Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 65

Archive 60

←

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

→

Archive 70

Luftwaffe of Nazi Germany

A disagreement has arisen as to the use of the phrase "the Luftwaffe of Nazi Germany". I consider it a neutral descriptor, no different to saying Royal Air Force of the United Kingdom". The other editor, however, disagrees.

The discussion has not resulted in reaching consensus. It can be found here:

• Talk:Heinrich_Sturm#Luftwaffe of Nazi Germany

I would appreciate some input on this matter. I've notified the other editor here. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with it, though "Luftwaffe during World War II" (the current wording), is just as good.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I've welcomed the editor in question (as a fresh set of eyes) to elaborate more than their "personal opinion" edit summary comments to explain more in depth on the talk page. Although, I must agree with Insertcleverphrasehere in their assessment; and can see where adding "Nazi Germany" may seem excessive. I mean, was there really a Luftwaffe of Canada? Maineartists (talk) 00:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Maineartists: Please see another discussion above: there was apparently a "Luftwaffe of the Bundeswehr" as well. :-). K.e.coffman (talk) 03:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Pardon my ignorance. We learn something every day! Maineartists (talk) 11:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

In keeping with WP:ARTCON, we should either always use "Luftwaffe" for the air force of 1935-1945 Germany or have to distinguish between them with "Luftwaffe of {X}". To be fully compliant, would need to be consistent rules for the 1935-1945 Nazi era organization, for the 1956-1991 FRG era organization, the 1956-1990 GDR era organization, and (finally) the 1991-current reunified FRG era organization. This would also be ludicrously involved and require a huge number of edits to implement. It is much simpler, and in compliance with WP:EN and WP:ENGVAR and WP:COMMONNAME, to simply use "Luftwaffe" (without qualification) only for the pre-1945 organization and "{East}/{West} German Air Force" for all the post-1956 organizations. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

It's a mouthful, and reads like something you'd see in a high school paper. It also suggests that the reader is sure there was another type of Luftwaffe in the 1930s and 40s.

I welcome the sane comments from @Eggishorn:. Dapi89 (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

"[t]he Luftwaffe of Nazi Germany", although correct, does seem to me to be verbose. "Luftwaffe during World War II" would also be correct, IF one is talking about it during the war years; as is noted the Luftwaffe officially started in 1935. So it can depend on the context. For most cases just stating "the Luftwaffe" should be sufficient after the timeframe has been established (context) for the years 1935-1945. Kierzek (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for their comments. This makes sense. Although I was surprised to hear comments about a mouthful from an editor who insisted that "the Luftwaffe of the Bundeswehr" was correct and proper terminology for the German Air Force (diff). K.e.coffman (talk) 02:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

No, I was in favour of only Bundesluftwaffe and objected to it's removal. No need for dishonesty. Dapi89 (talk) 11:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

We ought to choose, if we have a choice, the least emotionally loaded and most precise and informative term available. Of the terms proposed, I favor "Luftwaffe (1935-1945)". That's as unemotional, informative and precise as we're likely to get. I don't think anyone inside or outside Germany is likely to forget that under the rule of Adolf Hitler, the Luftwaffe was largely an instrument of the Nazi Party, to the extent their aircraft bore the Nazi swastika as a large symbol painted on them. I just distrust appeals to emotion in reference material like encyclopedias, which this is. loupgarous (talk) 09:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Corey Stewart (politician)

In current version of the article, one-third of the lead is devoted to the Wikipedia editing of the subject, a Republican candidate for governor. Mentioning in the article itself is one thing, but isn't this a bit much? Coretheapple (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest regarding User:Bomberswarm2

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

---

Bomberswarm2 (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log)

I've noticed that this user has a conflict of interest bias when it comes to editing articles related to American politics. This user has added information to articles about presidential elections that could be seen as non-NPOV, slanting towards Republican and against Democrat. A quick trip to the user's page shows that it solely consists of userboxes expressing support for Donald J. Trump, as well as a userbox opposing Washington D.C. statehood. This user has also nominated the WP:AUC for deletion, stating 'if there is no response in 5 minutes then this WikiProject will be deleted'. The numerous edits to articles relating to presidential elections, as well as Bernie Sanders, lead me to believe this user has a conflict of interest bias, editing articles to appear in favor of Republican politicians, AKA a bias. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Good. Not relevant to anything since all my edits are NPOV Bomberswarm2 (talk) 22:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

It is not relevant to this noticeboard. Please see the instructions above. This board is for discussing POV edits, not the political leanings of any particular editor. I can't find the diff you are referring to a nomination of deletion, please provide it. InsertCleverPhraseHere 23:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

insertcleverphrasehere - 1 - any other diffs required cam be supplied. As for the relevance, I went to WP:COIN and under 'are you in the right place?' it states that discussions relating to editors with possible biases should be brought here. I should probably use different wording, so I'll change that now. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

That's a pretty stupid edit, I'll agree. While totally inappropriate, it doesn't appear to be 'POV' to me. InsertCleverPhraseHere 09:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

It is POV if UNSC Luke 1021 can provide specific examples of POV edits "editing articles to appear in favor of Republican politicians". The use of Bomberswarm2's personal political view "flair" as an example of bias in this is also POV and inappropriate. Evidence is really the only thing that isn't POV. Endercase (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Endercase: - I have an example here (where he also had somewhat of a personal attack but I ignored that, here, here, here (where he adds false information to make Trump look better), here, (where he removes obviously relevant information that portrays Trump in a bad light and here just to name a few. Between this and the excess of Trump userboxes on his page it is obvious there is a bias or possible conflict of interest here. If you need me to explain any or find more I'd be happy to. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 22:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bomberswarm2/Archive. He basically admits to sockpuppetry to 'avoid political persecution', which was an issue on his other account. I think if your political views are such a big part of your editing that you need to sockpuppet to avoid persecution then you probably have a bias or you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Also, see this diff, where he writes about hypothetical scenarios in which the Democrats will definitely lose the popular vote if California were to vote Republican. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The only reason I didn't open this case at the COI board was because some instructions told me to come here for biases. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 22:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

