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

NPOV dispute in "electronic harassment"

We have been over it many times in the Talk page and getting nowhere, so I am seeking other opinions. At present Electronic_harassment is written in the majority view which is to say: "The experience of TIs are hallucinations and the explanations arise from delusional disorders or psychosis." (TIs being people who believe they are subject to covert targeting.) This assumes the psychiatric opinion as fact. However, there has been a significant Washington Post article on TIs, Mind Games, which, it seems to me, says that there may be something really happening to these people, that they may not be deluded. I would like to see the EH article incorporate what I see as the opinion of the Washington Post, which for starters would not have written such an article if they thought that TIs were entirely delusional, they would have written an article on a disturbing mass delusion. There are many points made in that article, and the two other similar articles cited, that support the view that, whilst the article should state the psychiatric opinion it should only state it as an opinion, not as a fact. I will go through the points from those three articles one at a time if that is necessary.Jed Stuart (talk) 03:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Working through the Mind Games article for instances that support my position that the EH article should be written as an open question as to whether there is real targeting happening, not just delusions, extracts from the first few paragraphs say: "IF HARLAN GIRARD IS CRAZY, HE DOESN'T ACT THE PART. .....At 70, he appears robust and healthy -- not the slightest bit disheveled or unusual-looking. He is also carrying a bag.

Girard's description of himself is matter-of-fact, until he explains what's in the bag: documents he believes prove that the government is attempting to control his mind. He carries that black, weathered bag everywhere he goes. 'Every time I go out, I'm prepared to come home and find everything is stolen,' he says.

The bag aside, Girard appears intelligent and coherent. At a table in front of Dunkin' Donuts inside the train station, Girard opens the bag and pulls out a thick stack of documents, carefully labeled and sorted with yellow sticky notes bearing neat block print. The documents are an authentic-looking mix of news stories, articles culled from military journals and even some declassified national security documents that do seem to show that the U.S. government has attempted to develop weapons that send voices into people's heads.

'It's undeniable that the technology exists,' Girard says, 'but if you go to the police and say, 'I'm hearing voices,' they're going to lock you up for psychiatric evaluation.'"

The Washington Post obviously is of the opinion that Girard might not be crazy and is giving him the space to say that he thinks the government is doing something to him. This surely is saying that the WP is of the opinion that it is an open question not definite evidence of delusions? My first attempt to post the above led to it disappearing on clicking "Save Page" Jed Stuart (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The last sentence is too much. Seriously though the article acknowledges the experience of voices etc is real. There is no way however that WP will say that the cause might actually be this high tech conspiracy. It is against WP:PSCI; there are no reliable sources that say these technologies actually exist much less are actually being used. (and the second is important - we would need both) Jytdog (talk) 03:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no real dispute in the WP sense here. We have an WP:SPA editor pushing a WP:FRINGE idea, and everyone else telling this editor to please stop. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Jed Stuart, you may find the page at WP:1AM to be helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The OP, a polite but inexperienced WP:SPA, has been told many times by experienced editors that this will simply not fly, but unfortunately has failed to understand. I'm afraid that Jed is coming from an In-Universe POV, and the crowbar of understanding is so far simply not working. We need a bigger crowbar, and a very firm foundation for the fulcrum. Guy's essay ought to help, and WP:OUCH may also be pertinent. I, on the other hand, think it may be too late. -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC) -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Replying to all: I am not an SPA. I have 3 separate areas of interest and experience, however I have only done two edits in WP in the 'electronic harassment' article. Both edits are now gone so I have effectively done none. For now I only have limited time for participation and decided to use it to attempt to get that article NPOV rather than 100% weight to the psychiatric opinion and 0% weight to the claims of TIs. To state the psychiatric opinion as fact in that way is to entirely negate the claims of TIs, which seems inappropriate. I am only attempting to integrate the view of the Washington Post article Mind Games which gives the TI claims a 'might be something in it'. I think those claims should be described as a conspiracy theory (although I would prefer conspiracy belief as they are not seeming to come at it from a theoretical perspective, but more from an attempt to describe weird experiences). To pitch the article as psychiatric opinion vs TI conspiracy theory is not to push a fringe idea as is claimed that I am doing. TIs seem to be always willing to admit that they have no hard evidence but nevertheless their claims are gaining considerable traction in alternative mass media. e.g. Coast to Coast AM, Jessie Ventura. So it seems that Alternative View - TIs Conspiracy Theory, or some such, would be appropriate, and not Fringe Delusion.

