Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

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

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

Duke_lacrosse_case

The article Duke_lacrosse_case deviates substantially from anything close to encyclopaedic, a balanced or reasonable perspective, in short it lacks a NPOV and is substantially biased. It makes some outrageous claims that are unsubstantiated, for example it states that an allegation of rape was false as a fact. It conflates Stripper with Escort with Prostitute in apparent attempt to denigrate the alleged victim and imply a prostitute cannot be raped. Attempts to even make minor improvements such are removing the unsubstantiated claims have been repeatedly reverted by sock puppet with an apparent vested interest, attempts to raise a NPOV discussion was removed. Article needs to be investigated via appropriate policy/authority. 77.86.81.199 (talk) 00:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories - deletion of referenced, neutral material

This material, in various forms, has been repeatedly removed from the 9/11 conspiracy theories article:

"More than 1,000 architects and engineers have reportedly signed a petition calling for a new investigation."

This line is supported by four references:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/22/inside-the-beltway-70128635/?feat=home_columns http://www.smh.com.au/world/utzons-son-signs-up-for-september-11-conspiracy-theory-20091124-jhf7.html http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/12598/2/ http://www.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php

Here is a diff of the latest deletion:

Here is a link to the latest discussion on the article talk page:

The previous extensive discussion from the talk page archive is here:

Here is the recent discussion from the Fringe Theories Noticeboard, which was apparently archived without resolution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_23#9.2F11_conspiracy_theories

It is not neutral point of view to omit this highly relevant material from the "World Trade Center collapse" section of the article.Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

that depends on what they are asking it for.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

My recollection is that this was resolved previously, including on this board. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

We discussed it for 4 months on the article talk page,[1] again starting last month,[2] again on the Fringe theories noticeboard[3] and now here. At some point, Ghostofnemo, you should probably let it go. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Except that the conclusion of many of those was that the material was to be kept and mentioned, the last round was regarding the lead, where it may not have a place, but it has been considered mentionable in the article proper. At some point it would be nice if the people insisting on removing it would 'let it go'. un☯mi 17:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, every discussion so far has failed to gain consensus. Misstating these results is not helpful A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The arguments against have been of the order of "It is undue weight to include one petition and not others", they are generally low quality stonewalling. un☯mi 18:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

That argument sounds legitimate. What's special about this alleged petition that it's deserving of special attention? Keep in mind that posting stuff like that is an effort to confer artificial notability, counting on wikipedia's high visibility to help spread fringe theories. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you arguing that it's not notable that 1,000 architects and engineers are calling for a new investigation into the building collapses, in an article about 9/11 conspiracy theories? Ghostofnemo (talk)

No, but the source of that number, 1,000, is a conspiracy theorist (a Truther) not an objective source. If you dig into the sources, you will see that they are reporting a Truther claiming that 1,000 have signed a petition. This is not at all verified that 1,000 have signed; it is a claim emanating from a very unreliable source. The veracity of the source's statement is exceedingly dubious. Jehochman ^Talk 14:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Presentation is indeed important, how about:

"In 2010 The Washington Times reported that a petition by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth has been signed by more than 1,000 architects and engineers requesting a formal inquiry by United States Congress to investigate the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7 at the World Trade Center." un☯mi 14:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't make it notable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Information in articles does not need to be 'notable', it merely needs to be relevant to the article and supported by references. un☯mi 16:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Fringe theories are not to be given undue weight. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not quite sure where to start, with the notion that people having signed it is unlikely to be a fringe theory or that the article where this is considered for inclusion is 9/11_conspiracy_theories. un☯mi 16:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

BB, how is a newspaper reporting that a petition has been signed by so many people a "fringe theory"? SmartSE (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Uomi, that is not what the source says. 9/11 truther group claims that 1,000 engineers and architects has signed its petition. (cite Washington post). Now, we apply WP:INDISCRIMINATE: who cares if a fringe group claims that 1,000 imaginary architects and engineers have signed their petition? (Flat Earth Society claims that 1,000 physicists have signed their petition. Yeah right.) This fact is only relevant to an article about the truther group, or possibly in an article about 9/11 conspiracy theories, to demonstrate the delusional nature of the claims. Nobody has verified that 1,000 engineers and architects have signed the petition. Quite likely this is pure posturing by a fringe group. Jehochman ^Talk 13:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

If you'll click on the fourth reference, it lists all of the signatories, with their titles and license numbers. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The Washington Times source refers to the signatories in two instances:

1. "How did 200,000 tons of steel disintegrate and drop in 11 seconds? A thousand architects and engineers want to know, and are calling on Congress to order a new investigation into the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7 at the World Trade Center."

2. "Mr. Gage, who is a member of the American Institute of Architects, managed to persuade more than 1,000 of his peers to sign a new petition requesting a formal inquiry."

The article under discussion is 9/11_conspiracy_theories. un☯mi 15:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned, it is relevant and a brief mention would be giving it due weight. Several reliable sources report it. It should be attributed, i.e. "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth say that 1000 engineers and architects have signed their petition" etc. I can't find any criticism of the petition in reliable sources. The reasons for keeping it out are really people's own opinions of the petition - but we don't use our own opinions of things when editing articles. Fences&Windows 22:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this is a WP:NPOV issue. There are hundreds upon hundreds of articles about 9/11 conspiracy theories. We should look upon all these articles in totality. The fact that someone can find a few articles about something is rather unimpressive considering we have hundreds to choose from. Thus far, no one has presented any evidence to indicate why this petition is important. The only evidence that anyone's presented is that it can be sourced. Just because something can be sourced, doesn't mean it belongs in an article. BTW, it is mentioned in the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth which I think is more appropriate. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe it's notable because the signatories are architects and engineers. It's not your average "in front of the supermarket" petition. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

How many members does American Institute of Architects have?Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

How is the view of a Landscape Architect notable for a building collapse? The organization is mentioned in the article (see the proponents section). This is about the various theories, without getting into the various petitions, lawsuits, etc from the various groups. Ravensfire (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you get 1,000 accredited astronomers to sign a petition suggesting more research is needed to determine if the earth is really round? Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Ghost has a valid point in my view, and it is also my view that this is a notable petition and the information should should be included in the article. I must add that although I have the article watchlisted, I have failed to see this noticeboard listing or I would have commented here. I submit that more eyes would be helpful, and that it appears that this information is being censored by those with an agenda. This is an article about theories, and this is a quite notable theory. The references prove that, yet there is an ongoing attempt to wikilawyer the information out of the article. I'd call that flat wrong. Jusdafax 08:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Time Magazine calls the 9/11 Truth Movement a "mainstream political reality" giving their views notability. A press conference to announce the petition was held in major cities in countries around the world. The petition itself as far as I know is not promoting any conspiracy theory but is simply a call for an independent investigation, an action that is supported by the majority of the public not to mention some of the members of the 911 commission which makes it undue not to mention it. The petition is signed by notable people speaking in their area of expertise which is notable. Despite the large number of engineers and architects, the vast majority have not taken a position on 911 and it is quite possible that the signers of the petition form the majority of engineers and architects who have have commented on 911. I have not read the petition but if it does not promote any specific conspiracy then I cant see any legitimate reason not to mention it.Wayne (talk) 14:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep WP:UNDUE in mind. We can't possibly cover every obscure group with one or more notable person(s) in it.--Terrillja _talk 02:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It's the petition with the signatures of 1000 architects and engineers that is notable, not the group. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

1000 isn't a notable number any more than 500 or 50 is. Therefore, the group and thus its petition has to be considered for notability and undue weight.--Terrillja _talk 19:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

And yet, the news sources cited thought the petition was notable enough to give space to. In my view, this argument is an example of WP:WIKILAWYER with the goal of excluding information. This is not what Wikipedia is all about. In this case it is my observation that the use of WP:UNDUE is incorrect. The information is notable, well-referenced, and being censored out of this article. This does not improve an article on conspiracy theories. Something is very wrong here, in my view. Jusdafax 08:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

None of these sources are even about the petition. Most only mention it in passing. Again, you have to look at the big picture. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of articles on 9/11 conspiracy theories. Cherry picking a couple sentences here and there is a classic example of WP:UNDUE. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

All of the sources are about the petition. I have to agree with Jusdafax that this information seems very relevant and notable for this article, and that the repeated deletions seem to be attempts to keep this neutrally worded, reliably sourced information out of the article. Considering the expertise of the signatories, I don't think it is undue weight to mention the petition. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Or just attempts to keep the article neutral and not give preferential treatment to one of thousands of petitions. Ms. Cleo is notable and considered to have expertise in her field, but that doesn't mean everything she says is notable. --Terrillja _talk 20:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

And here again is this tired "thousands of petitions" argument that in my view is wikilawyering. This is a highly notable petition, and the sources reflect that. Again, this is an article about conspiracy theories. Censorship does not improve the article, as I see it. Jusdafax 10:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Clearly, despite your continued assertions of notability, consensus is against including it. That isn't censorship or wikilawyering, it's following policy. The problem with conspiracy theories is that people think everything everyone else does is some conspiracy. There is no conspiracy here.--Terrillja _talk 16:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your take on what policy is and your belief that consensus is against inclusion. I see a number of differing viewpoints. Jusdafax 18:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

How many of these "thousands of petitions" have recieved worldwide mainstream press coverage? Thousands? hundreds? one? So far no one has presented a cogent argument for exclusion. The thousands claim and questioning the number of people who signed and their qualifications, the only arguments given so far with any merit, can be rejected as both are documented. No one can claim POV pushing because the petition is not promoting any conspiracy theories. What's left? Wayne (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:ICANTHEARYOU isn't helping. I note that you have not even bothered to address my concerns. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of Wikipedia

Marcus Qwertyus and I have stated on the article's talk page that, per NPOV, the article's title is not neutral and should be changed. I also pointed out that the article content needs to change to include both positive and negative views of Wikipedia. IanMacM opposes these changes, apparently wanting the article to be considered an acceptable exception to NPOV. I would appreciate any feedback you could give. Thanks, -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. We have a pretty bright line violation here. I would be glad to assist in making it neutral. Marcus Qwertyus 06:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The Criticism of Islam and Criticism of Muhammad pages suffer from much the same issues and according to Wikipedia criticism their shouldn't be any page on wiki with the words criticism in it. I think more explicit guidelines should be established for how to write "criticism of" pages. Iβи Ķᾱτhiɍ (talk) 07:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This is all a bit puzzling. I did not choose the name of this article and there have never been any complaints before. The NPOV tag was removed by another user in this diff.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Contrary to what was said above, the little known essay WP:Criticism (about 30 page views per day) does not say that there should be no articles with titles of the form "Criticism of X" but merely discourages them and stresses that such articles should be about positive and negative reception. Criticism of Islam and Criticism of Muhammad have the same problem that Criticism of Wikipedia has and must also be fixed, not taken as examples. The fact that articles of such relative prominence can have this POV problem for such a long time (I couldn't even find corresponding articles on positive criticism), suggests that perhaps we should make "Criticism of" titles illegal just to be clear. While combined articles of positive and negative reception might become too big, there are usually other, better, ways of splitting them. Hans Adler 09:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please, please, please, let's have a clearout of Criticism articles. In this case, what's the logic for the article? Say it were renamed Responses to Wikipedia, a bit ugly but in line with renaming Criticism sections in articles Responses. Well then, responses to Wikipedia represent virtually everything we know about Wikipedia, except for a little bit of primary-sourced description of what WP says about itself. Therefore, article length notwithstanding, we should consider merging Criticisms of Wikipedia back into Wikipedia parent article, allowing of course for non-POV forks, which already exist. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Critiques could be used instead of criticism in a lot of cases and sounds more highfalutin. Dmcq (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Critique is a great concept, but I don't recall seeing a single "criticism of" article that actually was full of critique. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that's the central issue. These articles are only ever good for anything if you actually like audacious POV forks. They tend to escape AfD on the grounds that it is possible to improve them, but it never is and it never happens.

For this article to conform to NPOV, it would need to cover all noteworthy criticism of Wikipedia, both positive and negative, and then all significant commentaries and objections to those criticisms. In other words, all encyclopaedic opinion in one article and, presumably, stripped from the other articles where it is meant to be per WP:SS. By which point the article would be so huge it would be well overdue splitting and merging. Why not cut to the chase and just split and merge it now? --FormerIP (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I think many of the Criticism articles have been split off from the main article because of size concerns, not POV fork. If you have a controversial topic, having a large amount of valid, notable criticism goes hand-in-hand. When the article gets too large, that's a section that commonly gets split off. Ravensfire (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

But it shouldn't, because it is not possible for such a standalone article to conform to NPOV. --FormerIP (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure it is. Difficult yes, but impossible? Nope. Ravensfire (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Show me an example of a "criticism of..." article that has grown to be balanced and uncontentious... --FormerIP (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

When an article gets too long the quick and easy solution is to turn whole sections into sub-articles. When one of those sections is "Criticism", then we end up with a new "Criticism of" article. Take Criticism of Noam Chomsky, a particularly pointless article because Chomsky is known for two distinct sets of writings, 1) on linguistics, 2) on politics. There is plenty of proper academic "critique" of both. We could work up NPOV articles Responses to Chomskyan linguistics, Responses to Chomsky's political theories or some such. But actually that critique ought to be in the main article(s) on Chomsky. Yes, critique can be, should be, balanced, but also critique ought to be in the main articles, not in separate articles. Itsmejudith (talk)

I beg to differ from FormerIP in regard of any need (NPOV or otherwise) "to cover all noteworthy criticism ... all significant commentaries and objections to those criticisms", etc. For sure, to do such an article an editor should, properly, examine all that, and then weigh it in order to determine the proper balance. But the extent to which that should be covered in the article itself depends on the scope of the article. A short article would not go very deep, but as long as what it includes is reasonably balanced (in accord with WP:WEIGHT) I wouldn't see it as NPOV. A longer article would be expected to go deeper.

But possibly this comes back to the point FormerIP subsequently makes: Should criticism of a topic (and assuming proper weight/balance) have greater length and scope than coverage of the topic itself? I suspect this really comes down to whether "criticism of" topics are properly topics in and of themselves. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there a new title for this article which would lead to consensus? Incidentally, I don't support splitting it up into separate articles, it is fine as it is.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Until a decision is made on a new title, Template:Criticism title should be re-added. Marcus Qwertyus 00:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Judith: FWIW I don't actually think that is the process by which most of these articles come about. Perhaps editors at Talk:Muhammad saw one day that the article was a bit long and decided the most sensible and least contentious thing to would be to create Criticism of Muhammad. On the other hand, perhaps someone wanted there to be a Criticism if Muhammad article so they created one. Criticism of Israel was created by a user who had failed to get consensus for a section under that title in Israel. It's under AfD, which it will probably survive because predictable ITEXISTS and IMPROVE arguments have been made.