It is my POV that those were pretty minor edits in low-traffic articles. Mentioning his "flair" is really off-topic, and demonstrates a bias on your own part. In general, Wikipedia has a left leaning swing: Breitbart is banned as a source while CNN is not. I feel like that should be fixed. I really feel like if they are trying to sway public opinion and POV with those edits they are doing a really poor job. Haven't they done something really out there? The account was punished for its sockpuppetry and it even owned up to it punishing it again is kinda overkill. I'd really like to hear from Bomberswarm2 as well. I feel like this sort of thing is causing the chilling effect in Wikipedia. To be honest the username Bomberswarm2 in and of itself suggests Sockpuppet but it could also mean that the user has Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) which would explain their non-interaction and odd behavior. I'm not sure what to do here. I don't really see the problem. I mean WP:Broke right? Like, who really cares? Should we moderate modern politics the same way we moderate history or news? Why shouldn't people edit things like that? Let each thread moderate itself. The edits all get saved and logged anyway. It's not like they can actually delete anything anyways. I really wish we could save all user interactions, a constant save if you will, but only on talk pages, it would add billions in value. The history is saved and openly visible. WP:Broke is pretty clear. I just don't care about this. Why do anything in these cases? I mean if I'm any kinda editor I'm a WP:Broke editor. I really feel like that should be one of the pillars. I don't like that if Bomberswarm2 is sometimes removing referenced information and the NPV should be enacted there with a few discussions on each page and it looks like it was. History will be recorded as is the point of any good encyclopedia. We will not tolerate a dark age, and we shall not be burned down. Anyway, what does Bomberswarm2 have to say about it? Endercase (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

tldr. Keri (t · c) 01:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I guess, we shouldn't do anything. Thanks for pointing that out Keri. Endercase (talk) 02:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Endercase: - Not to take away from the other parts of your explanation, but isn't it somewhat offensive to say that Bomberswarm2 has ASD? I mean we've all been on the Internet and know how it's used in many situations to mean a derogatory term to represent something that is stupid, foolish or 'retarded' (which I am not trying to use in a bad sense), as it is commonly used on the the Internet. I'm not sure about BS2 but I spend a fair share of time on Reddit and such sites and if somebody said I could have autism I'd be kind of offended.

I'm not trying to draw attention away from the original issue or your argument because I am somewhat in the wrong; I thought it was very good and had some points I never realized. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 03:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say the user had it, I'm not a doctor, although for all you really know I could be. I just said that the user might have it, I know I sure have it. Sorry if I offend anyone. Although, I feel like calling a "disorder" a derogatory term is actually kinda offensive. Anyway, if the user in question would like to say anything we would all be able to see it. Endercase (talk) 04:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's a derogatory term in itself; I'm just saying that in my experience, on my time on the Internet, I have seen many instances of terms like 'autistic' being used in a derogatory sense, and many other people have as well. Through this, I just wanted to point out that although you meant this statement with good faith, it could be seen as derogatory based on one's previous experiences on the Internet, especially places like 4chan and Reddit. If Bomberswarm2 cares to say anything, they can. They've been mostly silent in this discussion and some feedback would be nice. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 06:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I dilberatly made another account to avoid political persicution of ultra-liberal Wikipiedia, and now I'm being politically persecuted here for no reason in the improper forum. And of course I receive nothing more than a typical Democrat attack calling me mentally retarted, an attack with no substance because they are losing the argument. I can garuntee if my profile was filled with pro-Hillary information you wouldn't have posted this. Another attack on free speech by the alt-left. P.S all my edits are NPOV. Even if some aren't, it is not even close to the amount of NPOV pro-Hillary edits on pages about the election.

Adittionally as noted in the first reply this shouldn't exist anywhere, and serves as nothing but slander so the entire thing should be deleted.

Bomberswarm2 (talk) 12:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Things on Wikipedia can't actually be deleted as far as I know. It will be archived though when someone does that. I wouldn't go so far as to call it slander. We are all equal peers, right? Anyway, this should blow over soon. I'm not sure how UNSC Luke 1021 feels about dropping the charges but from what I've seen we shouldn't do anything. just try not to attack their free speech too. Endercase (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Endercase: - I'd be ok with closing the case. The argument you brought was convincing and the points you made were good and fine. I guess I went a little bit overboard but it isn't really a big deal in the long run because there isn't really any lasting damage. I just ask of @Bomberswarm2: to be a little bit more... decisive with the words you use. I know that you are upset about this but this is not inherently about politics but rather about NPOV. If you had a user page full of Hillary-Kaine userboxes and edited in a way that I saw as a leftist bias, I would still bring this to NPOVN. I don't care what political party you are so long as it doesn't interfere with your Wikipedia editing. I thought that you could possibly have been writing in a POV/biased way, so I brought it here to evaluate with fellow editors in a civilized discussion. Please note that I did not call you mentally retarded, and actually argued againt the use of the term 'autistic' because I don't want to offend anybody. This is not a personal attack on you in any way or form, and I only brought up certain things because I had to in this situation in order to generate a discussion. Hopefully you go your own way and continue to edit to minimize bias towards any political group. (P.S., I'm not a Hillary supporter; I'm actually an independent who supports the ideas of Bernie Sanders. I hate Clinton just a tiny bit less than I hate Trump.) UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 17:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I’m glad you thought I was helpful. I don’t think anyone meant to convey that they thought you were a lesser peer Bomberswarm2. Thank you for making sure that all POV are shown here while attempting to maintain NPOV. Try to not “remove” referenced information without talking about it. Thank you talk for following protocol and bringing this here instead of raging. It sounds like both of you really appreciate NPOV even if you both have very different political views. I hope you both can work together in the future to insure honest information is continued to be shared by Wikipedia. Remember, all peers are equal and if someone posts something they probably believe what they are saying. Ask them what their reasons are before removing non-inflammatory or possibly correct information (because it gets saved anyway). Leave a Citation needed tag and open up a discussion. Remember, Wikipedia doesn’t have rules we have traditions and policies based on consensus. If you disagree with something be WP:Bold but not WP:Reckless also If it ain't broke, don't fix it but also if it is problem try to fix it. Endercase (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@UNSC Luke 1021: So I've been looking at this a bit more. There may be some COI issues but COI is very difficult to prove. As such my suggestion is that Bomberswarm2 really needs to start using more descriptive edit summaries. Sometimes they will change the percentages in locations [without providing a source] (could be they are right) or will [add politically charged words] to non-political articles. Yet, they also seem to have a vast depth of political knowledge and some more esoteric entertainment details. They [can] [be seen] [as removing bias] more often than adding it, as well as [vandalism]. Although, [some of their edits] [are a bit out there] (even if cited) these are generally corrected in short order. My main request would be that they start using more descriptive edit summaries more regularly. Endercase (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Endercase: - Yeah, I saw a comment they made on the WP:TRUMP project saying that he doesn't care what the rules say and he will actively endorse Trump and Pence for 2020 or some other nonsense. I didn't want to bring it up because I came upon it by chance and didn't want to look like I was stalking or NPAing. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 19:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@UNSC Luke 1021: None of my diffs work? (head-desk). I think the main solution is the use of the edit summary, for now anyway. I saw that too, but at the same time I'd rather have an honest editor than one that is lying to everyone. Endercase (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Draft:List of Muslim sex abuse rings in the United Kingdom

General notice. This is admittedly WP:BITING the newcomer but IAR and NPOV applies. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Yitzchak Ginsburgh

