFactFactLaLaLaFactFact" does not change the basic logic that is being used to take what are clearly subjective opinions and pretend they are objective facts. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I never gloss over a point that is substantiated and germane to the issue, so you appear to have misunderstood "my exact argument". Or you are ignoring it. What part of "no one involved in this discussion is suggesting that we insert a subjective statement into a Wikipedia article in Wikipedia's voice" confused you? Wikipedia says in effect that if reliable sources say that swiftboating is a smear campaign, then Wikipedia should say that swiftboating is a smear campaign -- not me, so your beef is with the WP:Verifiability policy. Which makes me ask, "Why is this on the NPOV Noticeboard?" If you are challenging the veracity of the reliable sources that describe (not opine) the attack campaign as a "smear campaign", then raise your concerns about them at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Which makes me ask, "Why is this on the NPOV Noticeboard?" Repeating that the reliably sourced "smear campaign" description is "clearly subjective opinion", over and over and over again, will not make your wish come true. You actually have to climb down from the soapbox, drop the bullhorn, and provide the reliably sourced refutation of the present reliably sourced assertion of fact. Nothing in the sources below refute the "smear campaign" description. Nothing in the meme-pushing sources provided on the article talk page refute it. Pointing at commentary pieces (or upset letter-writers) and exclaiming, "See? They don't want to believe it, either!" is not a refutation of reliably sourced assertion of fact. Hopefully now you won't misunderstand "my exact point". Xenophrenic (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe I do...and its, IMHO, specious. But, hopefully, that will soon be confirmed.

You actually have to...provide the reliably sourced refutation of the present reliably sourced assertion of fact.

Nope. "...reliably sourced assertion of fact" presumes a determination (the one we're here to get) as to whether a "smear" assertion is one of "opinion" or one of "fact"...and adequate sources have been presented already reflecting some legitimate indices one might use in such a determination. We shall see. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is this on the NPOV Noticeboard?

To commence addressing a POV blight on the integrity of this project.

I checked that RfC again, just to see if any reliable sources have been added to support what you just said. I don't see any.

Perhaps you don't. Hopefully others, to include the RfC closer, will. Here's just a few you didn't see for the convenience of interested NPOV Noticeboard editors (emphasis mine)...

• “You can’t lead America by misleading the American people,” said Kerry, who has been struggling in recent days against charges — denounced by Democrats as smear tactics — that he lied about his actions in Vietnam that won five military medals.

Associated Press, In N.Y., Kerry asks GOP to halt 'fear and smear', MSNBC, August 24, 2004

• Swift-boating The name given by Democrats to the tactic of unfairly attacking or smearing a candidate, often with half-truths.

The term refers to the series of anti-John Kerry adverts aired in the run-up to the 2004 presidential election by an ostensibly independent group of supporters of George W Bush called the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

The adverts featured veterans who - like Mr Kerry - served on naval craft known as swift boats in Vietnam and who were critical of Mr Kerry's record in the war. The Kerry campaign said they unfairly distorted his war record.

BBC News, Glossary: US elections, December 13, 2011

• Critics had offered sometimes inconsistent and contradictory accounts, The Times found. But the paper also concluded that Kerry had left himself open to criticism by giving subtly varied accounts over the years of his Vietnam service.

Since the 2004 campaign, Kerry and other Democrats have come to label what they believe are unwarranted political attacks as "Swift boating."

Los Angeles Times, Kerry takes on $1-million 'Swift Boat' challenge, November 17, 2007

• There are undoubtedly large numbers of people who would agree with the characterization of the Swift Boat campaign as a smear on Kerry — who was awarded three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star and Silver Star while serving in Vietnam — while many others see it differently.