The impossibility of NPOV isn't the only problem, although its a big one. NPOV applies to all articles and it is one policy, so it won't do to say, as JJ suggests, "well, this articles a little different because we've restricted its scope". Negative criticism always needs balancing with positive criticism, per NPOV. What if the subject of the article is a genius and has led an exemplary life, but have five points of noteworthy criticism on which he bang-to-rights. To the extent that any attempted defence would be WP:FRINGE? Would it then be okay to create an article which was a pure character assassination? Negative criticism should be balanced by positive criticism. Trying to balance it with defence against the negative criticism doesn't give neutrality, because the defence may be genuinely weak. Particularly a problem where BLP is concerned. The other problem is with divorcing criticism from context by putting into an article which does not give an overall picture of the subject.

In Criticism of Noam Chomsky, nearly all the criticism is divorced from the relevant contextual information which is contained in other articles, so that all we can ascertain is that this laundry list of people have had a pop at Chomsky at some point, but we don't know why. Various people have had trouble with "Chomskyan linguistics", but what is this? What aspect of it did they object to? Because the "Criticism" article is obliged not to spend any time on these details, we're not left any wiser about very much for having read it. In 1969, Chomsky wrote a book it seems and someone suggested that he misquoted someone and maybe he did but it may not have been very important anyway. But what was the book about? How did it fit with his other work? What was the particular issue and why might it have mattered? Again, the article requires economy as far as details go, so it is not very enlightening. Steven Pinker is presented here amongst Chomsky's critics. The reader won't appreciate from this that Pinker is one of Chomsky's foremost acolytes and they have one really significant point of disagreement. Again, because the context is stripped away. These articles seem to me to focus on laundry-listing POV. They're just not good for encyplopedic writing. --FormerIP (talk) 04:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

This is no longer a debate about Criticism of Wikipedia, but about "Criticism of" article titles in general. The best way to resolve the issue at Criticism of Wikipedia would be to suggest a new title, tagging it would achieve very little.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I did use it as an opportunity to raise the question of "Criticism of" articles in general, which discussion ought to be migrated to the talk page of NPOV policy. As far as a better title for Criticism of Wikipedia: Responses to Wikipedia, Views of Wikipedia, but also see whether there further opportunities for forking. Reputation of Wikipedia? Wikipedia as a resource for students? Also see how much of the material currently in the article should be migrated back into Wikipedia. Also look for well-sourced positive comments about Wikipedia to include. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC):

In the case of conspiracy theory articles (JFK assassination conspiracy theories, 9/11 conspiracy theories) the controversial stuff has generally been deleted from the main article and segregated to the "conspiracy" article, but then the "mainstream" position is AGAIN given in the conspiracy article, to "balance" it, while the main article is unbalanced by any criticism (or perhaps a minimal amount is allowed in passing). Ideally all the material on a topic, both "pro" and "con", would be in one article, but if that's REALLY physically impossible, the "conspiracy" or "criticism" article SHOULD NOT have to be balanced if all or most of the criticism as been removed from the main article (IMHO). Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

In their efforts to sweep conspiracy under the rug, the truthers (no relation to the 9/11 truthers) have created a mess. This does not mean that we have to break the rules of NPOV. Marcus Qwertyus 12:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal 1 Thanks for the feedback so far! Here is one proposal for how to name the article, how to scope it and how to deal with the overlap between this article and three related ones: Wikipedia, Reliability of Wikipedia and Wikipedia in Culture. (There's also an Academic studies about Wikipedia article with overlap that needs to be dealt with.)

Title: Assessments of Wikipedia

(Similar titles include Critiques of Wikipedia and Evaluations of Wikipedia. I chose assessments because that word is already used by the Reliability of Wikipedia article.)

Content: The article would include topic-by-topic analysis of the characteristics of Wikipedia, so the structure would be somewhat similar to the current article. Additional positive views of Wikipedia would be added for balance.

Related articles: The "Satire of Wikipedia" section would be merged into Wikipedia in Culture. Any content related to Reliability of Wikipedia would be moved to that article. The Assessments of Wikipedia article would have a brief summary of and a main article link to the reliability article.

Within the Wikipedia article, four "Nature of Wikipedia" subsections (Coverage of topics, Quality, Reliability and Community) would be moved to the Assessments of Wikipedia article and then replaced by an Assessments of Wikipedia subsection with a brief summary and main article link.

I might also develop a second proposal which would involve additional splitting up of the Criticism of Wikipedia content. Let me know what you think. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The recommendation that I made was Reliability of Wikipedia. This would not require major article rewrites or splits, which would be controversial and set off separate debates.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

This renaming looks like an attempt by an organization to dilute or divert criticism of its actions and policies in order to protect its image, instead of accepting the criticism as feedback and making appropriate changes. "Assessments" can be positive or negative. "Criticism" is negative. "Satire" is criticism that is supposed to be humorous. Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

i:JTSchreiber's suggestions are in the right direction. I suggest go ahead with them but remain open to other ideas as the work progresses. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

IanMacM, it's not possible to rename Criticism of Wikipedia to Reliability of Wikipedia because there already is a Reliability of Wikipedia article. Are you suggesting that Criticism of Wikipedia be deleted and the contents merged into Reliability of Wikipedia? If so, I would point out that the delete/merge process requires a separate debate and is more likely to be controversial than what I have proposed. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• FormerIP: let's say I'm reading a book (let's even say it is a scholarly book), and I come across a particularly significant criticism of a particular subject - therefore I mention it in the relevant article, but actually add it to a subarticle titled "Criticism of...". Let's say, however, that there are responses to this criticism which I was unaware of. Am I therefore unable to add this information to the article? No. I am not required to do a full-scale literature review to edit Wikipedia. So I disagree that these articles must conform to NPOV. Ideally, yes they should. But that's a long-term goal. When someone brings the other side, we add it. It's a work in progress, like everything. We could, I suppose, change "Criticism of ..." titles to something which seems more balanced like "Reception of ...", but I don't think that makes a real difference and could be a slightly confusing/misleading. I think these articles can important and cover encyclopedic information which don't fit neatly in other articles. II | (t - c) 19:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

II, if you think that Criticism of Wikipedia can "cover encyclopedic information which don't fit neatly in other articles", could you please provide a couple of examples from Criticism of Wikipedia that would not fit neatly in the article structure in Proposal 1? Also, please explain why you think the examples would not fit well. Thanks, -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure. One could put that Wikipedia has fringe or inaccurate information under "Reliability..." - however, criticisms about Wikipedia's governance, user culture, effects on society, financial stewardship, technical capabilities and complexity (or lack thereof), etc could fit neatly in the articles you listed (Wikipedia, Reliablity of Wikipedia, and Wikipedia in Culture). The information could be balkanized into several different articles - and perhaps in the long-run that is the solution - but I'm not convinced that this is absolutely necessary. The information could also be summarized in summary style, at the expense of leaving out possibly important information. The fact is: titles don't always fit neatly into how we conceive them. The title conveys a certain topic, and criticism of a topic is in some people's minds (including myself) a legitimately encyclopedic and useful grouping of information. After looking at the article Criticism of Wikipedia and Reliability of Wikipedia, I think the Criticism article should be consolidated into the "Reliability article with the balance into the regular Wikipedia article and its assorted subarticles. I might boldly work on that here... II | (t - c) 00:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

II, thanks for looking into that. It sounds like your suggestion includes the deletion of the Criticsm of Wikipedia article, right? I realize that the content would be saved by moving it to other articles, but I just want to be clear about the article deletion. Thanks, -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Go ahead, be bold! :) II | (t - c) 21:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I had been hoping to avoid article deletion, since that will set off a whole new round of controversy, and FormerIP talked about the trend of Criticism articles usually escaping deletion. However, if you wanted to submit the AfD request, I would support it. If it's up to me, I'm now thinking about a rename/rescope to "Wikipedia community", since that section is large to be merging up to the Wikipedia article. The non-community content of the criticism article would move to Reliability of Wikipedia, Wikipedia in Culture and Wikipedia. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The article should certainly not be deleted, but should be merged and redirected. Existing large articles like these always needs to be redirected. Technically an AfD is not required - redirecting is sometimes used as a sneaky way to avoid the hassle of AfD, but it doesn't seem like this one would be controversial. II | (t - c) 07:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarification. I'll think about going ahead with the merge/redirect myself. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Marcus Qwertyus and I have completed the merge and redirect, except that I decided to use a disambiguation page instead of a redirect. Since the Criticism of Wikipedia content was split up among four articles, it seemed that a disambiguation page should be used to guide the readers. Although Reliability of Wikipedia would probably be the most common choice, I don't know that it would be more popular than all the others combined. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

While I don't necessarily have a problem with the disambiguation, I do have a process problem with the fact that there seems to be only the briefest mention of a discontent with the article in an archived note, and no link to this discussion for editors of the original article to come to. Please be more careful in the future. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a link to the discussion on the Criticism of Wikipedia talk page. The link is in this section, which is not currently archived. At least one article editor did follow the link to this discussion. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

On Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia, QuackGuru wrote the following complaint, which I copied here to keep as much of the discussion as possible in one place:

There is clearly no consensus to essentially delete (or merge) Criticism of Wikipedia. This topic is extrememly notable.

For the consensus issue, I would point out that WP:CONSENSUS says that "consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions". In the case of Criticism of Wikipedia, II was the last person to oppose the change, but later agreed to a change. There were no other complaints about changing the article for 28 days before the changes were made. Why wouldn't this constitutes consensus per Wikipedia policy?

For the notability issue, I agree that Criticism of Wikipedia is a notable subject. However, WP:N says that notability in and of itself does not necessarily justify the existance of an article. In the case of Criticism of Wikipedia, the issues that led to its merge and replacement with a disambiguation page were lack of neutrality and redundancy with other articles. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Weston Price and Focal infection theory

We are having another dispute on the Weston Price article. The current version has a very misleading statement using the publisher PMPH-USA (whose quality in this field has NOT been proven) while I want to put in the following more accurate version:

The dental part of focal infection fell out of favor in the late 1930s (Thomas J. Pallasch, DDS, MS, and Michael J. Wahl, DDS (2000) "The Focal Infection Theory: Appraisal and Reappraisal", Journal of the California Dental Association.) with a special 1951 issue of the Journal of the American Dental Association stating "Many Authorities who formally felt that focal infection was an important etiologic factor in systemic disease have become skeptical and now recommend less radical procedures in the treatment of such disorders."("An Evaluation of the Effect of Dental Focal Infection on Health" JADA 42:609-697 June 1951) though the idea never disappeared from the dental community.(Editorial. JAMA 1952; 150: 490.) (Bergenholtz, Gunnar; Preben Hørsted-Bindslev, Claes Reit (2009). Textbook of Endodontology. Wiley. pp. 135–136) While, recent discoveries have caused a cautious reevaluation of focal infection in dentistry ((2001) Fowler, Edward B "Periodontal disease and its association with systemic disease" Military Medicine (Jan 2001)) and there are studies on the quality of diet regarding oral health in adults (Bailey, RL (2004) "Persistent oral health problems associated with comorbidity and impaired diet quality in older adults". J Am Diet . Assnc. 104:1273.) these are independent of Weston Price's work.

I have Journal of the California Dental Association, JADA, Wiley, Military Medicine, and J Am Diet . Assnc that show the PMPH-USA is wrong but we are getting NPOV tags thrown up as well as used as an excuse to remove reliable sources.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

1. If we're having a discussion here at WP:NPOVN, then the NPOV tag is warranted, right?
2. Is there agreement that the material does not belong in the lede of Weston Price?
3. Seems like a simple application of WP:MEDRS would solve the non-historical issues about focal infection theory, right?
4. Shouldn't the non-historical information unrelated to Price be left to Focal infection theory, which then should be linked and summarized as it applies within Weston Price? --Ronz (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ronz, you have dodged the real issue--the biography on Weston Price is being used to make a medical claim not supported by articles from the Journal of the California Dental Association, JADA, Wiley, Military Medicine, and J Am Diet . Assnc. To date nothing to show that PMPH-USA is a reliable source has been presented while the reliable of Journal of the California Dental Association, JADA, Wiley, JAMA, Military Medicine, and J Am Diet . Assnc source are known.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Um, I noticed that, hence my questions #2, #3, and #4. --Ronz (talk) 05:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I guess I'll wade back into this again. Hopefully we'll have a more reasoned discussion this time. --Ludwigs2 05:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ronz, I'm going to put this out here bluntly: I have not forgotten your 'fake retirement' gambit, and if you start in me again, we'll be right back in ANI and that trick will not work twice. Understood? --Ludwigs2 05:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Note on proper use of talk pages
Please focus on content, per WP:TALK, WP:CIVIL, WP:DR, and WP:NPA; and when you still find it necessary to comment on others, be sure to follow WP:TALK, WP:CIVIL, WP:DR, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:HARASS, and WP:BATTLE. --Ronz (talk) 05:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Stop collapsing content you don't agree with, Ronz.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Another note on proper use of talk pages

Please learn to respect and follow our behavioral policies. The issue isn't of simple disagreement, but of proper use of talk pages. Please review the policies/guidelines. Failure to follow them can make comments appear to be attacks aimed at disrupting consensus-building. --Ronz (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC) I suggest letting this go Ronz. Ludwigs is not the only one who hasn't forgotten. That you have decided to involve yourself again with the very topic that lead to all the drama and your fake out retirement makes me virtually speechless. Again, I really suggest letting this go Ronz. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Please review and follow the policies/guidelines mentioned. Repeated failure to do so could result in a block. --Ronz (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Again Stop tying to use Wikipedia policy to hid what you don't like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BruceGrubb (talk • contribs) 07:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

1) As noted before, none of the sources you want to add speaks at all about Weston Price, which is the article you want to put it in. It is clear WP:SYNTH.

2) The source you say is not reliable, Ingle's Endodontics 6th ed, is currently published by PMPH-USA which is, by all accounts, a reliable publisher of medical textbooks (see their website). Also note that this title came to be published by PMPH-USA because they bought the entire book list from the original publisher, BC Decker, which is clearly a reliable publisher as they publish material in conjunction with the American College of Physicians, the leading internal medicine professional organization. Note also that Ingle's Endodontics 6th ed. is also published by McGraw Hill, as noted here, for sale in Canada and Europe. It is clearly reliable, so stop saying it isn't just because you don't like their conclusions.