This article has recently gained the attention of a new editor who seems to be quite a devotee of this rabbi. Yitzchak Ginsburgh#Teachings shows what we've now got, including the line "He shows astonishing proficiency in Chassidic literature in all its fields and succeeds in elevating mundane concepts to astounding levels, capturing his listeners for hours on end". I've tried to rein this in, but the other editor is persistent and I don't want to edit-war. I'd be grateful if someone else could review this article and adjust (if necessary) for NPOV. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I have made some edits to this article lately, to reign in this new editor. However, I had no problem arguing with this editor, and although there is obviously never a problem with an extra pair of eyes, I see nothing going on that warrants this cry for help. There is a talkpage: take it there. Debresser (talk) 19:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you content with "astonishing proficiency..., elevating mundane concepts to astounding levels"?? You've left this in place. I think it's totally inappropriate, so here we are. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Debresser and Nomoskedasticity: what's the problem with deleting this kind of peacock language? Even assuming it's true (I have no idea and don't care), the language is so overblown that a discerning reader will be put off and think the article is an advertisement. Toning down the language therefore seems to be in everyone's interest (especially that of Ginsburgh and Wikipedia). -Darouet (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I made a few changes to the "teachings" section. Let me know if they seem problematic somehow. I wasn't sure if the material at the end of the section on his annual festival appearance should remain, be deleted, be altered, or what exactly - still sort of comes across like an advert. -Darouet (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

No problem, go right ahead (I see you did). I disagree with Nomoskedasticity's low opinion of the editor's receptiveness, or Nomoskedasticity's apparent opinion that a few edits and talkpage discussions on the article talkpage won't be enough to deal with the issue and outside help is needed. Debresser (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I did make a few edits and started a talk-page discussion; the other editor simply reverted, more than once. (And again you did nothing about the sentences I indicated.) Thank you to Darouet for making a start on dealing with this. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Great. @Debresser and Nomoskedasticity: hopefully you both are able to work things out throughout the rest of the article. -Darouet (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Free banking

• Free banking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

According to our article, extensively sourced to libertarian think tanks and right-wing economists for whom 2007-08 presumably never happened, "Free banking refers to a monetary arrangement in which banks are subject to no special regulations beyond those applicable to most enterprises, and in which they also are free to issue their own paper currency (banknotes)."

Mr. Orwell on line 2...

In the real world, free banking means checking accounts without transaction charges. What the article describes is unregulated banking, which is generally well understood to be (a) hypothetical and (b) a terrible idea.

I think we need to move this article. Guy (Help!) 00:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Guy, I sort of get where you're coming from, but is it true that "Free Banking" is really a commonly used and technical term to describe free checking account arrangements?

I wonder if this issue could be resolved to everyone's satisfaction by moving the article to Free Banking (economic theory) ? -Darouet (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

WP: NPOV problem in the current title-Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China and requested move

In this page I have WP: Conflict of interest, so I need to ask other readers to help determine the WP:NPOV problem. I think there are three questions now.

1. Is the current title commonly used?
2. If the title does not use the Chinese point of view is not neutral?
3. Does the requested title be unusually and not neutral?--Tr56tr (talk) 06:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

It seems that these questions are already being hashed out in the linked discussion, and I don't see a compelling reason to change venues. But short answers: The current name ("incorporation of Tibet...") is not commonly used by sources outside this encyclopedia, and a neutral title is not necessarily one that reflects or aligns with the Chinese government point of view (or, for that matter, the Tibetan government-in-exile's).TheBlueCanoe 04:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tr56tr and TheBlueCanoe: it looks like a lot more discussion has occurred on the talk page of the article than will happen here. I think JFG's summary of that discussion and closure was probably accurate. But then again I tend to agree that "incorporation" is the most neutral term, compared to "invasion, annexation, liberation..." Darouet (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Center for Immigration Studies

Which version do you guys prefer: my version or this version? The latter says in the lead:

Several reports published by the CIS have been widely deemed misleading and riddled with basic errors by scholars on immigration; think tanks from across the ideological and political spectrum; media such as PolitiFact, FactCheck.Org and NBC News; several leading nonpartisan immigration-research organizations; and by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

I argue that this misrepresents several of the sources, assigns undue weight to others (think tanks that advocate for higher levels of immigration disagree with CIS's reports, and vice versa), and is in any case SYNTH as we would need reliable secondary sources to establish that CIS notably many errors compared to other Washington DC thinktanks or that there is this wide cross-partisan consensus that their work is shoddy. Talk starts here. Pinging Volunteer_Marek. NPalgan2 (talk) 14:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

You can hardly argue undue weight, as it is just listing who has criticised them. Which from doing some quick research, appears to be everyone at one point or another except die-hard anti-immigration outlets. We dont need to compare CIS to other think tanks to say 'they have released reports which have been widely held to be misleading.' Unless we start saying 'CIS are worse than other think tanks'. Which as far as I can see no one has attempted. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

PolitiFact and NBC have not "deemed [CIS's reports] misleading and riddled with basic errors". Or take the part about "think tanks from across the ideological and political spectrum" - Cato Institute and Alex Nowrasteh in particular have been frequent critics of CIS. But Poltifact actually deemed the only Cato statement they fact checked 'False' - does that go in Cato Institute lead? Or the mention of ICE - Politifact fact checked Rep. Lamar Smith when he cited that CIS report that the ICE spokespersons disputed and rated it 'half true' because Smith "fails to acknowledge detainees had served criminal sentences and all releases weren't discretionary". But the CIS report did not claim that "all releases were discretionary" http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2014/jun/10/lamar-smith/lamar-smith-claim-about-obamas-prison-break-illega/ and Politifact did not deem the CIS report misleading and riddled with basic errors. So is the fact that ICE disputed a CIS report really so important that it should *be in the lead*? NPalgan2 (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The lead is a summary of the body of the article. The article has a *substantial* section of criticism of its reports. I would be surprised yes if it was not mentioned in the lead. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