Michael Getler, PBS Ombudsman, July 13, 2007

JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I just checked through the last "Michael Getler, PBS Ombudsman" link provided above. The article supports the view that swiftboating is a smear. Sure, just as we have people here who want to believe that the SBVT were telling the truth, there were viewers who wrote letters saying they objected to being told that swiftboating is a smear. Also, Getler said various things, the strongest of which appears to be "in my view, this comment of Cowan's, and the way it was presented, seemed to me to come out of nowhere, be irrelevant to the segment viewers had just watched, and jumped out as sort of a gratuitous political shot". That is a comment on the way some material was presented on PBS, and is not any kind of comment on the issue under discussion (do reliable sources support that swiftboating is a smear as a fact?). Johnuniq (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The RS sources support saying "smear" as an opinion of many - but not that it is a "fact". Cheers - my reading appears to differ from yours on the PBS cite. First use of "smear" on that cite is credited as a quoted opinion of Wes Cowan, and not as a claim by PBS. The comments ("letters") made clear that a large number of correspondents disagreed with any opinion that the ads were a "smear." At no point does the author, Michael Gettler, aver that it is a "fact" about being a "smear." The person who made any claim of "fact" was Mr. Bryson whose missive follows the PBS article, and which states: Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was organized in advance of the 2004 election and funded by operatives with close ties to the political machine seeking the re-election of President George W. Bush. as a substantive reason for his personally labelling it a "smear." In reading the letter, it is clear that he is also stating an opinion, and based in large part on the material being in some way funded by Bush backers. The clincher, however, is Bryson's conclusion: Having followed this over the years, I felt, personally, that the evidence supported Kerry's record, citations and performance in battle. But the issue here for me is the appropriateness, or rather the lack of it, of Cowan's commentary. (stress added to make clear that "commentary" is a key word) stating that all of this is his feelings about the issue. Cheers - but again I suggest Gettler's position as ombudsman for PBS accurately reflected his position that :smear" is an opinion" (or "feeling" of you prefer). Collect (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

My comment was in reply to the post immediately above mine which said that large numbers see the issue as a smear while many others see it differently, with the Getler page used to support the bold text. My comment is to the effect that Getler makes no comment about whether swiftboating is a smear, and nothing on the linked page is relevant to the bold text. Of course a television program making the smear statement is going to get letters of complaint—just as editors here disagree with what NPOV means: comments from viewers are not reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• First use of "smear" on that cite is credited as a quoted opinion of Wes Cowan, and not as a claim by PBS.

Yeah ... about that:

The following letter is from Chris Bryson, executive producer, Lion TV:

Thank you for your attention to our interstitial on service veterans which aired following a History Detectives story relating to the Grand Army of the Republic veterans organization. We paid close attention to the viewers' letters we received and to your commentary.

Upon reflection we made a mistake. A great deal of reporting makes the case that in the 2004 presidential election Senator John F. Kerry was the victim of unsubstantiated allegations concerning his military service record made by the members of the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. But our interstitial left the impression that this reporting was Wes Cowan's opinion. We regret that. As one of the viewers who wrote to us noted, the four hosts are investigators, not commentators.

We will re-cut the interstitial for its eventual rebroadcast and substitute the following text: "ONE OF THE DEMONSTRATORS THAT DAY WAS SENATOR JOHN F. KERRY, WHOSE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION FOR PRESIDENT SAW THE CREATION OF 'SWIFT BOAT VETERANS FOR TRUTH.' THE GROUP QUESTIONED KERRY'S MILITARY RECORD, AND ACCORDING TO SOME ACCOUNTS, HELPED CONTRIBUTE TO HIS DEFEAT IN 2004." [1] [2]

[1] On the trail of Kerry's failed dream - Pair of wars dominated strategy before election

[2] The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008 - Chapter 1: The Way to Lose

Posted by Michael Getler on July 20, 2007 at 11:30 AM

I guess it's a reliable source now. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

...comments from viewers are not reliable sources.