3) The Weston Price article is not the place to get into a discussion about the relative merits of where focal infection theory stands now. The version that Price advocated for fell out of favor; discussion about any other forms of focal infection theory that may or may not remain valid belongs in the article about focal infection theory, not the Weston Price article. Yobol (talk) 05:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Several things

1. The Ingle's Endodontics at McGraw Hill states Only for sale in EMEA, Canada, Tailand If this was such a good quality textbook way isn't allowed to be sold in the US?
2. The referenced edition is 2007 while the McGraw Hill clearly states on the link you provided "Pub Date: MAY-08".
3. The referenced statement of "Price was outspoken on the relationship between endodontic therapy and pulpless teeth and broader systemic disease, ideas derived from focal infection theory, and held that dental health - and consequently physical health - were heavily influenced by nutritional factors. These theories fell out of favor in the 1930s and are not currently considered viable in the dental or medical communities" is not supported by other known reliable source--including one by the same original publisher:

"It is now realized that oral bacteria and their products and their products, particularly ipopoysccharides and proinflamunary cytokine, induced local in response in oral infections, enter the blood stream and may subsequently activate systemic response in certain susceptible individuals" (Bergenholtz, Gunnar; Preben Hørsted-Bindslev, Claes Reit putlich (2009) Textbook of Endodontology Wiley; page 136)

"Manila et al utilized sound scientific methods to reintroduce the association between systemic disease and oral infection." (Fowler, Edward B (2001) "Periodontal disease and its association with systemic disease" Military Medicine (Jan 2001))

"The dark age (1876 to 1926): In spite of introduction of X-rays and general anesthesia, extractions was the choice of treatment than endodontics in most of the cases of damaged teeth because theory of the focal infection was main concern" (Garg, Nisha; Amit Garg (2007) Textbook of endodontics Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers pg 2)

"The resurgence of the focal infection theory of disease has been greeted with great enthusiasm in some quarters;..." abstract (Pallasch, Thomas J. DDS, MS; Michael J. Wahl, DDS (2000) "The Focal Infection Theory: Appraisal and Reappraisal" Journal of the California Dental Association)

"It is becoming more validated that the oral cavity can act as the site of origin for spread of pathogenic organisms to organisms to distance body areas,..." (Saraf (2006) Textbook of Oral Pathology Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers pg 188)

"The oral focal infection theory, a concept generally neglected for several decades, is controversial yet has gained renewed interest with progress in classification and identification of oral microorganism. Additionally, recent evidence associating dental infections with atherosclerosis and other chronic diseases has also helped resurrect the focal infection theory." (Silverman, Sol; Lewis R. Eversole, Edmond L. Truelove (2002) Essentials of oral medicine PMPH usa; Page 159)

Furthermore take a look at these old contemporary to Price definitions and compare them to a 2009 definition and explain just what blasted difference there is:

"All focal infection is not of dental origin, but a sufficiently large percentage is to demand a careful study of the mouth and teeth in all cases of the mouth and teeth in all cases of systemic infection, for in these cases all foci should be removed." (1918) Dental summary: Volume 38; Page 437)

"One cannot deny the existence of such a mechanism as operates in focal infection, ie, infection in one locus leading to manifestations elsewhere in the body. One has but to call to mind the metastases that occur in such infections as tuberculosis, gonorrhea, syphilis, pneumonia, typhoid fever, and mumps. I cannot support the statement in the "critically appraised" report on dental foci of infection that "later laboratory workers were unable to confirm the bacteriologic findings of Rosenow on which the concept of 'elective localization'" ((1952) Southern California State Dental Association journal)

"Focal infection-it refers to metastasis form the focus of infection, of organisms or their products that are capable of injuring tissue" (Ghom (2009) Textbook of Oral Pathology Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers pg 459)--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

If you can't even concede that McGraw Hill and BC decker are reliable publishers, there is nothing more that needs to be said to show your tendentious need to insert POV into this page if you're going to ignore the blatantly obvious. Everything else you wrote is your confusion about what Price advocated (and was, and still is, roundly rejected by the medical/dental community) and what current advocates of focal infection theory are saying now, which are quite different. Yobol (talk) 07:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, this noticeboard really isn't the appropriate place to discuss whether or not Ingle's Endodontics is a WP:RS; if you feel the need to continue your assertion that McGraw Hill and BC Decker are not reliable publishers, we should probably take that discussion to WP:RSN.Yobol (talk) 07:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Considering that Journal of the California Dental Association, JADA, Wiley, Military Medicine, and J Am Diet . Assnc and even an earlier People's Medical Publishing House publication all say the Ingle's Endodontics statement is wrong. You can do all the hand waving you want but the fact of the end of the day is you have ONE source supporting your view while I have FIVE.

I should point out McGraw Hill also puts out little gems like Easy Homeopathy, Homeopathic Remedies for 100 Children's Common Ailments, and Homeopathic Remedies for Children’s Common Ailments. It is hard to take a publisher of medical material as reliable when they also print stuff that claims Homeopathic medicine is a viable treatment option.

"Homeopathy works best with chronic health problems and some acute health problems" Repetitive strain injuries McGraw Hill pg 179.

"Homeopathy works by treating the whole body, including body, mind, and spirit" ("Without ritalin: a natural approach to ADD" McGraw Hill pg 115).

"We have no idea if this is technically true, we still don't understand how Homeopathy works. There has been no good basic research into the mechanism of action of homeopathic medicine..." (Vogel, John H. K.; Mitchell Krucoff (2007) Integrative cardiology McGraw-Hill Medical pg 347)

Homeopathy works?!? SAY WHAT?!? Yobol, if this is your idea of reliable I hate to see what you consider unreliable. Oh wait a minute you have basically said that McGraw Hill must take a back seat to Journal of the California Dental Association, JADA, Wiley, Military Medicine, and the J Am Diet . Assnc ergo those publishers are unreliable. Does this make a lick of sense?--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Bruce, the fact that they publish fringey medical texts does not mean that they do not also publish mainstream ones. That said, since they do publish fringe medicine one cannot take them as de facto mainstream in medical textbook publications. Drop McGraw Hill. There is no need to keep on tugging at either end of that rope. There is plenty else to discuss about this matter. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the one pushing McGraw Hill; Yobol is the one pushing it despite the fact that FIVE other sources (Journal of the California Dental Association, JADA, Wiley, Military Medicine, and Journal of the American Dietetic Association) as well an earlier work by the same original publisher show the Ingle's Endodontics statement to be flat out WRONG.

As I said before on the Weston Price talk page you can't claim focal infection theory has been resurrected in 2002, have a 2009 source by Wiley saying the theory is being cautiously being looked at, another Wiley source stating the theory never really died in dentistry, and a 2007 source saying the theory has been dead as a dodo since the 1930s. There is simply no way to reconcile those claims.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

And as I said in the talk page, Price's contribution to focal infection theory was to research and advocate for the extraction of teeth rather than using root canals. That was his sole contribution to focal infection theory (frankly, that was focal infection theory in the 1930s), and that was completely abandoned. The modern "revival" of focal infection doesn't speak, at all, about tooth extraction or root canals and is therefore different than the theory Price advocated. You are conflating two things that share the same name and very basic principles but by all accounts are two totally different scientific theories. Not a single one of the sources you have provided have tied Price to this newer focal infection theory. Yobol (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

As administrator Will Beback pointed out back in Talk:Weston_Price/Archive_2#Modern_focal_infection_theory_passage "WP:MEDRS limits what we can say about medical topics, so that may be appropriate. But we shouldn't use this article as a backdoor to discuss medical claims that we wouldn't make elsewhere." You cannot ignore the many sources that show the Ingle's Endodontics statement is WRONG. While we are on it here are two more:

"Today the concept of focal infection has been integrated into the practice of medicine. One speaks no longer of the theory of focal infection; one recognizes focal infection as a definite pathologic condition requiring scientific diagnosis and treatment." (1947 Journal of the American Medical Association Volume 133:2 page 111). This statement was repeated word for word in Review of gastroenterology Volume 18 pg 71 of the National Gastroenterological Association in 1951.

You can't claim a theory "fell out of favor in the 1930s" when papers in 1947 and 1951 say it is "a definite pathologic condition requiring scientific diagnosis and treatment." On every point the Ingle's Endodontics is WRONG and no handwaving is going to change that.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

You're repeating yourself without addressing the point. What your sources are describing and what Price advocated for are two different theories. Yobol (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

No it is you where are avoiding the fact that all these other sources say the medical claim being made by Ingle's Endodontics either doesn't say what you think it says or it is flat out wrong.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

You only think Ingle's is wrong because you can't see the difference between what Price advocated and what the sources you are presenting here are saying. And round and round we go. Yobol (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

That is largely because you keep claiming this with no evidence that there is a fundamental difference in the basic theory Price's work was used to support.

"A focus of infection may be defined as a circumscribed area of tissue infected with pathogenic microorganims. Foci of infection may be primary and secondary. (...) Primary foci of infection may be located anywhere in the body." (Billings, Frank ScD. (Harvard) MD (1916) Focal infection, Lane Medical Lectures (Delivered Sept 20-24, 1915 Stanford University Medical School); D Appleton and company, pg 3)

Articles of the same time period (1919 Minnesota medicine: Volume 2 Minnesota Medical Association Page 20; (1915) The Laryngoscope: Volume 25 American Otological Society, Page 786; (1916) Pacific medical journal: Volume 59, Page 177; (1913) Interstate medical journal: Volume 20, Page 849; (1914) Section on Laryngology, Otology, and Rhinology American Medical Association, Page 23) all define Focal infection in essentially the same way and nearly all of these were written when Price was chair of the Research Section of the American Dental Association (1914-1928)

"Similarly, in patients in whom brain abscess or meningitis originates from a focal infection in the vicinity of the brain (sinusitis, otitis media, dental abscess), contiguous spread rather than bacteremia represents the likely route by route by which the pathogen gains access to the CNS" (Scheld, W. Michael; Richard J. Whitley, Christina M. Marra (2004) "Infections of the central nervous system" Wolters Kluwer Health pg 331)

"Each dental caries, dental abscess, gingival and alveolar inflammation and necrosis, has been interpreted as essentially infective processes, and hence their extent is essentially a measure of the infection." (Price, Weston (1923) Dental infections, oral and systemic)

Here we see Price himself talking about dental abscess in the very book used as reference to FIT and a 2004 book by Wolters Kluwer Health that talks about dental abscess being one of the potential focal infections for brain abscessed or meningitis and yet we are being told by Yobol that they are somehow two different theories? SAY WHAT?!?

Moreover various medical journals of Price's time talk more about dental abscesses in regards to FIT then they talk about endodontic treated or pulpless teeth. These include (but are not means limited to) (1918) "DENTAL ABSCESS OR INFECTION AND ITS CONSEQUENCES" The American journal of clinical medicine: Volume 25, Page 145; (1922) Transactions of the College of Physicians of Philadelphia College of Physicians of Philadelphia, Page 276; George W. Goler (1922) "Discussion" Transactions of the Dental Society of the State of New York, Volumes 50-54 Dental Society of the State of New York pg 126; (1916) Contributions from the Department of Pathology, Bacteriology, and Public Health: Volumes 1-2, University of Minnesota. Dept. of Pathology, Bacteriology, and Public Health, Page 192; (1915) Journal of the Iowa State Medical Society: Volume 5, Iowa State Medical Society, Page 60; Bethel, L. P. (1917) Dental summary: Volume 37, Page 917; (1916) Martin, Franklin Henry Surgery, gynecology & obstetrics: Volume 22, Page 24; Keyes, Frederick Anthony (1918) Army dentistry: Forsyth lectures for the Army Dental Reserve Corps, Page 107)--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment My only concern here is that Price's application of focal infection theory (e.g. the one shared by the dental mainstream for a number of years leading to unnecessary extractions, etc.) is not confused with the focal infection theory, which is a much more general theory. I'm saying this because I agree mostly with Yobol at this point, but with a caveat that I think relates to Bruce's concerns. The sources that do in fact discuss Price and focal infection theory appear not to be doing a very good job differentiating between the two themselves. I think we do need to stick to these sources when discussing Price's connection to the theory, but we should also make sure our readers are not confused in the sense of thinking that the focal infection theory was completely rejected. As far as that is handled with the necessary subtlety I'm happy.Griswaldo (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)'=

As I pointed out in the talk page when this originally came up is Silverman, Sol; Lewis R. Eversole, Edmond L. Truelove (2002) "Essentials of oral medicine" PMPH usa; Page 159 stated "Additionally, recent evidence associating dental infections with atherosclerosis and other chronic diseases has also helped resurrect the focal infection theory." Guest who now publishes Silverman's book; you got it McGraw hill!

Now I'll ask the question that I asked back on the talk page and never really got an answer to--how can People's Medical Publishing House and now McGraw Hill state the focal infection theory is being revived in 2002 and yet in 2007 (or 2008) say that it died in the 1930s period end of sentence. They can't both be true.

Here is quote regarding the book Root Canal Cover-up Exposed that addresses Price as well: "The focal infection theory, supported by many including Dr. Price, has been attacked, debated, accepted, criticized, agreed upon, etc. but it has not been covered up." ((1994) Annals of dentistry: Volumes 53-54 New York Academy of Dentistry pg 42) Why is the word "rejected" not part of that list? The author of this piece states that Root Canal Cover-up Exposed "contains unsubstantiated statements, misunderstandings, and it would definitely have benefited from a better proofreading. Infected tissues/organs, such as teeth, can serve as a source of infection which can be transported, in the form of microorganisms..."