if a thinkthank publishes stuff about contentious public policy debates then people on the other side are going to disagree with them, yeah, and it's undue just to count up all the criticism without evaluating whether it is notable criticism or has been validated by independent secondary sources. E.g., should this be summarised as criticism - Politifact's verdict seems pretty even handed to me: "Politifact, when evaluating Frum and Romney's statements, noted that the estimates produced by the study had methodological issues but that overall "both the report’s authors and its critics have reasonable points", and that "no one has disputed that recent immigrants filled a surprising share (more than half) of the added jobs". Or Sherk at Heritage criticizing Matloff - that's just a random thinktank analyst criticizing Matloff on Heritage's website. As I mentioned on the talkpage, Matloff's H1B research has been published in a peer reviewed journal, but Sherk's hasn't. Or a journalist at Think Progress wrote an article crticizing a CIS report on CO2 emissions. Do we mention in the lead of Center for American Progress that it's been criticized by National Review? NPalgan2 (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• CIS is well known among immigraiton scholars as a lobby organization. The diverse critiques of their reports of course needs to be included in the article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether to include criticism of CIS in the article, it's whether it's reasonable to turn "Morici [non-CIS guy] said that all of the nearly 9 million new jobs created since 2000 went to immigrants. His numbers don’t add up. The [CIS] study he cited linked to numbers that showed that immigrants accounted for about 70 percent of the net job growth. While that study’s headline was that all of the new jobs went to immigrants, that only held true for a certain age range, which Morici misapplied to all workers. Morici is correct that foreign-born workers, both citizens and noncitizens, do disproportionately well in the job market. But the actual numbers fall well short of the 100 percent that he said. "All" is an overstatement." which they rated 'mostly false', it seems on the ground of Morici's errors into NBC and Politifact have deemed CIS reports misleading and riddled with basic errors. NPalgan2 (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@NPalgan2 and Volunteer Marek: I'd make two quick notes on this topic. First, I think any neutral reader would read the first paragraph and get a sense that CIS has an agenda. I'm not criticizing that fact, but it's worthwhile to note that for some readers, aspects of the information in the second, proposed paragraph could be easily predicted or even inferred from the first. Second, reading through the article, I'd say that the content of the second lead paragraph is well justified, but that the lead is not a fair summary of the whole article. The lead is also very short. Instead of proposing to delete Marek's paragraph, NPalgan2 have you considered adding another middle paragraph that does more to summarize the article as a whole? -Darouet (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Darouet The difference is not just the lead paragraph but the Reports section here: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Center_for_Immigration_Studies&oldid=772814648 which I edited to give a more balanced 'he said, she said'. What do you think about claims regarding particular organisations like Politifact's view of CIS? I'd be open to a lead paragraph noting criticism of CIS that was better than current version. NPalgan2 (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@NPalgan2: Generally I'm an inclusionist and I see no problem with including the Politifact view (or others). I also agree with careful attribution of opinion, though it seems like both versions are attempting to attribute opinions/statements properly (if there are instances where that's not happening you should point them out).

My only problem with the "Misleading reports" section is that the section title itself wears its view on its sleeve - e.g. declares where it stands quite stridently for readers. I agree personally with the view that these reports are misleading, but writing "misleading reports" as a section title could violate Raul's Razor: "An article is neutral if, after reading it, you cannot tell where the author's sympathies lie." (WP:LAWS). I know we try to avoid "criticism" as a section title but it might be appropriate here. -Darouet (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd be fine with a "Criticism" section, but could "Controversial reports" work? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: "Controversial reports" would be ideal. -Darouet (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

References

RFC: It is “naive” to believe…

Hi.

There is an RFC ongoing here at Talk:Twin paradox. There is text there that currently reads as follows:

This result appears puzzling because each twin sees the other twin as moving, and so, according to an incorrect^[1][2] and naive^[3][4] application of time dilation and the principle of relativity, each should paradoxically find the other to have aged less.

The “naive” bit has received its share of attention on the talk page and there is an editor who frequents the article and opposes all attempts by other editors to delete it. I invite others to weigh in. It seems inappropriate and insulting in an encyclopedia directed to a general-interest readership like Wikipedia, which is certainly not a bulletin board for experts on relativity to hammer each other with insults. Greg L (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Name change discussion at Talk:Liancourt Rocks

Because this issue has been extremely contentious in the past, I invite admins and other interested parties to keep an eye on this name change discussion regarding the future naming of the Liancourt Rocks article. Thank you for participating! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Stolen Generations

I am inviting opinions on a NPOV issue in the Stolen Generations article. [1]

The section titled “Historical debate over the Stolen Generations” has been edited to remove ALL the arguments criticising the premise of the Stolen Generations from a historical point of view. It retains some minor non-historical arguments/information but all arguments, information or explanations from one side of the historical debate have been repeatedly edited out.

It appears from the page history that over a fairly long period of time, numerous editors have attempted to introduce or reintroduce some of it into the article. Every time some of the omitted material has been added or returned it has been removed based on claims that removing one side of the debate ‘improves’ the NPOV, makes it ‘balanced’ or that leaving any of the opposing historical arguments in the article would give those arguments ‘undue weight’.

Apparently for an article on a controversial issue to have a NPOV, only one side of the debate may be represented in it?? I’m not the most experienced editor but that doesn’t seem right. 2001:8003:642A:6C00:D5C2:41E0:A153:C2E4 (talk) 03:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I have left messages on the involved editors' talk pages notifying them of this. 2001:8003:642A:6C00:D5C2:41E0:A153:C2E4 (talk) 03:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I just don't think that a view which dosen't represent historiographical consensus should be given a platform similar to (or even in excess of) to the position that does. El_C 03:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Ditto. The position being postulated for overemphasis is, in fact, a-historical and does not reflect the mainstream view. A blow-by-blow account of a single historian's refutation POV is WP:UNDUE and contravenes WP:BALASP. The historian in question is already well represented in the content. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I would ask objective editors to review the article and judge for yourselves just how much representation of the alternate POV remains in the article after a sustained campaign to remove it. There are a very limited number of historians who have published work covering the Stolen Generations issue, it is a 'niche' historical issue which is perhaps why there are so few involved editors on Wikipedia thus allowing a small number to take control of the article and push the POV that they prefer. There is quite a lot of published work out there from two historians that I am aware of, at least one anthropologist who has addressed the issue directly and many more who have written on the Aboriginal cultural issues involved (such as the cultural practice of infanticide of 'unwanted' children), journalists, missionaries and persons involved in the administration of Aboriginal child welfare. This paints a very different picture to what is being portrayed as the 'mainstream view'. There is a small group of editors currently controlling the article who want none of this in the article. This is still a disputed issue and there should be sufficient representation of the nature of the dispute, the evidence and arguments, in a Wikipedia article if it is going to present a NPOV. 2001:8003:642A:6C00:8C54:1E4D:7B89:BC10 (talk) 23:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

You are mistaking neutrality for WP:GEVAL. There is nothing 'niche' about subject: it is thoroughly documented in scholarly texts, documentaries, etc. It is, in fact, why the apology speech was delivered by Rudd. The Howard government, for example, encouraged and nurtured the academics who pushed the 'Stolen Generation did not exist' line. Serious scholarship has dropped that line. My greater concern now is the tone of your response, particularly comments such as "...many more who have written on the Aboriginal cultural issues involved (such as the cultural practice of infanticide of 'unwanted' children), journalists, missionaries and persons involved in the administration of Aboriginal child welfare..." You what? Where? It seems that you're conflating issues in order to push your own original research. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