Just nonsense. They are reliable sources for their own opinions...a long recognized WP:RS principle. Furthermore, they were incorporated into the commentary by the author as a demonstration of the nature and breadth of viewer "opinion" that the perceived gratuitous insult to the Swiftvets inspired among that viewership...and which, in turn, prompted the observation "while many others see it differently". Perhaps about as fine a "real world" demonstration on the strongly held differences of "opinion" this Swiftvet "smear" characterization can generate. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Re "The article supports the view that swiftboating is a smear": So? I can show you a boatlload of articles that say Miss America is pretty, yet we still are not allowed to say so in Wikipedia's voice. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Strawman, Guy Macon? No one but you is talking about a "boatload of articles". The rest of us are talking about a "boatload of articles that meet Wikipedia's requirements for assertion of fact". Show us a boatload of those about Miss America, and you'll quickly learn just how wrong you are about not being allowed to convey that content in Wikipedia's voice. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

No one but you is talking about a "boatload of articles".

On the contrary, I've also mentioned a "boatload of articles" addressing the SVPT campaign, none of which characterize it as a "smear". Of course, "not a smear" would, of necessity, have to be inferred from most of those sources since it is rare (and simply disingenuous to suggest otherwise) that sources should even be expected or motivated to incorporate "not a smear" language in their article treatments. Be that as it may, purported "not a smear" sources are as irrelevant to this issue, is "smear" an assertion of "opinion" or an assertion of "fact", as are "smear" assertion sources. Any "sources" relevant to this issue are those that provide illumination as to indices (eg. partisan-inspired, partisan-employed, alternatively defined, alternatively employed) that could definitively distinguish an assertion of "opinion" from an assertion of "fact"...and the ones I have provided do exactly that, IMHO, quite adequately. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not "On the contrary...", Jake. That's "On a completely different matter..." The point above is that Guy Macon is trying to present his Google search results for the words "is beautiful" as somehow relevant to the argument that multiple "reliable sources for the assertion of fact" exist describing, even defining, the activities of the SBVT as a "smear campaign". Apples and oranges. He's citing a list of mentions of a word, while the argument here is about what actual reliable sources — you know, as defined and required by Wikipedia Policy — say about the SBVT campaign. When Macon starts citing quality reliable sources that factually assert, in compliance with Wikipedia policy, that "so-and-so is beautiful", then his strawman argument will become relevant. With that cleared up, let's move on to the different point you addressed:

"I've also mentioned a "boatload of articles" addressing the SVPT campaign ... that provide illumination as to indices (eg. partisan-inspired, partisan-employed, alternatively defined, alternatively employed) that could definitively distinguish an assertion of "opinion" from an assertion of "fact" --JakeInJoisey

Looking at the 4 sources you've provided on this page (that is a very small boat) I see:

• -- an AP source published before half the SBVT attack ads aired, before their attack-book hit the stands, and before investigations into the fabrications were performed. It says only that Democrats denounced the charges as smear tactics (no news there), which would be proper phrasing from a news agency reporting on a still-developing breaking story. That source "definitively distinguishes" what, again?
• -- a brief "BBC Glossary" entry that notes Democrats give the "swift-boating" name "to the tactic of unfairly attacking or smearing a candidate, often with half-truths" (they do indeed, it is true) and that the Kerry Campaign said they distorted his war record (yup, and that's putting it nicely). That source "definitively distinguishes" what, again?
• -- an LA Times article that notes that Kerry and other Democrats have come to label what they believe are unwarranted political attacks as "Swift boating." It's true. And not just Kerry and Democrats, either, as additional sources show. I don't believe there was ever any contention about this fact. That source "definitively distinguishes" what, again?
• -- then finally, a PBS Ombudsman statement that acknowledges the well-known, uncontested fact that "many others see it differently" -- just take a peek at FoxNation forums for proof. However, nowhere in that source is it ever asserted that the "smear" description is mere opinion or is not a factual description. So this source "definitively distinguishes" what, again?

Xenophrenic (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the 4 sources you've provided on this page (that is a very small boat)...

Rather large enough to dispatch a POV battleship I should imagine, but it's only a tender to the "not a smear" dreadnaught anyway. As to your comments, I will be delighted to entertain them further aboard the goodship S.S. RfC where their further discussion (at a length of your choosing) will likely be of more consequence. I'll await your cut and paste. ALL ABOARD! JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

As it should hopefully be apparent to any interested reader, the "boatload of articles" I referenced were those that did NOT characterize the Swiftvet campaign as a "smear campaign", contrary to Xenophrenic's shameful ellipse redaction which fundamentally changes and misrepresents my prior comment. (No, I did not misrepresent your comment; please read again. --Xenophrenic) It should also be noted that Xenophrenic has yet to introduce his argument to the relevant RfC where a further examination of his position might be of some greater consequence. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps that small boat can accommodate just one more for good measure...