Hold the phone there isn't the idea that tissues/organs such as teeth being a source of infection which can be transported to other parts of the body the very definition of FIT as it was in Price's time? Given the numerous quotes of the period I have been citing in the talk page looks like it to me.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Well it has been nearly a month an no real reasons for putting one source over what is now seven has been presented nor how doing so meets WP:NPOV with regards to WP:MEDRS. Administrator USER:Will Beback pointed out back in Talk:Weston_Price/Archive_2#Modern_focal_infection_theory_passage "WP:MEDRS limits what we can say about medical topics, so that may be appropriate. But we shouldn't use this article as a backdoor to discuss medical claims that we wouldn't make elsewhere." So far nothing to show why Ingle's Endodontics should be used to overrule what is stated by two other textbooks, an earlier book published by the same publisher, article by the Journal of the California Dental Association, JADA, Military Medicine, Journal of the American Dietetic Association, the New York Academy of Dentistry, and several books put out by Wiley and Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers simply under the grounds that they don't directly mention Weston Price. Per WP:MEDRS it doesn't matter if Weston Price is mentioned but if the medical claim being made in relation to him is correct and as the WP:RS show Ingle's Endodontics is wrong in this regard.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Multiple reasons have been given, you just haven't chosen to accept them. You are free to disagree with everyone else; you are not, however, free to continue to disrupt the article by ignoring consensus and implementing changes that have been rejected multiple times. Yobol (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

A bunch of smoke and mirror reasons have been presented that do not address the core issue--Ingle's Endodontics is making a medical claim not supported by any of the above sources and since it is a minority view that is apparent violation of the WP:NPOV part of WP:MEDRS. Unless Yobol can produce his arguments here his claims have no merit.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

"Bunga bunga"

Somewhat hesitantly, I created the article "Bunga bunga". (I comment on my hesitation here.) An inexperienced user slapped a "Neutrality" tag on it and commented in its talk page, but didn't mention the matter here. Unsurprisingly, nothing much has happened since. So perhaps one or two people reading this could come along to the article and take a look. -- Hoary (talk) 09:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

For what its worth. I see no issues of neutrality in the article. The mention of Berlusconi, which, I think, is what the placer of the tag objected too, is unavoidable as that is simply how the term has (re)gained notability. The article in no way unduly casts Berlusconi in a negative light or uses WP:OR. All claims are backed by their references. Ravendrop 08:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

is NPOV a factor when discussing sources?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_YouTube_personalities#Ted_Williams_but_not_RWJ.3F

Basically my question is whether a neutral point of view is a requirement for a source to be considered 'a go'? I thought that was a requirement for writing an article and not explicitly a concern for sources. I know the specific link likely doesn't qualify for other reasons, but this question I feel is something I should know. 72.209.160.88 (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the viewpoint of a source has to do with that discussion, but to answer your question, no the viewpoint of the source is not relevant. All sources have a bias. What matters is whether the source has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. But looking at that discussion, the issue there is whether a source meets our definition of a reliable source. I didn't recognize most of the web sites discussed, but I'm guessing that many, if not all of those, do not qualify as a reliable source according to Wikipedia's standards. I suggest you take some time to familiarize yourself with our WP:RS guideline. If you have any questions about a specific source, feel free to ask on the reliable source notice board. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

CNN and the newyorktimes are acceptable sources, and I have looked into reliable source.72.209.160.88 (talk) 07:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

"Acceptable" depends on the context. Editors should not simply parrot every "interesting" remark made about their subject: Wikipedia is not a gossip column. It is an encyclopedia, and tries to be a serious, credible encyclopedia. Which means that the material in article should be researched. The first requirement is that everything is "sourced" (traceable back to some source that presumably knows what they are talking about). Hopefully these sources are reliable, and even neutral. But even if Satan himself says 2+2=4, we do not despise the arithmetic "truth" of 2+2=4. In some contexts, sure, you might find good reason to quote or take material from a very non-neutral source. But editors still have a responsibility to produce neutral material ("balanced", see WP:WEIGHT). CNN might have some pertinent material about Ted Williams, but (esp. in this case) it might also be highly biased; an editor would be expected to check a range of sources, and evaluate the entire context. So strictly speaking the specific answer to your question is "no". But more fully the answer is: depends on how you use it. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Mind Sports world championship

Mind sports world championship has been flagged NPOV but without any comment left on the on the discussion page over an hour since it was tagged. I assume that this might be simply a problem with the wording of the opening sentence or naming, but I would like to know how to start a conversation to fix this issue?

I was using mind sports in its widely used sense such as for example the bridge (card game) official body who use it on their home page [4]. There is the problem there is no other conventient term that distinguishes sports from games of skill without controversy as it covers more than just card and board games. The reason for creating a longer list was as a result of the world championships page.

Tetron76 (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Do RS call them mind sports or is this just synthasis?Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The term mind sports has existed since the 1990s. The major board games and card games governing bodies have used the term for lobbying purposes, therefore, there are many references in RS such as[5] in the independent chess column that uses it as a general term.

However, although, it is a widely understood term, it was originally a synthesis rather than an evolved term. Predominant current usage is by the World Mind Sports Games and so is applied mainly to the games of Go (game), chess, xiangqi, draughts and contract bridge. Their definition can be applied to a wider range of games and poker for example was in the news for lobbying to be treated as a mind sport.Tetron76 (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

But to be called a mind sport championship RS wuild have to report the evnet as that, that is where the synthasis may be comming in. Asl oyou wuold need RS that call all exmaples mind sports, not a users view that they are. Also the articel is (it appears) mis-named, this is not about A championship but championships.Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You are probably right that the article needs renaming. Perhaps I should have named it:

List of world championships in mind sports

which was the primary intent of the page to avoid inconsistancies prevalent on the world championship page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tetron76 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Which world championship page and what inconsistancies?Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

Tetron76 (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Right-wing politics definition issue

Two possible edits for the lede are afforded by one source. One possible choice is:

Stephen Fisher, defining "right(-wing)" for The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, states "The opposite of *left. As with the term left-wing, the label right-wing has many connotations which vary over time and are often only understood within the particular political context."[11]

The other using the exact same source has:

Stephen Fisher writes in The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics that in liberal democracies the term has been defined as opposition to socialism or social democracy, and that right-wing parties have included the philosophies of conservatism, Christian democracy, liberalism, libertarianism, and nationalism. He says "extreme right parties (have included) elements of racism and fascism" and "In surveys, self-placement on a left-right scale is associated with attitudes on economic policy, especially redistribution and privatization/nationalization and (particularly in Catholic countries) religiosity."[11]

The first was rejected by one editor as a That's a ridiculous misrepresentation of the source. I am 'absolutely certain' of your good faith, of course. I ask totally disinterested editors to examine the cite "^ McLean, Iain; McMilan, Alistair, eds (2009). The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. Stephen Fisher, contributor of entry for "right(–wing)." (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. p. 465. ISBN 978-0-19-920516-5 (Paperback). http://books.google.com/books?id=KQXLgP6CZBkC&pg=PA465. Alternate ID for this edition: ISBN 978-0-19-920780-0 (Hardback). " and see if the first represents the entry fairly, if the first is a "ridiculous misrepresentation" of the entry, and similarly of the second presentation of the dictionary entry. Thanks. Collect (talk) 23:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, one thing to remember is that you are not confined to making one single definition in the lede. You can have a separate section on "definitions". It's intrinsically difficult to define the subject because it stretches so far across time and space. And luckily it's not our job to make a single definition because we're not a dictionary. It sounds like you need to take sufficient space to summarise the various points made in this source. The first extract you give above, about the variation in meaning, seems to be essential in the lede paragraph, in the first sentence even. The longer explanation from the same source could go in later. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Communist terrorism

Communist terrorism is the term which has been used to describe acts of violence committed by groups who subscribe to a Marxist/Leninist or Maoist ideology. These groups hope that through these actions they will inspire the the masses to rise up and overthrow the existing political and economic system. In recent years, there has been a marked decrease in such terrorism, which has been substantially credited to the end of the Cold War and the fall of the U.S.S.R. However, at its apogee, communism was argued by some to be the major source of international terrorism (whether inspired by the ideology or supported by its states).

Bibleograpy

• C. J. M. Drake. Terrorists' target selection. Palgrave Macmillan. 5 February 2003. ISBN 978-0312211974
• David C. Wills. The First War on Terrorism: Counter-terrorism Policy During the Reagan Administration. Rowman & Littlefield 28 August 2003. ISBN 978-0742531291
• Brian Crozier. Political victory: the elusive prize of military wars. Transaction Publishers 31 May 2005. ISBN 978-0765802903

Comments

This has been suggested as a new lede for the Communist terrorism article as the current one has failed verification and citation needed tags on it. It has been suggested that this proposal is not neutral, so I would like the opinions of some uninvolved editors on it. Tentontunic (talk) 10:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Without even looking at the article (i.e., without being over-encumbered by data! :-) this topic itself seems to be an overrreach. E.g., "acts of violence committed by groups who subscribe to a Marxist/Leninist or Maoist ideology", given the right's free and liberal application of "Marxist" to about everyone that might question free-market capitalism, is so broad and diverse as to include about all "terrorism" except that committed by right-wing groups. (So for "balance" we should expect to see an article on Capitalist terrorrism??) Even one of the reference titles ("The First War on Terrorism: Counter-terrorism Policy During the Reagan Administration") seem odd on its face, as I distinctly recall the Viet Cong (slightly prior to the Reagan administration) being referred to as "communist terrorists", and before that the British were having a similiar set-to in Malaysia. So even before getting to the lede paragraph, the very topic of this article is problematical.

  And upon looking at the talk page: wow. LOTS of talk, a dozen archives, and all this for an article that is little more than the lede paragraph. (And quite properly tagged for multiple issues.) Perhaps what the editors there need most is for someone to come in and take charge of the class. The usual response ("take it up on the talk page") seems rather futile, as that obviously is not working (except to the extent of preventing publication of material with multiple issues). It could be pointed out that the lede should summarize the article, but as yet there is (effectively) no article. The problem here is not the lede — it is the entire article. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You are entirely correct with regards to Vietnam and Malaya. The term has been used to describe actions by many communist groups, even the Nazi`s used it, they blamed the Reichstag fire on communist terrorists. The reason I am proposing this as a lede is so the article will have a focus to work from. Currently the article is, as you rightly say is practically empty. I would like to expand the body of the article with an historiography section, from it`s first usage in Russia during the revolution, then the German usage and work through to the Fighting Communist Organizations of the 1980s. But to get any progress on this article is, shall we say, not an easy task. Tentontunic (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Question Could you please provide direct auotes from the sources used. Your suggest lead does not appear to correctly reflect what the sources say. TFD (talk) 21:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You may look at the sources yourself on Google books, [6] [7] [8] Tentontunic (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

  It is not proper to just point at at book and essentially say "It's in there." You should provide the text you rely on, as well as the specific location where it is found.

  This "focus" you would like to provide: I take it this would be like the "thesis statement" our teachers repeatedly harped on. And that would seem to be a good idea. But the proper place to do that is back on the article's talk page. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Note. There may be confusion because Tentontunic's reflist is not showing properly. --FormerIP (talk) 22:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not know how to fix that. Are you able to? Tentontunic (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Tell me the page numbers and I shall link them. TFD (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

J. M. Drake page 19David C. Wills page 219 Brian Crozier page 203. Thank you. Tentontunic (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. TFD (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

(out) None of the sources can be used to support the first sentence of your claim, "Communist terrorism is the term which has been used to describe acts of violence committed by groups who subscribe to a Marxist/Leninist or Maoist ideology". The rest of the sources read as follows:

"Communist terrorist groups aim at overthrowing the existing political and economic system through the use of terrorism in the hope that violence will politicise the masses and incite them to rise up and destroy the capitalist system." "However, there has been a decline in left-wing, communist terrorism, which can be attributed in large part to the end of the Cold War and the demise of the Soviet Union." "At its height, communism was the major threat to world peace, and by far the major source of international terrorism: that is, communist-inspired and/or communist-supported terrorism."

It seems that this does not support a consistent definition - is it communist-inspired or communist-supported? Communists of course supported non-communist terrorism as well. Also, the third source, which was written by Brian Crozier, a military historian, for Transaction Publishers, may not be an ideal source.

TFD (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying the first source written does not support this line? "Communist terrorism is the term which has been used to describe acts of violence committed by groups who subscribe to a Marxist/Leninist or Maoist ideology". I would have to disagree. The Brian Crozier needs to be discussed for reliability on the RSN board. Have you never used a book by transaction before as a source? They are a reputable publisher you know. Tentontunic (talk) 10:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Drake writes earlier in the section, "What is important is that ideology provides a motive - and possibly a formula - for action. His section on communism concerns terrorists whose motivation is to establish a communist state. He does not include Marxist-Leninists whose objective for terrorist actions is to create a separate state, e.g., the ETA or Irish terrorists, which he classifies under separatism. TFD (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Those actions are still terrorist actions committed by communists. And I would argue that creating a separate state would also be supported by the current citation which mentions overthrowing the existing political system, which is what separatism is after all. Tentontunic (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Once an accepted degree of independence is achieved, separatist terrorists will end their campaigns and enter democratically-elected legislatures. Their organizations tend to be more broadly-based and they do not enforce ideological conformity among their supporters. They are more likely to build mass organizations rather than cadre parties. They will work with like-minded groups across the political spectrum. They may even abandon Marxism-Leninism while continuing their terrorist campaigns. Two very different types of terrorism, one considered left-wing and the other separatist. The same issue exists with "Christian religious terrorism". It does not refer to Christians who practice terrorism, but merely to Christians who use terrorist actions for Christian motives. TFD (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

  T: I wasn't aware that the ETA or the "Irish terrorists" (of either side) "subscribe to a Marxist/Leninist or Maoist ideology." That you consider them "still ... communists" suggests that you are using a definition other than the one stated above.

  TFD: that is a pretty subtle distinction between "Christians who practice terrorism" and "Christians who use terrorist actions for Christian motives". Before you get all wound up trying to explain that, consider that such fine distinctions are often a vanishingly small point on which to stand.

  At any rate, it seems to me that neither one of you is making much of a case regarding any definite NPOV problem in the article. It seems to me that this discussion should return to the article's talk page until you can agree on what the issue is. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

John W. Bryant

• John W. Bryant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page is currently stuck over a dispute on including how many wives Mr. Bryant allegedly has had (he is a member of a "fundamentalist" Mormon sect which may or may not practice polygamy). There is an IP with an alleged conflict of interest who is trying to remove the information; there is a question over the veracity of the source (which is provided by an admin BTW). I encourage everyone to take a look and post any comments directly related to the dispute there (comments not directly related to the dispute, I suppose you can post here). Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Long running dispute on Senkaku Islands dispute

This article explains an ongoing dispute over ownership of a small group of islands between PRC, ROC, and Japan. While much about this article is in dispute, I need input on a single sentence that we've been arguing about for a long time. The sentence is:

"The People's Daily, a daily newspaper, which is the organ of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC), had written that Senkaku islands is the part of Japanese territory in 1953."