The article WP:1AM is interesting, but that has not been the situation for long. There have been many other editors on my side of the debate contributing to the Talk page, and who have given up in frustration at the immovable block of editors insisting that TI claims MUST be described as definitely delusions. My attempts to set up mediation only resulted in a fake mediation which was closed before I had the chance to reply. Yes, I was slow to get back to the mediation, but they should be fully aware by now that I only contribute every 2-3 days.

As to the point by jytdog "There is no way however that WP will say that the cause might actually be this high tech conspiracy. It is against WP:PSCI; there are no reliable sources that say these technologies actually exist much less are actually being used." The 'Mind Games' article goes in depth into the question of technology and the possibility that something like an extension of the MKUltra project has been in operation since MKUltra was exposed and closed down. The latter point is consistent with the WP article Project MKUltra section 12 Aftermath [[1]] Jed Stuart (talk) 03:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Jed Stuart It doesn't matter how reasonably well you argue. As stiff as it is, this article (as well as others involving Government crimes) are in the hands of conservative groups, probably a joint of real undercover agents (would you ever believe wikipedia had undercover agents editing it?.. I still have problems believing this but I'm trying to not exclude it) and wannabes trying to "do the work better". Either that, or it's a matter of fact that the vast majority of people cannot accept the chance that Federal agencies are still onto MKUltra and COINTELPRO alike programs. Everyone is entiteld to their opinion and, to quote a good one, "I would give my life to protect your right to have one", but hey.. sources speak clear at loads that Electronic harassment is an open question, not a verified illness. I'm sorry if you feel offended but I really have no personal hate towards any of you thus I don't consider it a personal attack (not to mention I'm doing it for a better wikipedia). This article should be taken to WP:ANI or WP:AE because indeed it is a matter of behavior in a too disputed argument. It's so disputed that even opening a case at WP:MEDCOM would ultimately be justifiable. Specifically WP:Civil POV pushing is what I broadly would invite to look into, but the problem sets immediatly as: how can ANI, AE and MEDCOM be free of "whitewashing agents" looking to basically protect their reputation?

The editors involved in the writing of this article are generally not looking to discuss, they are whether purpotedly or not willfull in coordinating denial over the chance Electronic harassment is an open question which, according to wikipedia's policies and guidelines, it results as such. Yet we have this undercover conservative editors and admins looking after their clerk editing wikipedia reputation, denying vital info that could even alleviate the pain possible victims may be really going through the way it is claimed, which soundss absolutely detestable and repugnant. The way the article is written is unacceptable considering the many sources available. Also every source keeps on being rejected with inconsiderate nonchalance and often bad faith. About bad faith for example, how can you consider alien abductions notable enough to be compiled into such a biased article? How can you compare the chance of State terrorism with that of extraterrestrials abducting humans? Why are you so keen on trying to fool us (editors and especially readers), regular unknown people, simple internet users that never did you any wrong? Let's face it, building 7 could not come down the way we are told. And neither the twins. I must be taking myself too seriously in trying to subvert this specific wikipedia censorship.. but the point I guess, is that I always related to knowledge with pure openness, thus it must hurt to see wikipedia being gamed by a bunch of who knows who nobodies.

However, I'm not here just to shout wishy-washy, I would like to point to the lack of hystorical perspective, mentioned with other words by Jed Stuart in the above comment. There have been many "attempts" to correct the censoring POV of the article throughout the last months/years, but I never came accross anyone mentioning WP:RECENT, a decently important essay. WP:RECENT is spot on firstly because COINTELPRO and MKULTRA are hystorial heavy weighting notable and verified clandestine projects which should be more seriously taken into account, and secondly because fundamentally the whole present bias is based on contemporary years's mainstream news about a modern phenomena revolving around internet communities that show traits of mental illnesses. Nonetheless, various reliable sources indicate the existence of weapons meant to induce mental illnesses thus it really is a gigantic mistake to propose the mental illness theory as fact.

There would be more to discuss about, but it's just too frustrating for anyone to be maliciously outnumbered the way it happens all the time. I guess that's why the degree of incivilty is non-existent on the side of the civil (indeed) pov pushers. What about the pointlessness in WP:SPA accusations? Do you think everyone can dedicate their working day to editing an encyclopedia? Let's resume good ol' Aaron Swartz for a minute:

Writing an encyclopedia is hard. To do anywhere near a decent job, you have to know a great deal of information about an incredibly wide variety of subjects. Writing so much text is difficult, but doing all the background research seems impossible.