And you are misrepresenting the changes that I, and, from the page history, others before me, have proposed to the article. I can't see any indication of any editor requesting equal representation of a minority position WP:GEVAL, simply that there be some inclusion in the text of what that minority position is. It is deceptive for you to pretend that I have been asking for equal representation of a minority position. But you and the other editors have acted to remove any mention of what that position is, even the smallest inclusion, a couple of sentences explaining what the argument is about. My point with respect to the wealth of documentary evidence about Aboriginal cultural practices was to address your deceptive claim that the "position being postulated for overemphasis is, in fact, a-historical". Far from being 'a-historical', the historians and anthropologists and others writing about this issue have been able to cite actual historical evidence for their position. It is not something that they have just made up, the evidence is there to support it. Nor is it original research on my part, it is in the secondary sources. As for the apology speech delivered by Rudd, politicians say all sorts of things if they think it will gather them some political support. 2001:8003:642A:6C00:1057:5416:92AE:50D2 (talk) 13:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: Suggest this discussion be closed per WP:FORUMSHOP. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree. After a quick look at the article and talk page - it seems this more a question of weight than of neutrality, and, if anything, the article gives too much weight to the opinions of the likes of John Howard or Keith Windschuttle. The discussion on the talk page looks like it will be successful. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Interesting that you say that the article "gives too much weight to the opinions of the likes of" Keith Windschuttle. The following is the "weight" of the text in the article which refers to Windschuttle:

Keith Windschuttle and other historians have argued for a much lower figure.

Keith Windschuttle, an Australian historian who argues that various abuses towards Australian Aborigines have been exaggerated and in some cases invented.

Windschuttle wrote a book on the Stolen Generations and was a key figure in the historical debate about it and the article now contains 2 sentences which mention him but give no details as to his evidence or arguments.

I think you are demonstrating a clear political bias when you refer to "the likes of John Howard or Keith Windschuttle". 124.177.138.139 (talk) 08:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg

There's been a dispute over how/whether to cover the plagiarism scandal in any detail at Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg. Briefly, a scandal surrounding alleged plagiarism in his doctoral thesis led to Guttenberg's resignation as the German Minister of Defense, and his (up until now) withdrawal from elective politics. I'll post at the BLP noticeboard to ask about weight issues, but I just wanted editors here to review the section I wrote, and to give any suggestions on neutral tone.

The section I wrote is here: [2].

Two editors have objected that my proposed text is not neutral. I have attempted to discuss with them here, but their response has essentially been, "try again from scratch." What I'm looking for them to identify concrete problems with the text, and to propose changes, rather than rejecting it in its entirety. Perhaps editors here could give the text a look and weigh in on its neutrality, and what changes could be made. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: Is there any specific text or portion of the text that has been criticized, and if so can you let us know what to look for?

Reading through the proposed text, I have one suggestion. The text states at one point, "It also emerged that Guttenberg had requested a report from the Bundestag's research department..." It appears this was found in a report by Der Spiegel, which is the source cited. I would change this to, "According to a report by Der Spiegel, Guttenberg requested..."

Also, the main article for the plagiarism scandal Causa Guttenberg states that (at least) two criminal complaints were launched against Gutenberg for plagiarism, sourced to the FAZ. That should probably appear somewhere in the section on the plagiarism scandal. -Darouet (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Darouet: Thank you for your suggestion. I'm not sure if "According to a report by Der Spiegel" is really appropriate, however. While Der Spiegel broke the story, it has since been confirmed by many journalistic outlets, and the research reports that Guttenberg requested are now part of the public record. Here are a couple of sources confirming the story: [3] [4] [5].

"Is there any specific text or portion of the text that has been criticized, and if so can you let us know what to look for?" There are two overarching criticisms of the text. One criticism is that the text is too long, since a separate article covering the scandal exists (Causa Guttenberg). The other criticism, made by the exact same editors, is that the text does not include a whole number of different minor aspects of the scandal, listed here. I find it hard to reconcile these two criticisms. One asks for the text to be shortened, and the other asks for a dramatic expansion of the text to cover nearly every minor detail of the scandal.

I think it's possible for a summary to be neutral, without mentioning every single aspect of the subject. I've tried to strike a balance between keeping the summary short (4 paragraphs in a much longer article) and mentioning the elements of the plagiarism scandal that received the most coverage. I've asked the two editors who took issue with my text to propose specific changes, but they reject the text in its entirety. If the dispute were simply about one or another detail being covered, I would expect some sort of compromise to be possible. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I think you can find a way of noting that it was Der Spiegel 's report without making it appear as though only Der Spiegel has confirmed this fact.

@Thucydides411: The main article Causa Guttenberg is poorly written and had no lead, so I've copied the bio summary over to the lead there: [6]. Let me know if this is alright. -Darouet (talk) 16:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Darouet: That's fine by me. The summary works well as a lede for Causa Guttenberg. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Please kindly see here: Your input on current RfC is appreciated

The current RfC at the European Graduate School talk page requires your input on specific discussions surrounding the selective use of primary sources in relation to the wider question of neutral point of view. Many thanks! Mootros (talk) 05:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Two POV fork articles on the same person

Alexis d'Anjou-Durassow is the positive one, and Alexis Brimeyer is the negative one. KMF (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Alexis d'Anjou-Durassow, which accepted Brimayer's false pretensions to various thrones, has been redirected to Alexis Brimeyer. The redirect may need protecting — I'm putting it on my watchlist. Bishonen | talk 11:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC).

Putin goal to "attack" Clinton

Also in Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, we write "U.S. officials said that under Putin's direction, the goals evolved from criticizing American democracy to attacking Clinton..."

The Reuters source reads, ""This began merely as an effort to show that American democracy is no more credible than Putin's version is," one of the officials said. "It gradually evolved from that to publicizing (Hillary) Clinton's shortcomings and ignoring the products of hacking Republican institutions, which the Russians also did," the official said." [7]

This is just one U.S. official, stating that according to U.S. intelligence, Russian hacking goals evolved to include publicizing Clinton's shortcomings. I think there's no reason to use language more inflammatory than in the source provided and don't believe our summary is accurate. Input appreciated here as well -Darouet (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, Darouet. If we summarize the comments of Obama administration intelligence officials regarding Vladimir Putin's alleged aims as that article does, adding analysis to what was said, it's not just a POV issue, it's WP:SYNTH, and possibly WP:OR as well. If we give that official's statements that sort of credence, we must paraphrase him in a way that is faithful to what he actually said. The situation in our article you described is indeed a POV issue. loupgarous (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Trump "Attacked" US intelligence agencies

In the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections lead, we currently write that "President-elect Donald Trump... attacked the intelligence agencies in a transition team statement," citing Bloomberg News [8].

The source reads, "President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team dismissed claims of foreign interference in this year’s elections as the CIA reportedly concluded that Russia had intervened to help the Republican candidate and shared its findings with lawmakers in a private briefing."

The source later includes a subheading, "Trump dismissive," and also uses the verb "scoffs." The word "attack" doesn't appear anywhere in the source to describe Trump's response.