According to the best translations we have (which have been confirmed by native Chinese speakers and as far as I know not been disputed by any editors), what the People's Daily article explicitly states with respect to the Senkaku Islands is:

"The Ryukyu Islands are scattered in the sea northeast of Taiwan and southwest of the island of Kyushu (Japan), consisting of seven groups including the Senkaku Islands, the Sakishima Islands, the Daito Islands, the Okinawa islands, Oshima Islands, the Tokara islands abd the Osumi islands. Each group has many small islands, a total of more than a total of fifty four hundred names unnamed islands and islets, the total land area of four thousand six hundred and seventy square kilometers."

The seven references in the sentence in our article are from two divisions of the Japanese government, a Japanese newspaper, a Chinese book, and a two US researchers. All of these sources believe that the above quotation from People's Daily means that, in 1953, the Chinese government (its assumed that People's Daily prints only officially approved opinions) considered the Senkaku Islands to be a part of Japanese territory. Now, I will say, this is a pretty believable analysis. My concern for the article, though, comes from exactly how we treat and attribute the sentence with regards to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.

Specifically, as far as our translations show, the People's Daily article never explicitly states that Senkaku Islands are a part of Japanese territory. As such, it appears, to me (and some other editors, although not the majority), that the claim that PD said that is an opinion, and thus must be explicitly attributed per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. As such, I have argued that what our article should state is something like the following (exact wording is flexible):

"In 1953, the People's Daily, a Chinese newspaper which is the organ of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC), had written that the Senkaku Islands are a part of the Ryukyuan Islands (Okinawa).(+citation for original PD article) The Japanese government, along with some journalists and US researchers, have interpreted that article to mean that the Chinese government considered the Senkaku Islands to be a part of Japanese territory in 1953.(+all or most of the current citations)"

Opposing editors argue, essentially, that it is not nor has it ever been in dispute that China always considered Okinawa a part of Japanese territory (a claim I have no ability to evaluate, nor do I think is relevant), and thus it's not really an interpretation or opinion to make the transitive analysis that Senkaku Islands = Okinawa = Japanese territory. So, NPOV board, is this really, as I believe, an issue of the need to attribute NPOV, thus governed directly by policy? Or is this merely an editorial decision governed primarily by editorial consensus? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question, I'd point out that it was mentioned several times that the PD article itself considered Ryukyu Islands to be an independent geographic entity. Also, the Okinawa Prefecture in Japan did not exist until 1970. Bobthefish2 (talk) 08:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Bobthefish2, You said many times "Okinawa did not exist until 1970". I question your knowledge of Okinawa. The Ryukyu Islands became Okinawa Prefecture in 1879, a hundred years before your recognition. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it really matters. The Okinawa Prefecture did not exist between the period of 1945 and 1970. As far as I know, it became U.S. territory as the U.S. army demolished a crumbling Imperial Japanese army through a series of island hopping campaign. In the end, I'd remind you that it is unproductive to bring up irrelevant matters. Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

In the explicit context of Senkaku Islands dispute, Qwyrxian's arguably reasonable formulation is smoke and mirrors. The framing is misleading.

Our policy is plain, straightforward:

WP:V + WP:RS trumps zero citations from zero reliable sources.

Absent any discernible foundation, this is speculative -- unhelpful in our talk page threads, and unhelpful in this venue as well. In wiki-terms, this is "original research", is it not?

The underlying premises conflate fact and factoid, which is defined by the 2008 edition of the Compact Oxford English Dictionary as "an item of unreliable information that is repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact". In other words,

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

These are not inconsequential issues. --Tenmei

(talk) 01:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOV, of which WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is also a core policy, of equal standing with WP:V and WP:OR. I wish you would address this issue, instead of continuing to repeat complex formulations and strange links that don't directly bear on the subject being raised. The question being asked here is whether the formulation "People's Daily said Senkaku is a part of Japanese territory" is opinion or if it is fact. If it is opinion, it must be attributed. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, you ignored a discussion whether such weird attribution is necessary in Japanese POV section "Arguments from Japan". Are you going to change the wording each time a new citation is added to the sentence? ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I forgot to mention that. Yes, the sentence is in the section titled "Arguments from Japan." However, that section contains specifically attributed statements, as well as factual statements. I feel that the attribution in the title of the section doesn't the issue clear; when I read this, the way I interpret the section is "Fact: PD said Senkaku belongs to Japan"; along with the title of the section, I then read "Implication: Senkaku really does belong to Japan." I don't think I've seen any other article where just adding a section title like this removes the need to distinguish at each point the difference between facts and opinions. However, if the consensus is that that attribution is sufficient, I will accept it. Personally, I think the whole article structure should be changed to solve this problem (going with a topical structure like is found in Sea of Japan naming dispute), but that is clearly going to have to wait for now. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Looking at the actual wording in the sources cited for the statement, it's difficult to understand how it has been transformed into a statement of fact in the Wiki article that takes the form "the People's Daily said the Senkaku islands are Japanese territory". That isn't what the sources say. The current statement does look like an unattributed interpretation of what the People's Daily published so I think Qwyrxian is making a fair point policy-wise. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

This thread is putting the cart before the horse. This becomes a case of the wrong issues proposed in the wrong venue with the wrong background and with no seeming awareness of the potential adverse consequences.

The article published in The People's Daily was unnoticed until 1996. Today, it is an illustrative example in a counter-argument which Qwyrxian fails to mention. It is not proffered by the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs with the express purpose of evoking the interesting quandry Qwyrxian describes.

Yes, the reasoning is alluring, but there is much more that Qwyrxian withholds -- the context of this one sentence and the consequences.

Especially the consequences.

This rhetorical exercise functions only to overwhelm, obscure and devalue. We turn our project upside down. This begs a question: What is the practical effect of insisting on this plausible non-question as if it were an a priori matter?

We do best when we are guided by these words:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

In this thread, Qwyrxian devalues this threshold concept, converting it into a kind of afterthought which can be marginalized at will. It is a bright line distinction. --Tenmei (talk) 09:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

My view is that the current wording is unsatisfactory. However, I do think that the article - if only indirectly - was acknowledging Japanese sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands. As far as I know the Ryuku Islands have been considered Japanese territory for over a century. Accordingly if the People's Daily clearly stated that the islands were part of the Ryuku chain, that meant they were Japanese as well.

I suggested something along the lines of "An article in the P-D...organ of.... on DATE acknowledged Japanese control of the Senkaku Islands, when it said that QUOTE." Control is probably the wrong word, but I was trying to improve on the current situation by making it clear why the article was acknowledging that these islands were Japanese. John Smith's (talk) 20:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

@Tenmei: I want to point out the following quotation from our behavioral guidelines on gaming the system. One example of gaming is Cherry-picking policies: "Example of cherry picking policies: demanding support for an edit because it is verifiable [WP:VERIFIABILITY] and cited [WP:CITE], whilst marginalizing or evading the concerns of others that it is not based upon reliable sources [WP:RS] or fairly representing its purported view [WP:NPOV]." Now, please understand, I am not saying that you are doing this on purpose; i.e., I am not accusing you of gaming the system. However, I believe that you are unintentionally holding up only one policy (WP:V), and not also simultaneously applying WP:NPOV. The sentence must be appropriate with regards to all policies, not only with regards to one. The question being asked here is whether or not the policy violates WP:NPOV, which I think it does.

@John Smith: While I think that version is better, I don't think it fully solves the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV problem. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Qwyrxian, I am surprised you said User:John Smith's version is better. As far as I know, it solved nothing. Somehow, he still thinks PD acknowledged the islands were Japanese. That's just the same idea as the original text that we found to be problematic. Bobthefish2 (talk) 08:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, The purpose of an attribution is to prevent a reader from confusing a POV opinion with a generally accepted opinion. The implementation of such an attribution is not limited to a sentence-attribution like "X claimed Y" but a section-attribution placing the sentence inside "Argument from X" section. In the former method, a "sentence" is attributed to X, while the latter method, a "section" is attributed to X. Therefore there is no problem with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The People's Daily article sheds little light on what the position of the Chinese government was in 1953. Government control, especially in 1953, did not include intensive consultations with diplomats and international lawyers with respect to every statement. The quotation can be used, but used, exploited, is the operative word. Information about that use, if adequately sourced, can be included in the article, but not as evidence of the considered position of the People's Republic of China. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You can't use a reference to an article to support something the article doesn't say. That is basic, whatever the context. The onus is on those who want to use the PD to summarise correctly the content of the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

@ Fred Bauder -- Your comment is framed by the misleading context Qwyrxian which has contrived in this thread.

Our problem is not easy; and it is mis-parsed because of factors Qwyrxian failed to identify.

Consider this objectively:

Example: Fred Bauder's analysis does not consider the crucial relevance of a Latin maxim venire contra factum proprium which is explained in different words in corollary Wikipedia articles:

Estoppel only comes into play when the other party relies to its detriment on the posture adapted. Then a change in position damages the party that relied on the original posture. To say nothing of the fact that this dispute is not a proceeding in equity. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

RESPONSE @ Fred Bauder -- There are two aspects to this rebuttal:

• A. Your comment suggests that you think this is my personal argument; but it is explicitly sourced from the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. Possibly you too casually dismiss it based on your understanding of American law.
• B. If the example list is perceived as unhelpful because it is a list of articles about estoppel in private disputes, then an alternate list of corollary articles about international law serves a similar illustrative purpose. --Tenmei (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

An illustrative example of a list of related Wikipedia articles:

• af:Internasionale reg
• ar:قانون دولي
• bg:Международно право
• bs:Međunarodno pravo
• ca:Dret internacional
• da:Folkeret
• de:Völkerrecht
• et:Rahvusvaheline õigus
• en:Public international law
• es:Derecho internacional
• eo:Internacia juro
• fr:Droit international public
• gl:Dereito internacional
• ko:국제법

• hi:अन्तरराष्ट्रीय विधि
• hr:Međunarodno pravo
• id:Hukum internasional
• it:Diritto internazionale
• he:משפט בינלאומי פומבי
• ka:საერთაშორისო სამართალი
• lv:Starptautiskās tiesības
• la:Ius inter civitates et gentes
• lt:Tarptautinė teisė
• mk:Меѓународно право
• arz:القانون الدولى
• ms:Undang-undang antarabangsa
• nl:Internationaal recht
• ja:国際法

• no:Folkerett
• pl:Prawo międzynarodowe
• pt:Direito internacional
• kaa:Xalıqaralıq huqıq
• ru:Международное право
• sq:Ligji Ndërkombëtar Publik
• simple:International law
• sr:Међународно право
• sh:Međunarodno pravo
• sv:Folkrätt
• tr:Uluslararası hukuk
• uk:Міжнародне право
• zh-yue:萬國公法
• zh:国际法

Analysis: As we know, Wikipedia articles are not considered WP:RS, but the existence of this array of articles is itself a fact. This list is accepted as fact in the context of a counter-argument which rebuts a denial of existence of the list of articles.

In the same manner, the People's Daily article is part of a list which is significant in the context of counter-argument. In this NPOV thread, both (a) the existence of a Senkaku Islands counter-argument list and (b) the subject of the argument/counter-argument remain unacknowledged.

It is noteworthy that subject Qwyrxian does not acknowledge is venire contra factum proprium. This is non-trivial in the Senkaku Islands dispute.

Qwyrxian presents an arguable question which is plainly alluring; but it is a straw man which functions only to divert and distract. Also, this straw man has an additionally complicating context which Qwyrxian has explained succinctly: "... in other words, what I'm trying to say is that I believe Bobthefish2 that the Chinese was mistranslated, but I'm loathe to abandon WP:V just based on AGF-ing him. In fact, Qwyrxian has abandoned WP:V again and again.

This thread has a skewed perspective because we have not addressed the essential, irreducible threshold in which WP:V + WP:RS is more important than zero citations from zero reliable sources.

When threshold issues are glossed over, it produces unanticipated consequences. --Tenmei (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone here understand what Tenmei is saying? One of the problems we often have at the article talk page is that Tenmei gives us a very long analysis, often with all sorts of links to other wiki articles, and, overall, doesn't actually seem to address the issue. I really don't understand how any of that addresses my point that while the interpretations are validly verified, the lack of attribution isn't neutral. Phoenix7777's point (that the section title is all the attribution needed) I at least understand, even though I disagree. In other words, if a consensus of editors said that the section title is sufficient attribution, then I could accept that consensus, but whatever Tenmei's point is, I just don't understand, so I don't see how it helps us reach consensus. Is this just a failure on my part to fully investigate all of the links and details of Tenmei's argument? Qwyrxian (talk) 02:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

If Tenmei can't explain his argument in plain English, then he can't explain it at all. Here's a suggestion for editors on the article. Everyone suggests sources that address the topic of the Senkaku Islands. Everyone agrees which sources are relevant. If no agreement, go to the reliable sources noticeboard. Then summarise each of the sources, getting passages translated if necessary. Then write those summaries together into good English prose. No Latin tags in sight. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Japan was occupied by the Allied Powers from 1945 to 1952. It was a military occupation. The occupation ended in April 1952 when the Treaty of San Francisco went into effect. In the article 3 of the treaty Ryukyu Islands, Daito Islands, and Nanpo Shoto were put under the U.S. trusteeship. So, Bobthefish2, it is inaccurate to say "the Ryukyu Islands were U.S. territory" in 1953. The islands were a United Nations Trust Territory and they were Japanese islands only administrated by the U.S.A. I want all editors on this thread to check historical facts more and think about this matter again. Tenmei, sorry, but your posts were too long to read. Oda Mari (talk) 09:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how that changes anything. Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It shows that the Ryuku Islands were Japanese even when being administered by the United States. Ergo recognition that the Senkaku Islands were parts of the Ryukus was by default recognition of Japanese sovereignty. John Smith's (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's see...