On the other hand, everyone has a bunch of obscure things that, for one reason or another, they’ve come to know well. So they share them, clicking the edit link and adding a paragraph or two to Wikipedia. At the same time, a small number of people have become particularly involved in Wikipedia itself, learning its policies and special syntax, and spending their time tweaking the contributions of everybody else.

Other encyclopedias work similarly, just on a much smaller scale: a large group of people write articles on topics they know well, while a small staff formats them into a single work. This second group is clearly very important — it’s thanks to them encyclopedias have a consistent look and tone — but it’s a severe exaggeration to say that they wrote the encyclopedia. One imagines the people running Britannica worry more about their contributors than their formatters.

What about that argument about pseudoscience detracting from notability?.. Have a read at what's written at the bottom of this for instance. The point with pseudoscience anyway, is like the one with comparing alien abductions to State terrorism: there are reliable sources citing the existence of these exotic weapons just as we have prove of, at least past, State terrorism (it always shows up after a while for some reason, and it's always about other countries, other cultures, other languages), while on the other hand there are no reliable sources citing the existence of extraterrestrials anywhere close enough to our planet, not to mention the abduction part. I know you will keep on stonewalling anyway, I already came to the understand there's no chance of having a un-POVed debate on this article, thus why am I trying my best to contribute to this article? Probably just because Jed is being treated unfairly. Have a good evening all. 82.59.56.100 (talk) 01:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Since mentioning sources, is this one from 2008 relevant in your opinion? Peer reviewed by a University. The author is an academic definitely in good-standing even to date and mainstream nonetheless, Kingsley Dennis. What else is needed to accept Jed's suggestion of writing the Electronic harassment page as an open question? 87.1.117.202 (talk) 14:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

What would it take for us to conclude that the reality of electronic harassment is an open question?

1. It would have to actually be an open question, which it is not. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Fringe theories and pseudoscience.
2. Your "reliable source" would have to actually say what you claim it says, which it does not. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#First Monday (journal)

Might I suggest [ https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/ ] as a more appropriate place for your theories? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Continual assertions that it is not an open question followed by directions to those Wikipedia policies that we are fully aware of in this discussion and are interpreting differently, says absolutely nothing. Referring to an article that is in question as to whether it is a reliable source, but which nobody has used in the EH article, is confusing the issue. It is the Washington Post article "Mind Games" which has been cited in the article and which is the basis of my opinion that the article should be written as an open question.Jed Stuart (talk) 03:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Unless 87.1.117.202 is you editing while logged out, I wasn't responding to you. 87.1.117.202 referenced the First Monday journal in the post I replied to.

As for Mind Games you have received your answer multiple times, the latest at [ Talk:Electronic harassment#open question that covert targeting could be happening? ]. One comment in that discussion stands out, and I agree with it 100%:

"Jed, you have cited that same quote from the Washington Post article on these Talk pages twice before here and here. Both times, the reasons why it does not justify giving credibility to the fringe theory have been patiently explained to you. You ask over and over again why we can't treat the topic as "an open question", and over and over again it gets explained to you. You repeatedly ask why the article can't balance psychiatrists opinions with delusional people's opinions, and it is repeatedly explained to you why our policies can't permit that. Your account is 4 years old, and your only interest on Wikipedia is this one topic. Although you have been polite about it, even politely asking the same questions over and over again is a form of WP:DISRUPTION."[2]

Please drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe we are going nowhere because this is a case of collective prolongend whitewashing (censorship), either because of unconscious (you can't accept the chance it could be happening) or conscious (wikipedia is flooded with conservative individuals who purpotedly deny the chance it could be happening) psychological mechanisms. I understand, the anxiety can be terrifying when it comes to these arguments. However, I'm gonna give the debate a chance if you wish, Guy Macon.

1. The first statement is your own opinion lacking corroboration other than pointing to a section of the WP:NPOV policy which states:

Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science, but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods. Conversely, by its very nature, scientific consensus is the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic. Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other.

Thus the question is: what is the majority viewpoint of scientists? And if there is one: how surpassing is it compared to the minority viewpoint (in order to determine the respective weights, correct?)?