There has been a debate on the talk page over whether the word "attacked" or "dismissed" is better suited, and input would be appreciated. -Darouet (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

"Attacked" is more emotionally loaded than "dismissed". We dismiss faulty information many times a day without the act rising to the level of an attack. In this particular case, the source doesn't support the use of the word attack to describe the response; calling it an "attack" could be construed as WP:SYNTH. Do you need this assessment on the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections talk page, or can I just post it here? I am looking at that talk page now and don't see the "attack vs. dismiss" discussion. loupgarous (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Vfrickey: This particular NPOV discussion was archived here: Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 7#NPOV language. You'll find many more POV disputes to ponder by perusing the archives. — JFG ^talk 23:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks! loupgarous (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute on Article: "First Epistle to Timothy"

I am in dispute with Antinoos69 regarding maintaining NPOV in the article, "First Epistle to Timothy". It seems that I am not the first to have this dispute with Antinoos69. PeacePeace in the Talk section of this article page also brought up similar issues last year with Antinoos69, but Antinoos69 would not deviate from his position. Antinoos69 has had contentious exchanges with JohnThorne on the Talk section of the article covering 1 Timothy 1. This uncompromising approach by Antinoos69 has resulted in a series of "undos" that has resulted in a protection against editing for several days. I am following the directions of the Admin who suggested the next course is to post to the NPOV noticeboard. I have tried to work with Antinoos69, but to no avail. I have discussed the unsubstantiated claims of the sources he has used and he challenged me to find contradicting sources. I have posted them to the article and amended the article with in-text attribution so as to maintain the POV he so desperately wants to keep. He has rejected all of the sources I incorporated and is unwilling to consider the use of in-text attribution. I have also considered some of the criticism of some of the sources I introduced and I willing removed one. He has ceased discussion and indicated that he would simply "undo" every time I introduce an edit. I'm not entirely sure what more I can do. Antinoos69 has already stated his general distaste for the WIKI block policy and procedures. Based on his unyielding positions he has displayed when working with others, I believe his distaste goes beyond just the WIKI block policy and procedures.66.215.220.110 (talk) 04:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

This is absolutely ridiculous. First, I've been trying to get you to engage substantively on Talk:First Epistle to Timothy for ages, providing multiple avenues for you to pursue. It's been like pulling teeth. Second, the issue isn't NPOV but WP:RS/AC and the fact that your sources don't say what you think they do. Actually, what I very strongly suspect is that you are duplicitously misrepresenting sources and policies in order to get the article to represent your "alternative facts." Anyone can review the details at Talk:First Epistle to Timothy. Needless to say, one cannot even begin to discuss NPOV, or know whether it is even relevant, until one first understands what the relevant sources are actually saying. Consequently, this dispute doesn't belong here at all. The real issue is your disruptive editing. Antinoos69 (talk) 04:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC) And, third, the administrator suggested this noticeboard as one of several possible avenues to pursue—yet more all-too-convenient and maddening misrepresentation. This avenue is the wrong one. Antinoos69 (talk) 05:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• Difficult to know from the above quite what the dispute is - but it is certainly correct that for Wikipedia to say "most scholars agree ... " (or similar), a decent cited source needs to be saying that too. Alexbrn (talk) 07:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

First Epistle to Timothy already provides such statements with such sources. Those sources provide the only scholarly position on what the scholarly consensus is. The problem is that 66.215.220.110 wishes to provide at least one source—and I strongly suspect all his/her remaining sources are of this type, but he/she keeps refusing to quote them on the talk page, and I won't hunt them down after I already caught him/her misrepresenting sources—that doesn't actually address what the scholarly consensus is. That source merely addresses some of the scholarly options, in the following general form: "some" (i.e., "writers") believe X, "some" believe Y, and "some" believe Z, without further specification regarding "some." 66.215.220.110 wishes to misread/misrepresent that as an explicit statement on scholarly consensus contradicting the sources already cited in the article. Of course, it is no such thing, which I'm all but certain he/she understands perfectly well. (Details can be found on Talk:First Epistle to Timothy.) As I said, none of this is a NPOV issue at this time. It is a matter of (mis)interpretation and (mis)use of sources, not to mention disruptive editing. It doesn't belong here. Antinoos69 (talk) 08:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Unless the IP can actually bring up specific violations of NPOV this should be closed. Doug Weller talk 10:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't know who recommended NPOVN, I suppose WP:DRN might be possible too (however, not before this thread is closed in order to avoid WP:FORUMSHOPping).

On the ground of the matter: it is always difficult to summarize what a group of commentators say (even when grouped by denominational or philosophical similarities). A chronological narrative regarding what authors said in the authenticity & time of origin debate may be a way out. In general I support the anon's approach to name authors when their view on authenticity/time of origin of the letter is rendered in Wikipedia.

Another issue with the article is that after the #Date section, all further sections of the article are more or less written from the perspective that the letter "is" authentic. E.g. if the epistle could have been written in the second century, it should not be described as a "fact" that the receiver of the letter "is" the same Timothy as mentioned in Acts 16:1 (etc). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The point at issue isn't the history of scholarship, quite a separate and enormous subject, or the other problems with the article, which are legion. At issue is a very specific and narrow claim about the current academic consensus, regarding which no genuine alternative scholarly views have been presented, because there aren't any. There is no debate to present on the fact of that consensus. If there were, a purely contrafactual hypothetical, that would require an entirely different approach, as I state on the article's talk page. But there isn't. The IP is ideologically driven on this matter. Wikipedia does not countenance "alternative facts." Antinoos69 (talk) 11:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd avoid claims about "current academic consensus" if it is that difficult to determine such consensus from the sources. Even more: technically "current" should better be avoided as a style issue (we have guidance about that: MOS:CURRENT, MOS:RELTIME,...) See also elaborate example I was writing for comparison below ("ec" paragraphs): in the first decade of the 21st century scholar consensus seemed to lean towards "inauthentic" until statistical analysis proved incapable to demonstrate it was not by Bach... I wouldn't know what the "current" academic consensus is on the issue: any source describing a "current" academic consensus can be stale tomorrow, so I would, never, as in never at all, use the expression "current academic consensus" in an authenticity debate. Even if tomorrow physical proof emerges to decide the issue one way or another I wouldn't say "current" when inserting such material in Wikipedia (I'd rather say "as of <date>..."). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

(ec) The case made me think of BWV 565 (different topic, similar Date/Authenticity issues: for the first two-and-a-half centuries of its existence it was attributed to Bach with "no questions asked", and then, since around the 1980s, literature started to emerge denying, and then after that defending, its authenticity)