• "Sovereignty" according to Oxford Dictionary
• "Sovereignty" according to Webster Dictionary

I guess what the two of you proposed is not important after all. Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Would you care to elaborate? I assume that there is a good reason for you to say our last comments weren't important, and that you're not playing some sort of word-game. John Smith's (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I do, my British friend. Is there any reason for you not wanting to click the links to Her Majesty's Dictionaries? I was hoping this wasn't too much to ask for. Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Webster is an American dictionary, as any knowledgable person knows. And yes, oddly enough I did click on the links. I didn't see anything significant there that somehow renders my or Oda Mari's comments unimportant. So again, I urge you to back up your assertions with some detail. And as I previously said, I hope that you're not just going to play a wordgame. John Smith's (talk) 00:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. I knew it was a subsidiary of Encyclopedia Britannica, but didn't realize Her Majesty's Encyclopedia now belongs to Americans. However, since you apparently require help for such trivial task of reading comprehension, let me give you a hand:

• Her Majesty's Oxford Dictionary said:
  • sovereignty
    • Pronunciation:/ˈsɒvrɪnti/
      • noun (plural sovereignties)
      • [mass noun]
        • supreme power or authority
• Her Majesty's Webster Dictionary said:
  • sov·er·eign·ty noun
    • \-tē\\ˈsä-v(ə-)rən-tē, -vərn-tē also ˈsə-\
      • 1 obsolete : supreme excellence or an example of it
      • 2a : supreme power especially over a body politic

Now, can you tell me how the Japanese managed to have sovereignty over Ryukyu Islands when they practically had no power over the islands? Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Oxford dictionary. Supreme power or authority - I'm surprised you couldn't be bothered to read your own reference. You don't have to have power over something to claim sovereignty. John Smith's (talk) 10:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Guess I am an idiot for continually entertaining your posts. Here's Oxford dictionary's definition of authority.

Next time, if you don't have anything intelligent to say, you should stay quiet and let the big boys do the talking. Bobthefish2 (talk) 11:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Y'all are arguing content again, instead of arguing about the article. To me, Oda Mari's comments don't match up to the relevant question. To me, it really is very simple: PD did not explicitly state that they considered the islands to be a part of Japanese territory. To me, our article should reflect that fact. I think the article should definitely include the info about PD, along with the citations to say that this is evidence that China considered Senkaku to be a part of Japan in 1953. But I don't think our article should state something about the PD article that isn't actually in the PD article. I don't understand how people can support the article saying something false. I don't understand how you can support this after every non-involved person who has commented here has said the same thing. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Good. This echoes a post I've made roughly... 26 days ago. I consider this RfC to be very productive (honestly). It facilitated some interesting discussions and successfully portrayed the intentions of everyone involved. With all that we've learned from this, I think we are ready for another round of discussion about something else.

Thanks everyone. Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Just want to point out that no country definitively "owns" any territory. A country owns what it can defend, and loses what it can't defend. For example, California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas used to be part of Mexico. There's no denying the fact that those states were taken from Mexico, but there's little chance of Mexico getting them back any time in the near future, no matter how rightful their claim. So arguing over who "really" owns the Senkaku Islands is as pointless as arguing who really owns Gibraltar or a certain temple in Cambodia. Japan owns them until China decides to take them. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

To summarise; someone feels we should use Japanese sources to verify the stance of China in a conflict between the two and in a manner that is clearly favorable to Japan. Could someone tell me why we consider these sources reliable in this context? Because that makes no sense to me. Taemyr (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the more important issue is that the article said "the primary source said A" when the primary source said B and then the article cited some secondary sources that said "the primary source said A". In a sense, it's like putting words into someone else's mouth. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Unless the chinese newspaper issues an official translation, which I see as unlikely, we are forced to have someone put words into their mouth. That is in essence what a translation is. My proplem is why we consider partisan sources as reliable for this translation. Taemyr (talk) 09:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Some sources are Japanese. Others aren't. The newspaper clipping itself is Chinese. John Smith's (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Those editors we have that speak chinese seem to be arguing that the chinese newspaper does support the statement. Taemyr (talk) 09:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Extensive use of autobiography text

I would appreciate another set of eyes on Letitia Youmans. The discussion at Talk:Letitia Youmans#Autobiographies as Reliable Sources revolves around the use of large amounts of text copy-pasted from an autobiography. (I initially arrived at the page to investigate a G12 speedy tag, but determined the copied text was published in 1893 and therefore public domain -- so copyvio is not an problem.) The issue is whether the extensive use of autobiographical text alone constitutes a problem of NPOV. Additionally, whether the lack of any secondary sources referring to the copied text also is a NPOV problem as well as OR. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 08:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You are right, of course, and the other editor is mistaken; worth continuing to explain primary source and OR policy to him as you have already been doing patiently. I don't think it is a huge NPOV problem, because you can work out if and when the subject is being self-serving - actually the thing that really strikes me is that she is writing more than 100 years ago, and mores have changed. How about tagging for refimprove and shortening the article to factual biographical detail, keeping only one direct quotation of the subject's words for flavour? Itsmejudith (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay. That is a good suggestion. I'll move forward with that approach. Thanks. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Come back again if you need to. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Willfults pushing SDA POV on Waldensians article

Willfults (talk · contribs) has been trying to push a SDA POV in the Waldensians article to make them appear older than they themselves claim they are.

Diffs: 1, 2, 3, [9]

He has been using outdated and biased sources (Protestant journals and books from the 1800s), even something by Uriah Smith, trying to pass it off as "mainstream opinion" (see diff 2).

The Waldensians say that they started with Peter Waldo, contemporary sources say they started with Peter Waldo, modern secular academia says they started with Peter Waldo, it is only select groups such as certain Baptists, Methodists, and Seventh Day Adventists, who make any claim that they are older. As anti-Catholic bias has left English speaking academia, the idea that the Waldensians are older than Waldo has come to be rejected (because the only reason anyone pushed for it was such a bias).

We have discussed this on my talk page, and in edit summaries for the Waldensian article. When it appears I'm the only one, he's happy to revert me, but when I state that I'm going to get anyone else involved, he quits, which kinda indicates he knows that others aren't going to support his axe-grinding. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually I welcome a third party. I actually took a vacation, I didn't get scared lol. I'm simply trying to add that the founding date of the Waldensians is disputed, however Ian has been well, somewhat angry at this. As he himself mentions there is two interpretations, Protestant and Catholic. Both are rather mainstream. Both opinions are still held by a large quantity of people in modern academia. It just seems more neutral if we can say that their founding is disputed, as it is disputed. Willfults (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't like seeing a group's history hijacked for anti-Catholic reasons. It is NOT just "Protestant vs Catholic." The sources are:

• Waldensian - The Waldensians claim they started with Peter Waldo.
• Secular (which includes many historians who happen to be Protestant) - Secular academia agrees with the Waldensians. You've failed to provide any secular sources that do not agree with the Waldensians.
• Catholic - Although their stance on Waldensianism isn't balanced, they are a contemporary source. They do not mention the Waldensians before Waldo, and as quick as they were to complain about the Waldensians, they would have complained before him if the Waldensians were older.
• Protestant - They do not qualify as a contemporary source. In some cases, such as Uriah Smith and Robert L. Odom, the sources are not even historians but theologians reinterpreting history to justify their ecuminical views. Protestants who are not POV-pushing, but simply going along with what evidence is present historically, I've place under "secular." If, for the sake of argument, I chose to not count them as secular, the WP:FRINGE nature of your edits would be more apparent. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

So Catholic sources = valid. But Protestant sources = invalid? What? I don't understand. There are Catholic sources in the article that are much older than the ones I placed in. For example in the article it says "Much of what is known about the Waldensians comes from reports from Reinerius Saccho (died 1259), a former Cathar who converted to Catholicism and wrote two reports for the Inquisition, Summa de Catharis et Pauperibus de Lugduno (roughly) "Of the Sects of Modern Heretics" (1254)" I consider that a valid Catholic ancient historical source. Sure it would be pro-Catholic but it is in the respective section.

Lastly, if all secular academia agrees with the Waldensians then perhaps you can add that to the article, with valid citations of course. Thanks. Willfults (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

What part of "contemporary" don't you get? Although the Catholic sources would have a bias, they were written at roughly the same time and are thus a valueable resource. Allowing Smith, Odom, etc, into the Waldensian article because Inquisition reports are cited is like allowing the Da Vinci Code or the Aquarian Gospel as sources for the Jesus article just because it cites the non-Christian Tacitus. And can you find any secular sources that give the idea of the Waldensians being older than Waldo any credence? Ian.thomson (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

If you want comments from uninvolved users, it would be helpful if you could reformulate the question. If you can keep user conduct out of it for the time being, that would help too. To me on the face of it it would seem that historians, of any religious background or none, would be suitable sources, and so would theologians from various Christian denominations. I don't know if that advances things at all. It might be worth contacting WikiProject Christianity on this one. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick note to inform interested parties that Willfults has been involved in POV activity on various other Seventh-day Adventism pages in addition to this. He has also caused trouble at Sabbath in Christianity. Based on my observations, Willfults' POV is that of the most conservative branch of the SDA church. He routinely deletes large slabs of properly verified material that supports views that are opposed to his or that are too "liberal" for his taste. He insists on getting his way, he often engages in revert wars, he very rarely if ever engages in discussion with other editors on article talk pages, and he often covers his revisions with false edit summaries. Tonicthebrown (talk) 12:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I should add, on the question of the Waldensians, that the ancient origins theory was a belief of fringe radical protestants in the 18th and 19th centuries, and it would be completely inappropriate for this article to give the impression that it is taken seriously by legitimate historians. Tonicthebrown (talk) 12:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

To Itsmejudith: The article currently matches what modern academia, contemporary sources, and the Waldensians themselves say about the Waldensians. There have been attempts by Willfults to make the article give equal weight to a 19th century revisionist history, that today is no more taken seriously than Baptist successionism, and less so than Out of India Theory or Christ Myth theory. It is a fringe theory that the Waldensians are older than Peter Waldo, the article (as it stands, not under Willfults's revision) gives due weight it and does not need to give more. As I have said, I would count scholars who happen to be Protestant (or for that matter Catholic) who are not writing for religious purposes but scholarly ones to be "secular." I brought this up because at the time Willfults was attempting to place undo weight on this fringe theory. Where might I go to report overall POV-pushing behavior? Ian.thomson (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct perhaps? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd say it is simply wrong to describe the sides of the "dispute" as "Catholics" and "Protestants" when the article itself ([10]) says: "Some groups of Mennonites, Baptists, Seventh-day Adventists, and other Protestants claim that the Waldenses' history extends back to the Apostles.". That is, one side is not "Protestants", but only a small subset of Protestants (Seventh-day Adventists and the like), while the other side is not "Catholics", but "the rest of the world". For example, Britannica (hardly a Catholic publication) simply writes: "Waldenses, [...] members of a Christian movement that originated in 12th-century France, [...]" ([11]) with no qualification. So, how much weight should the views of Seventh-day Adventists be given in an article concerning views of all Christians (the article like Waldensians, that should take secular views into account, could be expected to give even less weight to them)? Well, it is estimated that there are about 2 billions of Christians (Christianity#Demographics - [12]) and about 15 millions of them are Seventh-day Adventists (Seventh-day Adventist Church#Membership - [13]). Thus about 15 / 2000 * 100 = 0.75% of weight could be expected to be given to the views of Seventh-day Adventists (of course, that is just an estimate - the actual weight given in the reliable sources will be different in different cases)... So, the part about their views could probably be shortened - and, perhaps, given a better plan. Perhaps it would be enough to say that "Some groups of Mennonites, Baptists, Seventh-day Adventists, and other Protestants" believe Waldensians are more ancient, and to note why do those groups find it to be important (because they see themselves as successors of Waldensians). Everything else can probably go to a separate article about this fringe theory (there will be enough sources to prove its notability, right?). --Martynas Patasius (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I hope Willfults listens. I've started to compile something about his behavior. If it continues I'll go to WP:Requests for comment/User conduct as you suggested. Thanks for pointing it out. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Multiple Chemical Sensitivity

There are many issues with neutrality in this article at this time. User:CLL80 describes some of them very well in Talk:Multiple chemical sensitivity. In addition, other users have attempted to contribute, but are being shut out. I have placed a NPOV notice on this page, and it has been removed without consensus. I feel that this should be posted here in order to alert other editors to this problem and possibly get some neutral editors involved. Xrin (talk) 04:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I have taken a look at the discussion on Talk:Multiple chemical sensitivity and I think that you and User:CLL80 misunderstand the meaning of neutrality here. In a matter of speaking, Wikipedia takes the side of the consensus/majority of medical researchers, rather than presenting all researchers' opinions as being equally worthy of consideration. The undue weight section of NPOV states, "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence." To make the article give a lot of attention to, or even take the side of, a small minority of researchers is to give that minority and clearly goes against Wikipedia policy.

This position statement from the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, which is listed in External Links section of the Multiple Chemical Sensitivity article, shows how many prominent medical organizations have expressed skepticism about the validity of this diagnosis. These organizations would need to reverse their opinions in order for the article to give much weight to the opinions you wish to promote. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

In my previous posting, I missed a couple words. The end of the first paragraph should have read: "is to give that minority undue weight and clearly goes against Wikipedia policy." -- JTSchreiber (talk)

WP:peacock tags

Is it customary to remove {{peacock}} banners from the top of the page simply because there is none in the article? That's what has been happening hereSpecial:Contributions/Editor2020, and for in one of the articles which I checked out Brunis Rubess, they still exist as in "he made the transition from the turmoil in Europe to the life of a very successful businessman in Canada." Thanks, Spencer^T♦C 20:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

NPoV on the articles Coat of arms of Western Sahara and Flag of Western Sahara

Hello,

The user Reisio has started PoV editions on these two articles by redirecting both pages to the ones related to Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, while these pages were disambiguation ones explaining the fact that the territory of Western Sahara is disputed and offering an overview of the Flag/CoA of each claimant.

I tried to explain to him [14] the WP:NPoV case related to these articles, and that any redirection to Morocco's or SADR's Flag/CoA is clearly PoV but I didn't succeed (and I will make no comment about his answer [15]).

If an admin can explain this thing to him, it will be nice.

Thanks in advance.

Regards,
Omar-Toons (talk) 01:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Someone put this ^ POV-pushing Moroccan straight. ¦ Reisio (talk) 13:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Explanation:

• Case: Western Sahara
• Status: Disputed, no sovereignty recognised
• Claimed by 1: Morocco
• ... then: POV1 = The flag/CoA of Western Sahara are the ones used by this claimant (I didn't put a redirect to Morocco's ones)
• Claimed by 2: The government in exile of the SADR
• ... then POV2 = The flag/CoA of Western Sahara are the ones used by this claimant (Reisio putted a redirect to this claimant's ones)
• So: Neutrality = nor POV1 nor POV2.