• In a column earlier this year, I spotlighted "swiftboating" as a currently fashionable example of semantic infiltration used to deflect valid criticism of the likes of Cindy Sheehan, John Murtha and Al Gore. It's a loaded, critical term coined by leftists during the 2004 presidential campaign to counter Vietnam swift boat vets who challenged John Kerry's questionable claims of heroism in that war. I expect liberals to wield the term if they can get away with it. But I cautioned supposedly objective journalists to be wary of joining their cause in the use of that word. Apparently, to no avail.

Mike Rosen, Story is none too 'swift', Rocky Mountain News, October 27, 2006

JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Wait, you mean Rush Limbaugh's Mini-Me Mike Rosen? Heh, sure! Bring him along on the enevitable trip to WP:RSN (you do realize that is where this will need to end up if you seriously wish to say reliably sourced assertions of fact are merely "opinions", right?), the more, the merrier. When I said above that you guys kept citing dittohead commentary, I was not suggesting that you needed to cite even more dittohead commentary! What has the world come too when opinion commentators are cited in Wikipedia as proof that assertions of fact in sources deemed by Wikipedia as reliable are really stating mere opinion? Seriously? Even that source you just linked admits "objective journalists" ignore him. Thanks for the chuckle, Xenophrenic (talk) 06:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the chuckle.

You're quite welcome. Perhaps you may find the following to be equally amusing...

• There has been opposition to the use of this term to define a smear technique, both by media commentators and the Swift Boat Veterans.⁵⁷

Smith, Melissa M.; Williams, Glenda C.; Powell, Larry; Copeland, Gary A. (2010). Campaign Finance Reform: The Political Shell Game. Lexington Books. p. 105. ISBN 0739145665.

Oh dear. Isn't that the same "scholarly source" cited for?...

"Since the political smear campaign[3][4] conducted by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth..."

And the punchline?

57. M. Rosen, Story Is None Too Swift, Review of Reviewed Item. Rocky Mountain News (2006)

When I said above that you guys kept citing dittohead commentary, I was not suggesting that you needed to cite even more dittohead commentary! What has the world come too when opinion commentators are cited in Wikipedia as proof that assertions of fact in sources deemed by Wikipedia as reliable are really stating mere opinion? Seriously?

My deepest condolences. JakeInJoisey (talk) 07:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you having trouble understanding the issue? We know that "There has been opposition to the use of this term to define a smear technique". The issue concerns whether any reliable source says that swiftboating is not a smear—no such source has been produced. Yes, some people say it is not a smear (just like some people say evolution is wrong)–however articles are based on reliable sources, not what some people say. Johnuniq (talk) 10:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• This noticeboard inquiry is fast approaching TLDR status (if it hasn't exceeded it already) and it is my intent, unless there's some logical objection, to petition for an uninvolved administrator determination and closure. Comments? JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support uninvolved administrator determination and closure. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
• As stated above, I agree with closing this as misplaced -- it's actually an issue for WP:RSN. It has been revealed that your concern is not with how to neutrally present competing reliably sourced facts. Your concern is with the accuracy of reliable sources that have asserted a fact. As for your intent to "petition for a determination", I direct your attention to the banner at the top of this page: While we attempt to give another opinion and consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy. How do you feel about broccoli? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring your musings as to what is my "concern"...

While we attempt to give another opinion and consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy.

AFAIK (and you will no doubt educate me if I'm wrong), noticeboard discussions are often closed by a volunteer editor. Whatever the case, I'll petition for an uninvolved closure and will simply be satisfied with whatever might transpire from that pursuit...but this discussion has, IMHO, run its course and circular argument is a large waste of time. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)