• The article doesn't contain an unqualified statement that it "was" composed by Bach (see e.g. "according to its oldest extant sources" insertion in lead sentence)
• avoid grouping of sources on the authenticity debate (rather name individual scholars)
• (more or less) chronological narrative allows to discuss 18th- 19th- and 20th-century analyses of the composition and reception from before the authenticity debate era.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 12:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Francis, there isn't the slightest difficulty to determining the academic consensus from the sources. They are explicit, clear, in agreement, and in accord with WP:RS/AC. The problem is that the IP has an agenda, on behalf of which he/she is willing to very clearly and starkly misrepresent sources that say nothing on the matter, as I have detailed. I believe you would benefit from actually taking a glance at First Epistle to Timothy and Talk:First Epistle to Timothy to acquire some vague idea of what is being discussed, which you now lack. You are going way off reservation here. And, possessing a degree in biblical studies, I already know exactly what claims should be made here, why, and what reliable sources say on the matter. Frankly, if the IP were one of my students, graduate or undergraduate, I would question his/her suitability for university. That's how patently absurd the IP is being here. Fortunately, no student has ever directed any such absurdities or tortured misrepresentations of sources at me. Things would go poorly for any who did. I certainly agree, however, that this NPOV matter here should be closed. Antinoos69 (talk) 16:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I had already read the article (as you might have noticed from what I wrote above). I now had a glance at the talk page too: frankly, your paternalistic attitude doesn't agree with me, and seems like a major obstacle to an end of the talking next to each other. Also, please stop aspersions regarding agendas by others and the like. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I think when reliable sources say scholars as a group think in a certain way, these sources are brilliant for us, since the scholars are reliable in their own right, and individual ones from among them are separately reliable concerning what their consensus view is. If a source reliable for the statement states scholars have a consensus view, I don't see a problem stating in Wikipedia's neutral voice that scholars as a group hold this view. This is also more useful for the reader compared to citing "A says X, B also says X, C says Y", which can easily mislead. Having said that, everyone should maintain a cool and professional attitude. Editors shouldn't argue with each other, but let the issues sort themselves out. --Dailycare (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Francis, when editors demonstrate they have agendas and undeniably misrepresent sources, and grossly so, I will certainly point it out. Period. I'm not going to play games or lie about the facts. They are what they are. I've had my fill of misrepresentations already. I'm not going to contribute my own. As for the IP, I've already explained to him/her on the article's talk page what he/she would have to do to change my position, repeatedly. He/She has refused. Ask yourself why. It would be so very easy to do, if the sources existed. Antinoos69 (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I certainly appreciate everyone’s input. I know that it takes a lot of everyone’s time to engage in this discussion. I also want to recognize Antinoos69 for engaging in this discussion. As I read through the thread, I can see that Francis Schonken has experienced some of the same frustrations with Antinoos69 as I have experienced with Antinoos69’s “paternalistic attitude”. I also see that Antinoos69 has tried (as he has in times past) to sway the discussion by his self-proclaimed credentials of “possessing a degree in religious studies” instead of the merits of his argument. And what do we really know about Antinoos69 other than the themes of writings and paintings on his talk and user page, perhaps connotations of his user name, his history of edit-warring, and the value of his discussion with others. This is who he is in the Wiki community. However, all have biases. This is a fact of the world. What is important is that we recognize our biases and do not allow them to stifle alternate viewpoints in the articles. It is not ours to sway readership opinion, like the editorial page of a newspaper. It is ours to bring out alternative viewpoints so that the readers can consider these and reach their own conclusion. This concept is embodied in Wikipedia’s NPOV policy. So, I ask all here. Does it make sense in this article to bring in alternate points of view and who is it here that only wants to show one point of view?66.215.220.110 (talk) 15:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

66.215.220.110 Eloquently said. I've been following this "discussion" not only here, but further on the article's Talk Page ever since it appeared here; and regardless of my opinion of the relevance for the discussion, I have come away with one very glaring observation: there are editors that exhaust my patience and attention with their endless dominance and need for control that even if they were to provide Timothy himself as a reliable source, I would side against them. It says a lot for how our appearances and our contributions can differ drastically to the point of almost working against us. Maineartists (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia's practice to invent "alternative viewpoints," as you have been doing with regard to the scholarly consensus on the authorship of 1 Timothy. Doing so generally runs afoul of WP:OR, to say the least. And some of your comments about me are flirting with homophobic harassment. I expect you to stop. Antinoos69 (talk) 09:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

ATTENTION: 66.215.220.110 has resumed his/her edit warring now that the pages' edit protection has expired. He/She still has not achieved consensus for these changes, and I adamantly oppose them. Antinoos69 (talk) 07:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Fox hunting non-NPOV

I have added a NPOV section to the talk page for the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_hunting To avoid taking unilateral action as I do not have the time to actively participate in that discussion, if there is some agreement about POV issue in the article, could somebody add a non-NPOV tag to the article for me. Thanks!132.205.228.106 (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016

The United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 (in normal modern British (and even Irish, Australian and New Zealand) English, it is actually simply "United Kingdom European Union membership referendum 2016", without a comma...I blame probably "trolling", from people effectively imposing effectively American English (or "Oxford English", or British English 150 years ago) onto titles for articles on modern British events, supposedly "for uniformity", for this!) is written in a highly biased tone, especially in its Wp:LEDE, certainly the wording "to gauge support".

The Referendum of the 23rd June 2016 was subsequently ruled as effectively advisory in nature in the judgment of the case of R (on the application of Miller and Dos Santos) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union of the Divisional Court (Queen's Bench Division (QBD)) of the High Court of England and Wales (EWHC) on the 3rd November 2016 ([2016] EWHC 2768 (Admin) (CO/3809/2016; CO/3281/2016)), and then confirmed on appeal by a separate judgment of the United Kingdom Supreme Court (UKSC) ([2017] UKSC 5 (UKSC 2016/0196)) on the 24th January 2017, which was subsequently effectively partially overturned, by implication, by the wording of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 (2017 c. 9) [9][10], which states that "the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU", which (by wording) clearly infers (implies) that the referendum was to be made retrospectively legally binding in British law at the same time as authorizing Theresa May to invoke Article 50, by formal notification.

The British doctrine and the Westminster system of Parliamentary sovereignty mean that the British Parliament is entitled and empowered to pass laws to be enacted to partially or wholly reverse or overturn judgments of the English and British Courts (see [11] back in the year 1689 (O.S.)), even retrospectively, in the form of something called emergency retrospective legislation. [12][13][14] There is nothing particularly controversial about this. See e.g. the subsequent history of the British case law of Derry v Peek.