Regards,

Omar-Toons (talk) 20:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's all a conspiracy between me and 99% of the rest of the universe: http://images.google.com/images?q=western%20sahara%20flag. ¦ Reisio (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Both of you, take it either here or here. Pick your favorite and stop edit-warring. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

What is it you think there is further to discuss, Seb, that can be settled (merely temporarily at best) by anything but an admin's threat of punishment? You reverted him as well, a good contribution to the situation — and now you've decided what exactly, that you take neither side? You take the side of not edit warring, is that it? That should be quite useful the day everyone is an admin (or no one is), meanwhile we're seven years in and this wiki-wide war continues. ¦ Reisio (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history for Flag of Western Sahara, this seems to be a case of WP:OWN. Reisio started on this page as early as November, 2006 with edits that seem to promote the idea that the flag for Western Sahara is the same as the for the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.

Since then there seem to be dozens of reverts from Reisio against multiple editors pushing the same idea (e.g. 1,2,3,4,5), with virtually no discussion on the talk page. I'm mentioning this not b/c I necessarily disagree w/ Reisio's POV here, but b/c the edit history is fairly extraordinary.

Two things need to happen here. 1) Reisio needs to stop the aggressive editting behavior, or he'll probably find himself in AE. 2) As Seb said, users need to go to the talk page and discuss there. Omar should consider starting an RfC. If he likes, I'll help him with it.

Good luck guys. NickCT (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, you don't seem to have read the edit summary of the first diff you linked to. It is as accurate and indisputable today as it was then.

Secondly, you seem to have missed all the preceding history, including that many editors have been involved in this on both sides, and that the article used to be flag of Western Sahara (seriously, look at the history) before wave upon wave of Moroccan propagandists decided it should not be so.

Thirdly, if you're having trouble finding discussions, it's because (as previously mentioned), this edit war is nearing a decade in age, and spans across countless pages (and Commons). This page on the flag barely scratches the surface. You might use this ancient incident noticeboard discussion as a jumping off point, but I doubt you will ever in all your years set your eyes upon all the discussion that has taken place, nor would you want to as the bulk of it is completely inane. Administrator intervention is the only thing that will ever curb this edit war. I would welcome it, though it rarely occurs. ¦ Reisio (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, thanks for these comments.

In response to NickCT's advise, unfortunately discussions are failing since 2007 [16], and I don't think that starting a new discussion can help by any way, since I'm sure that it will be a new wave of monologues (as you can see in article's talk page). I chose to ask for a WP:NPoV "arbitration" because of that, because no results can be expected from a discussion with people who are judging that "you can't be neutral since you're Moroccan".

Btw, I used to revert even Pro-Morocco PoV on this kind of articles.

Omar-Toons (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Neither of these pages should exist. "Western Sahara" is just a provisional name adopted by the United Nations to denote a disputed territory. It doesn't have a flag, or a coat of arms. For the benefit of the uneducated reader, however, if links must exist, they should be without question Dab pages, not redirects to either one. I'm also concerned at the lack of good faith shown by Reisio. Whether Omar is Moroccan or not does not automatically mean he cannot edit objectively on topics relating to his nationality.

Redirecting to one or the other is unacceptable. However, this is also unnecessary. Take a look at Flag of China or Flag of the Congo for a better style. Nightw 05:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

@Reisio - Look, the bottom line is that I've never seen an editor single handedly defend a particular POV against so many other editors, over such a long period of time. You may want to consider whether your behavior constitutes healthy editing practice.

@Omar-Toons - If the discussion has been failing, it's likely b/c you're not doing it right. If you like, we can work together (i.e. you, me and Reisio) to format an RfC which would settle this question permanently.

@Nightw - Your position re deletion seems quite reasonable. I think these could definitely be AfD candidates. NickCT (talk) 14:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

@NickCT - When I was talking about failing discussions, I was meaning all the discussions on the article's talk page, since Jan. 2006 when an user changed the name of the article [17], not only my own discussion with him, which consists of only 1 message from each. I say it again, I can't have any discussion with a person who judges me basing on my nationality.

Omar-Toons (talk) 18:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Just an observation: On this article, Reisio, in what seems to be a WP:OWN case, reverted edits [18] made by me, PBP, Xiquet, Vispec, A Jalil, Wikima, Louse and Juiced lemon. All these users explained the disambiguation on the page.

If we take a look on the talk page ([19]&[20]), we can easily see that, despite the fact that most users consider that a redirection to SADR's flag or the association of territory's flag to the one of the RASD is clearly PoV, Reisio continues to act following his own PoV vision.

This is just to give an example on "how can go a discussion with Reisio" and "will a discussion with Reisio make him quitting reverting other users' edits event if the majority agrees on these edits".

Omar-Toons (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

@Omar-Toons - If you are having difficulty dealing with another editor b/c they are judging you based on your nationality, the appropriate response is to try and get third party opinions. It was probably good that you posted on the NPOV noticeboard. Now that you've got the attention of third parties, the thing to do is to bring the third parties back to the article's talkpage to discuss there. NickCT (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

But... what I'm telling you is that, since the discussion between Reisio and 5 other users didn't give any results, bringing more users will have, in my opinion, no different results. --Omar-Toons (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

@Omar-Toons - Well my opinion is that there will be a different result. But regardless, if you aren't trying to get 3rd parties to look at this issue, why did you come here Omar? What do you want to happen exactly? If you really think you've clearly demonstrated consensus (which I don't think you have), and that Reisio is edit warring against consensus, you ought to go to AE. NickCT (talk) 04:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a behavioural noticeboard, so let's steer this another direction. If there are issues with Reisio's editing behaviour, it should be brought up at ANI.

@Nick, the editor has obviously come here looking for opinions from those familiar with WP:NPOV, and I don't see why he shouldn't be able to get that.

@Omar, I suggest following through with Nick's advice, and allow others to offer assistance. I know what that page should look like under WP:NPOV, and I'll be more than happy to help you bring it to that. Nightw 05:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Western Sahara is a physical territory/area, not an political entity. It doesn't have flag and coat of arms. Morocco and the Sahrawi Republic (the two political entities claiming the Western Sahara territory/area) have flags and coats of arms. So, IMHO the pages Coat of arms of Western Sahara and Flag of Western Sahara should be disambiguation pages simply including links to Coat of arms of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, Coat of arms of Morocco, Flag of Morocco and Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. Alinor (talk) 08:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

That's essentially the same as what Nightw said at 05:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC) and I agree both of you. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright. Well, 4 uninvolved editors have chimed in here supporting the idea of a disambig page pointing to both Flag of Morocco and Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. I'm thinking this constitutes consensus, and I motion that the change be implemented. I've drawn up a draft (if anyone wants to tweak, please be bold). The coat of arms page should likely be treated similarly. NickCT (talk) 13:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

You really aren't getting it. "Flag of Western Sahara" does not refer to the flag of Morocco. Moroccans call their flag the flag of Morocco, and to Moroccans (holding the state's view), there is no Western Sahara, there is only Morocco's Southern Provinces, so there is only the flag of Morocco. The flag of Western Sahara, as a name, predates Morocco's occupation, and has nothing to do with the conflict, it is quite simply one name of the flag that the POLISARIO uses.

The flag of Iraq is not the flag of the USA; the flag of Tibet is not the flag of China (occupation does not disappear a flag or its name). The flag of Florida is not the flag of the USA (a smaller part of a whole can still have an independently named flag). The flag of the Holy Roman Empire is not the flag of any of the states it coincided with then and now. Take your pick.

Even if there were a consensus to change the pages (there isn't), changing the pages would still be against policy and scope. You simply cannot make something what it isn't.

¦ Reisio (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

We really don't get it huh? And you apparently do? I see some logic in your argument, but the fact is, that keeping things as you want them give the impression that there is a recognized flag, for a recognized nation. Clearly that's not the case. The only example you offered which involves a "disputed territory" is flag of Tibet. Frankly, I think there could be some NPOV issues there too, as the wikipedia listing for Flag of Tibet is not actually the official Flag of Tibet.

I agree it's sorta messy to offer the Moroccan national flag, for what the Moroccan's claim is actually a region of Morocco. Perhaps we could find and use the regional flags of the Southern Provinces? NickCT (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact is that there are no "Southern provinces' flag" because, since Morocco doesn't recognize the colonial borders, Western Sahara isn't a "Moroccan province", but a territory divided to 3 provinces, from which to are only partly in the territory.

As an answer to Reisio: Western Sahara" isn't internationally recognized as a country or a political entity, but only as a regional entity, then your "argument" seems to be biased.

The NPoV on this kind of issues (the most representative one being, imho, China's one) is accepted and shared by most of wiki's users, and not accepting a consensus is likely an edition warring ans vandalism.

Your argument is based on a "common view" on Western Sahara, but the fact is that the international law doesn't share this view, and as WP hasn't the role to innovate (WP:OR) or to chose a view without taking note of the other (WP:POV), we, as wiki users, can't consider this case as an exception.

Omar-Toons (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

@Omar-Toons - re "there are no "Southern provinces' flag"" - Believe that there are flags for each of the three provinces, no? (e.g. [21], [22]). NickCT (talk) 19:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are no known flags used for Moroccan "regions" and Moroccan "provinces" (subdivisions of a region [23]), they only have (or had?*) Coats of Arms. The flags you mentioned are no longer in use, and I don't remember having seen this kind of flags (I was born in 1985).

(*)Some CoAs have changed for the last years (example: Rabat's one (old, new)), and most are not used nor known ; and they were removed from the official page on which they were officially shown.

The issue is more complicated than what I though...

Omar-Toons (talk) 04:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Those are the old provincial flags. They were phased out in 1997, according to FOTW. The most ideal and accurate outcome would be deletion. Considering reader ignorance, though, it may be necessary to keep it, in which case it should be dab'd under WP:NPOV. Nightw 11:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

POV in a map

At Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority, there are 3 world maps indicating recognition of and relations with Palestine and its derivitive institutions. This thread concerns the last of these maps (shown right), which shows different information from the other two.

The information in this map is supposedly derived from the table in the article, which is sourced. The table is divided into 3 parts:

• The top section lists states that have recognised the State of Palestine. These are coloured GREEN in the maps.
• The bottom section lists states that do not recognise the State of Palestine. These are coloured BLUE in the maps.
• A middle section lists states where sources conflict on that state's official position.

Unlike in the other 2 maps on the page, there is no neutral colouring for those unclear cases listed in the middle section. Instead, they're rendered as BLUE (i.e., not recognising the State of Palestine). Not only is this inherently confusing to the reader in its deviation from the sourced information in the article, it also shows POV.

The author of the map (Alinor (talk · contribs)) insists that discussion between editors will eventually determine to which of the two sections each of these cases belongs, thus rendering as redundant any need for a third colour in the maps. However, given the heavy disagreement between sources on a number of these entries, it is unlikely that anything will be determined regarding their positions any time soon. They have all been in the middle section since last year, while the map has shown them as belonging to the last section.

I agree that inconclusive evidence requires further investigation, but I don't think it's acceptable to show these cases, even in the meantime, as belonging to one category when the article (and the sources) show that they could just as easily belong to the other. Nightw 05:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

For example, there's a reliable source stating quite explicitly that Lesotho recognises the State of Palestine, but in the absence of official word from the baSotho government, it's been rendered as inconclusive. But this map shows it, along with all similarly undetermined cases, as not recognising it. Nightw 05:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's not discuss individual cases of the inconclusive entries - the talk page of the article is more appropriate place for that. Alinor (talk) 08:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

??? I'm not. That was an example for the noticeboard. Read comments properly. Nightw 12:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

First, all three maps are made by me, including these with special coloring for "inconclusive" cases. The other two maps not shown here, are unnecessary in my opinion, they don't add any information, but I agreed on making and adding them, as compromise.

The way in which Night w presents the information above is misleading ("the third map shows different information from the other two", etc.)

I have not insisted that we wait for ALL inconclusive cases to be resolved. I said, that before editing the map we should first finish the concurrently ongoing discussion about two of them (about the rest we don't discuss anything, because there is no new information).

My hesitation to include "inconclusive" as separate group is because of the additional colors needed (at least two). The map already has 4 colors (recognition, recognition+relations, relations, no recognition+no relations) and in the inconclusive group currently we have 2 more types ("maybe recognition", "relations+maybe recognition"). It's not just blue and green. Currently it's blue, green, light green, gray. I hesitate adding too much colors, because this is bad practice in general. But after Night w insisted so much I already agreed to do this.

What I said is - let's finish the ongoing discussion about two of the inconclusive cases and then we will change the map accordingly. Alinor (talk) 08:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why it's necessary to wait for an outcome on certain entries. Meanwhile it shows possibly wrong information. If we must wait for discussion to close on some cases, then it should be removed until the POV colouring is addressed. Nightw 12:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Wait for an outcome not on certain entries, but of an actively ongoing discussion. We can't change back-and-forth every time the discussion swings in one or another direction. Alinor (talk) 13:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The states that "lists states where sources conflict on that state's official position" should not be colored in blue as this is misleading to the reader. Later, if their position is clarified the appropriate color (green or blue) can be added. Meantime they should have a neutral color but in any case they should not be colored blue.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you say that we should be "restrictive" in coloring - e.g. in case of conflicting or inconclusive sources the map should show neutral gray color ("no SoP recognition") until an official confirmation source is found? Or you say that we should add additional neutral color specially for "conflicting or inconclusive sources"?