I think that the words "to gauge support" here smack more of some extreme diehard "Remoaners" editorialising here on Wikipedia, who probably genuinely believed (and no doubt still genuinely believe) that the British Parliament, Theresa May as British Prime Minister and the Conservative British Government-of-the-day did not actually have to do anything because "the Referendum was advisory" but they chose to enact, make into force and implement Brexit anyway in the form of (authorizing and then implementing) Article 50 Invocation...and to back up my claim, the words used in Wikipedia were certainly "plagiarised" since by people who obviously opposed (and remain obviously opposed to) Brexit. [15][16][17][18] -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 08:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Well I would say the referendum was advisory as it was not (in fact) legally binding.Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Which was subsequently overridden by statute, by something called the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017. Unlike in the U.S. with the U.S. Congress, here in the UK, the British Parliament IS allowed (entitled; empowered) to BOTH pass (and caused it to be enacted) retrospective ex post facto laws (certainly civil), and to also override the British Courts by overturning judgments of the British Courts...or have I been missing something here?! -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

The referendum was not legally binding when held, so it was advisory. What you're doing is WP:SYNTH: the Act does not say that the referendum is made retrospectively legally binding; rather, that's an interpretation you're yourself making by putting together several (unrelated, in most cases) sources and reaching a conclusion on your own not explicitly stated in the sources. There's little discussion on this, really; I think you're mistaking the concepts of "legally binding" and "politically binding". Impru20 (talk) 10:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

If you are in fact Spanish yourself and living in Spain, you are hardly an unbiased editor (you could be the Spanish equivalent of a civil servant, working in the , for all we know!), especially given the recent controversy over Gibraltar (and all the suspicious previous (and corresponding) pro-Spanish edits regarding Gibraltar in Brexit-related articles)! -- 87.102.116.36 (talk)

You should know that WP:GOODFAITH exists. The mere fact that I'm Spanish doesn't turn me into a biased editor just because you argue about Gibraltar and blah blah blah. I care a shit about Gibraltar nor does the issue at hand relate to it in any way (we're just talking about whether the referendum was advisory or legally binding. I don't know what Gibraltar has to do with this). I just commented my opinion here on such an issue. So, no, I'm not suspicious of anything. Rather, you should learn to assume good faith from others and to actually counter their arguments with good reasonings and not by accusing them of whatever just based on their nationality. That'd be close to racism, I think. Impru20 (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't matter a damn what any of us think its status was: the only thing that matters is what a WP:reliable source says it was. And without a shadow of doubt, the most reliable and NPOV source in this case is the Supreme Court. They declared (a) that the referendum was consultative, not binding - for the very simple reason that [unlike the Scottish Independence and Alternative Vote referendums] the Act that established it did not declare it to be binding and (b) that for this and other reasons, it would be unconstitutional for the Government to use the Royal Prerogative to give notice of withdrawal but would require Parliament's authorisation in the form of an enabling Act to do so. I agree that the words "to gauge opinion" need improving but may only be replaced by words having exactly the same meaning.

By the way, I know that we should wp:assume good faith but when you use ad hominem attack words like 'remoaner', it is very difficult to take you seriously as a proponent of WP:neutral point of view. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:41, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

What fantasy, make-belief "Remaoner" World is this?! The point about the Supreme Court is moot, because any subsequent Act of Parliament clearly trumps and overrides any previous (conflicting) judgment or judgments of the UKSC...By your own admission, the Act "authorises", not "requires", Brexit (in the form of the invoking of Article 50 by formal notification)...surely, a purely advisory referendum (which is NOT actually what the UKSC said (in the exact words) either, by the way) would have required Parliament to explicitly direct and order ("shall" (i.e., must), not authorise ("may")) Theresa May as PM to trigger Brexit, no?! Like I said, the Act was clearly written (and then passed, and then enacted) on and with the understanding that the referendum was (and is) to be treated and deemed as retrospectively legally binding...and the Scottish referendum was somehow legally binding?! In WHAT way?! Ever heard of WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source?! That Scotland would somehow become automatically independent from the United Kingdom upon the event of a "Yes" vote?! Scottish Independence without a separate Act of the British Parliament is and would have been a British constitutional impossibility! What have you been smoking?! You have been relying on your own original research (albeit-backed-up-by-Wikipedia (or rather, your own edits)), you mean, haven't you?! The Scottish referendum was certainly NOT mentioned (as somehow legally binding, or more legally binding) as such in the UKSC judgment, you must have been simply making this up! I want the relevant paragraphs in the UKSC judgment and their Paragraph numbers, please! -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

And changing entries on Wikipedia to score cheap, petty and otherwise meaningless pro-Remain political points (even AFTER Article 50 has already been triggered; i.e., as a [diehard] Remoaner), and then pretending that you are not editing Wikipedia in a biased, partisan fashion, and then trying to throw the Wikipedia book on me (but not before quoting some clearly made-up, Wikipedia-based, (equally) OR-esque stuff), is hardly editing Wikipedia in good faith either! -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Can someone quote the relevant parts of European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 that stated that (retrospectively) stated that the referendum was legally binding? Ohh and stop calling people Remoaner (aas well as all the other personal comments), it is a personal attack and is forbidden under the current rules of Wikipedia.Slatersteven (talk) 08:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Wage gap

I have recently stumbled upon an article online, which proves that gender wage gap is not real anymore. However our article covering this topic does not agree with this opinion. The article [19] specifically brings up a theme of women working on less paid positions. As well as that, it is very clear that after the Equal Pay Act of 1963 the sex wage gap in the US is not a thing anymore. However, article on gender pay gap state, that in the US it is illegal or might not even exist. I might be wrong, but I think that the theme of gender wage gap should be reviewed on POV violations and/or brought to the arbitration committee. Cheers, FriyMan ^talk 16:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

One article doth not a social-scientific consensus make. If there are a succeeding spate of articles that form a collection of WP:RS, then we update our article to note the controversy. If there are a lot of articles that agree that the controversy is over, then we make our article reflect the historical developments. In this case, however, one economist's article in an alumni mag, even Harvard's, is not "proof" by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Day-care sex-abuse hysteria

Editors are invited to participate in Talk:Day-care sex-abuse hysteria#RfC: Overall compliance with BLP and neutrality policies, where there are potential neutrality/BLP problems that might necessitate a major structural overhaul of the article, or even deletion. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Fritz Korbach

Fritz Korbach was a Dutch/German football coach. For know, the lead highlights him racially abusing lack players, Bryan Roy and Romário in a 1991 interview. None of the Dutch mainstream mediabobituaries considered this was notable enough to mention. At Talk:Fritz Korbach I discussed to remove it, for WP:UNDUE-reasons. However, someone else argued that it was "covered, by various sources to various levels of depth, and which relates directly to his professional career and what he is known for." I doubt if that is true, since the much larger German an the Dutch articles on Korbach did not consider it notable enough to include it. Therefore, is it notable enough to include the affair in the English-language article, and if so, should it be in the lead section? Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 10:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

There's a difference between relocating it (which I would support) and removing it entirely (which I oppose). GiantSnowman 12:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Moved content to "Career" since nothing in article furthers statement in lede. Maineartists (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)