Just to clarify - blue doesn't mean only "SoP no recognition", but "PLO/PNA relations + no SoP recogntion". That's why some of the conflicting and inconclusive cases are blue currently - because we have official sources showing "PLO/PNA relations" just like for other of the blue states. This is implementation of the "restrictive" approach described above (gray - for no relations+no recognition; blue for relations+no recognition). Alinor (talk) 07:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

...But it's unclear to as to whether these cases recognise the State. So it's POV to say that they don't. And confusing to the reader when the rest of the article says otherwise. Nightw 09:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Let Keithbob reply. I understand him as supporting the "restrictive" coloring - e.g. for inconclusive cases we color as non-recognizing until we have official confirmation of recognition. And "the rest of the article says otherwise" is just the inclusion of these few specific cases as "conflicting and inconclusive". Alinor (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

I could really use some help or advice for this article on general neutrality issues. The current version of the article suggests that although there is criticism, there is equally valid scientific support for the test. My impression is that the MBTI is generally not accepted as a valid psychometric tool in psychology, and that the evidence is overwhelmingly not supportive of it. And I think it might be the case that most of the studies supporting it have connections with the same people who sell the test. I could be very wrong about this, but I'm having some trouble finding what the actual scientific consensus is on this issue. --Aronoel (talk) 22:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Not my area of expertise but I read a lot about it after taking the test myself. In my case, the results (INTP) were incredibly accurate based on how, on reflection, I see myself. From what I remember non acceptance is a slippery slope as it is based on reliability and validity with different academics prefering different standards (ie:lack of consensus). The main critique on validity is that the BMTI doesn't take into account conscious or unconscious lying. Also, the test relies on Jungian personality types and some academics don't believe there is enough evidence to support their existance. Additionally some academics believe all personality tests are unreliable. Briggs Myers herself said that the results are only hypotheses needing further verification. The only real consensus in the community is that there have not been enough quality studies on it's efficiency to justify it's use for career counseling. Do a search for university papers on the test that contain both criticism and praise. Wayne (talk) 13:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

OK I will, thanks for your advice. --Aronoel (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Potter's House Christian Fellowship NPOV issues

Potter's House Christian Fellowship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I would like some attention drawn here. The article has always been a mess but recently I have noticed some edit waring and nasty talk page discussion between some probable COI editors and opponets. THink some extra eyes and people cleaning up would be helpful to the over all situation. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk + contribs) 00:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I've had that article on my watchlist and have seen the current editors getting into increasingly personal exchanges. I agree with ResidentAnthropologist that more eyes would help, but I also strongly recommend that the most active editors begin mediation, or just take a break from the article.   Will Beback  talk  00:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

It is absolutely absurd that this article does not at the very least have a citation indicating that its neutrality is disputed. Please see the article on Gibraltar and reasonably defend how there can be less 'dispute' as to neutrality or reliability. The article on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is nothing but a long winded cult advertisement without a single reliable independent academic citation at any significant point. The article goes beyond unreliability; it is anti-academic and a shame to Wikipedia. Without a warning tag I cannot see how Wikipedia can maintain even a shred of honour as a worthy information source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factsareinconvenient (talk • contribs) 10:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The forgoing is a rant, a bunch of claims and over the top statements, which may well express how you feel about the article, but doesn't give us any of those inconvenient details as to any actual problem. E.g., you mention a lack of "independent academic citation". If that is a problem, then why don't you find the material ("citations") that should be supplied? If there is an on-going dispute, then say so, and give us the details of why it needs to be brought up here. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Christianity and homosexuality undue weight

I feel that in the entire article that there is undue weight given to the Pro-homosexuality side. In the first section out of the opening titled "Homosexuality in the Bible" there is an outline that shows questions that pro-homosexual scholars have been asking. It feels as if it's an outline on what the author thinks Christians should do when researching biblical views on homosexuality. There is also a lack of talk about Homosexuality in the Bible except for, "There are a few bible texts that seem to refer to homosexual behavior."

In "The Church and homosexuality" there is a paragraph on LGBT-affirming denominations while only a sentence on those that don't. 3 churches that don't are listed while four that do are listed.

In "Historical views on homosexuality" much of the paragraph is dedicated to John Boswells beliefs while the rest is dedicated to unnamed critic of which only 1 is sourced.

In "Views critical of homosexual behavior" there are critical views and views that oppose those critical views while in "Views favorable to homosexuality" there are only favorable views.

In "Choice and free will" more weight is given to non-religious groups on the basis of non-religious views than is given to religious groups on the basis of religious views.

Through out the article prominent people favorable to homosexuality are listed by name. Few people critical of homosexuality as it pertains to religion are named and the ones that are aren't very prominent while there are prominent individuals known that are critical of homosexuality as it pertains to the Christian religion.

The article does do alot to point out the reasonings behind the favorable sides points of view while neglecting the critical sides reasonings.

In light of this I ask also that articles referring to other religions views on homosexuality be checked for neutrality.

This should neither be a pro-homosexuality or anti-homosexuality and religion piece. It should a neutral article about homosexuality and Christianity. Neutral and verifiable to the letter of wikipedias guidelines.

Thanks for your time.70.15.191.119 (talk) 10:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese Medicine wikipedia page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Chinese_medicine

The content featured on this page conveys a consistently *negative* slant of TCM, a slant that is generally inconsistant with the majority of accepted views of TCM. This issue has been addressed on the Talk board:

"I logged on to read about TCM today, and this page is in desperate need of some moderation. It reads like it's been written by someone with a personal vendetta against Traditional Chinese Medicine! I'm a western person and see MDs like the rest of us, but these articles are supposed to teach objectively, providing a balanced portrayal of a subject. Instead, every paragraph follows with statements attacking the credibility of TCM or bringing up controversial issues that may or may not be true (because they don't have citations), and re-using old stereotypes that everyone knows are not true (ie, "Snake Oil" isn't even used by TCM practitioners, according to my acupuncturist!)

Anyway, my problem isn't just that things aren't cited. The big problem here is that even the things that ARE cited are simply very slanted or misleading, highlighting only one side of controversial issues that, ultimately, really only ought to be in ONE of the later sections of the article. Why doesn't this article begin like a history book, explaining the origins and practices of the medicine, rather than begin with attacks on whether or not TCM holds up to scientific rigor, etc? For example, why would the oldest and the planet's single largest medical system contain these sentences in the INTRODUCTION (!) (one being in the first paragraph!): "TCM is subject to criticism regarding a number of issues," "It uses metaphysical principles that have no correlates in science based medicine, and would generally be rejected by it", "...found to be ineffective...contain dangerous toxins," "ineffective medicines" etc? These things may or may not be true--this is beside the point. They're just extremely biased, and I, furthermore, challenge the neutrality and organization of this article.

Finally, how is it that 7 of the 8 photos on this page are of grotesque or controversial animal substances yet some basic internet research reveals that the VAST majority of substances used in TCM practice today are simple PLANTS (most of which seem to also be native to north American traditions). Obviously there are also some definite controversies that should be mentioned, in this article, but that ought to be put in a section to deal with skepticism and criticisms. This article is just so very misleading in layout and organization. It seems odd that the medicine that lasted 3,000 years of practice (something you don't learn reading this article) would have endured all the cultural and political invasions it did if this article were representative of its merits. I'm not asking for a pro-TCM page, but let's seriously organize this thing like adults."

It seems that whenever the information is updated and the offensive pictures are removed (the "snake oil" advertisement, the pictures of human fetuses, etc) they are almost immediately reposted. I am concerened that someone out there has a personal vendetta against TCM, and has made it their mission to make this medicine look as negative as possible, in spite of the many documented positive benefits of traditional chinese medicine. Please look into this, as this consistently interferes with wikipedia's stance on neutrality and is an unfair assessment of TCM and it's practitioners.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vantagelogic (talk • contribs) 07:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Golan Heights map

Hello, it is being discussed whether the georeferenced image illustrating the GH topography and Template:Location_map_Golan_Heights based on it are violating Wikipedia neutrality principle. Thank you for your input. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

AgadaUrbanit, you should have asked, why that map is better then the CIA maps and the other location map you want to replace it with. Also the issue with the map is not only if its non neutral, but also if it has inaccuracy problems. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Due weight on the range of opinions in the literature.

An edit was proposed during a mediation to deal with accuracy issues in the article Gibraltar. This proposed replacing

“ On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar." ”

with

“ During the War of the Spanish Succession, in August 1704, Gibraltar was captured by a largely Anglo-Dutch force in support of the Archduke Charles, the Hapsburg claimant to the Spanish throne. ”

The sentence is accurate, supported by reliable sources and provides more accurate information than currently. The accuracy of the statement is not disputed, rather those opposing it insist that if it is changed, then it must be followed by the caveat:

“ It was soon under de facto British control. ”

There are a couple of national narratives to consider here. Generally, Gibraltarians insist that Gibraltar has been British since 1704. Previously, based on the account of Ayala it was the Spanish claim that the British captured Gibraltar in the name of Queen Anne. Both national narratives are rejected by modern scholars, both British and Spanish, eg Hills, Jackson, Bradford and Sepulveda. The mainstream opinions support the fact that Gibraltar was captured by a force under the command of Prince George of Hesse-Darmstadt on behalf of Charles III, the Austrian pretender to the Spanish throne.

However, there are a diverse range of opinions among historians as to the point at which the British obtained control over Gibraltar. For example, the British historian George Hills demonstrated that Gibraltar was considered a Hapsburg posesssion until 1712 and suggests Britain started to acquire de facto control from 1708, while the former Governor Sir William Jackson states in his book Gibraltar remained an Anglo-Dutch base until March 1713, only becoming British following Utrecht. This debate is far from settled and there is a wide range of opinions in the literature.

Hence, I do not consider that the caveat as demanded is either accurate or compliant with our policy of a NPOV, which suggest that if appropriate the range of opinions in the literature should be represented. Such a bald statement coming straight after a sentence referring to the events of 1704 rather infers that the British were immediately in control, something not supported by the range of opinions in the literature.

The counter argument has been to search through google books, using google snippets to find fragments of text that appear to support the simple caveat above ie searches predicated on satisfying the edit rather than looking at the literature to see what the weight of opinion is. See WP:RSN#Google Snippets regarding the reliability of this as a source. The argument presented is that these snippets are suitable cites and the diverse range of opinion in the literature can thus be ignored.

I would welcome outside opinion. Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

If the sources present a range of opinion then you should use the latest reliable date rather than detail each claim. For example something along the lines of "By 17xx, it was clear that Gibraltar was unequivocally under de facto British control." Wayne (talk) 13:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Gianfranco Chiarini

Gianfranco ChiariniHelp Resolving Advert Tag Per user Anthaenara, Gianfranco Chiarini'a Wikipedia article is written with bias and as a promotional. However, the article has been written and re-written several times utlizing references to source the statements. This discussion has been posted so that the article may be read, and so that contributors may make editing suggestions.

Beverly Wehmer Johnson (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Please find corrections to the Gianfranco Chiarini Wiki Article, which has been revised several times. Thanks! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gianfranco_Chiarini — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bevwb1220 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Beverly Wehmer Johnson (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Hello, Athaenara. Check your email – you've got mail! You can remove this notice at any time by removing the

Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

or

Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

template.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.224.154 (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Gianfranco Chiarini Hi Athaenara the Gianfranco Chiarni page has been re-written to Wikipedia standards, can you please review so that we can take the advert down? Thanks! Beverly Wehmer Johnson (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It's still quite promotional and appears to be one of the products at two single-purpose accounts, yours and Andrea D'Angelico (talk · contribs), across multiple wikipedias. You can open a discussion on the article talk page prior to posting on the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard or ask for assistance on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. – Athaenara ✉ 20:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Athaenara per Wiki adminstration I was given info that our article was in the context of an advertisement. Therefore I changed, and restructured sentences to meet with Wikipedia guideline. Regarding Andrea D'Angelico, I am not certain what has been translated from the English version but will confer with him as for the aforementioned. Please give specifics as to what needs to be corrected to meet encyclopedic standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.225.147 (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Gianfranco Chiarini We have been in direct contact with Wikipedia Adminstration, and they have been assisting us with Common Usage of Photos and determining correct verbiage to use in the Gianfranco Chiarini articles. However, you have not assisted us with what needs to be changed per sentence guidelines or structure in order to meet the Wikipedia guidelines. We have followed the guidelines as per the Wikipedia Administrative, and would like very much if you would assist with neutrality of the subject at hand. Furthermore, quoting Wikipedia guidelines is not helping us to achieve our goal of a flawlessly written article. Please assist with providing direction in composing a non-biased article.

Thanks! Beverly Wehmer Johnson (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)(talk) 20:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC) 71.48.225.147 (talk) 20:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Any one or all of you may ask for assistance on the article talk page and the NPOV and COI noticeboards (linked above in my previous reply) as I previously suggested. Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests is another appropriate venue. – Athaenara ✉ 21:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Per your previous discussion, I've added the discussion to the Gianfranco Chiarini talk page. I will also add the the NPOV, and COI as you've requested. Thanks! Beverly Wehmer Johnson (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Beverly Wehmer Johnson (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Crisis pregnancy center

We have, at last count, seventeen (unless I missed a few) sources attesting false medical information propagated by CPCs; we do not have a single source attesting a CPC that does not propagate false medical information, nor do any of the seventeen sources attesting misinformation say that it is rare. Is the use of the phrase "[CPCs] have routinely been found to disseminate false medical information" justified? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think so, not unless you have a source that says "[CPCs] have routinely been found to disseminate false medical information". It's a hasty generalization and therefore WP:SYNTH. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know whether you have this source, Abortion Counseling: A Clinician's Guide to Psychology, Legislation, Politics, and Competency. It has some actual survey data from a Congressional study on page 11 e.g. 87% of CPC's in the study were found to have provided false and misleading information. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Which is somewhat different from "routinely providing misleading information." IIRC, more than 90% of IRS agents give out "misleading information" in tests, yet we do not say "The IRS routinely gives out misleading information" since 99% of the information the IRS gives out is published information, and not responses to complex queries (where its record is, indeed, abysmal). Perhaps "Many CDCs have been found giving out incorrect medical information in response to queries" or the like? The article surrently is a POV nightmare, however, and reads very much like an advocacy article. Collect (talk) 11:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Separating facts from points of view in an organisational article

Hi, I have a concern regarding the separation of facts from points of view in the article in French about the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). It would be more in line with Wikipedia’s Neutral point of view policy and Wikipedia: Criticism guidelines if points of view were collated in a separate section. These guidelines state that “criticism that is integrated into the article should not disrupt the article or section’s flow”.

The citations in this article criticising EFSA’s work are currently published in sections to which they are not directly related. For example, the section explaining EFSA’s objectives also contains specific statements outlining points of view regarding EFSA staff and other detailed information not related to EFSA’s core remit. These would be more appropriately included in a section clearly identified as containing points of view.

The articles in other languages about EFSA follow a different structure and any criticism is presented in a separate section, such as in the German version.

I am an editor at EFSA. In line with Wikipedia’s rules regarding conflicts of interest we should and will not edit the article ourselves. We have tried to ask for a modification of the structure on the talk page of the article but have received no responses. This is why we are asking for your advice or help in this matter. Thank you in advance.

--Haga Caroline (talk) 10:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Several different issues are raised. 1. English Wikipedia generally finds "criticism" sections and articles to be less than utile. It is better to place criticisms in context in the sections to which the criticisms relate than to have a catch-all section or article. 2. Invariably if one seeks to have a section present a positive picture of an organization, any criticism will "interrupt its flow." That is how NPOV is reached in WP - by having statements and counterstatements in some proximity. 3. Positive statements about any group (or negative ones) are gerally considered to intrinsically represent a "point of view" thus segregating out all "points of view" would have the effect of blanking an article. As long as the criticism is properly sourced (extremely important if any of the topics fall under WP:BLP, all you should do is try to prevent excessive weight being given to specific criticisms. Collect (talk) 11:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)