2. So you deny "my reliable source presents the chance of electronic harassment happening"? You are stating it doesn't represent the simple view proposed by Jed Stuart? Then explain to me these quotes from that source which, let me remind you, it is authored by a scientist in good-standing (actually of mainstream media good-standing nonetheless), and peer-reviewed by academics with no bias on supporting conspiratorial claims. I will bold and underline the significant parts:

Increasingly there are indications that the uses of wireless technologies have been developed to target an individual’s biological body, with specific focus upon the neuronal functioning of the brain. In this paper I examine how some of these uses have had detrimental effects, and what this implies for both present and upcoming developments for particular wireless/sensor technologies. I consider whether this is not shifting dangerously towards a psycho–civilised society, where greater emphasis is placed upon social control and pre–emptive strategies. [..] Examples of unplanned attacks on the body’s data–processing capability are well–documented’. He (referring to Military strategist Timothy Thomas) references a Russian military article on the same subject which declared that “‘humanity stands on the brink of a psychotronic war’ with the mind and body as the focus”. [..] The “data” the body receives from external sources — such as electromagnetic, vortex, or acoustic energy waves — or creates through its own electrical or chemical stimuli can be manipulated or changed just as the data (information) in any hardware system can be altered. [..] Documented and declassified evidence shows that what may have begun as a program in standardized propaganda and psychological warfare has now developed into research on wireless information targeting and ‘psychocivilized’ control practices. To this effect the term ‘psycho–terrorism’ was coined by Anisimov of the Moscow Anti–Psychotronic Center and Anisimov admits to testing such devices as are said to ‘take away a part of the information which is stored in a man’s brain. [..] Although neurotechnologies are likely to be put to therapeutic and medical uses, such as for improving emotional stability and mental clarity, they also open opportunities for intrusive strategies of control and manipulation. [..] Part of this paper has been focused on the dangers of an increasingly wireless world. These dangers may include the potential for invasive technologies, based upon transmitted/received signals and wavelengths, to shift social order towards a psycho–civilized society. By psycho–civilised I mean a society that manages and controls social behaviour predominantly through non–obvious methods of psychological manipulations, yet at a level far beyond that of the ‘normalised’ social manipulations of propaganda and social institutions. What I refer to are the technologised methods of psychological interference and privacy intrusions in the manner of creating a docile and constrained society. [..] What are the moral and ethical implications of using wireless scanning surveillance technologies for evaluating pre–emptive behaviour based on thoughts and intentions alone? Is this not a dangerous path towards psycho–terrorising the social public? As Thomas (1998) reminds us, the mind has no firewall, and is thus vulnerable to viruses, Trojan horses, and spam. It is also vulnerable to hackers, cyber–terrorists, and state surveillance. Whilst this may sound a little too far out, they are reasonable questions to ask if technologies are racing ahead of us in order to better get into our heads. [..] This may herald the coming of a ‘wonderful wireless world’, yet it may also signal unforeseen dangers in protection, privacy, and security of the human biological body within these new relationships.

— Kingsley, Dennis, First Monday (journal) of University of Illinois at Chicago at webaddress

.

What's your answer? Does it present it as an open question? 87.3.90.35 (talk) 23:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

My answer (and the answer of at least a dozen other experienced Wikipedia editors who have examined this) is "no". --Guy Macon (talk) 05:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I concur with Guy. Jeh (talk) 05:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Me too. Wikipedia is not the place for this stuff. Johnuniq (talk) 05:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

And me. Mr. Dennis appears to be commenting from a different reality than the one in which we exist. You need to stoppit Jed, and all the SPA IPs that have magically appeared around this topic since you were told it will never fly. -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

To Guy Macon: That is the first time I have quoted that bit from the Mind Games article. The one I was being taken to task about and did end up quoting 3 times due to not being able to get editors to really discuss the issue, was the one where they state their opinion that there could be something in the accusations of covert targeting. I did quote it 3 times in the attempt to get editors to really deal with the issue instead of just repeating assertions and grandstanding as the absolute experts on Wikipedia and I a newbie should piss off or be sent to AE. I have no desire to hit your horse carcass with a stick but surely it is time to bury it.Jed Stuart (talk) 06:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that those wanting to state the psychiatric opinion as fact have put up no arguments to back that, just assertions that I am pushing a fringe view. To state the psychiatric opinion as fact is to contradict the first point made in the NPOV article "Avoid stating opinions as facts" . Perhaps this does not apply to a mainstream well established institution, psychiatry/psychology? In a communist or fascist regime that could easily be the case. However, Wikipedia is a product of liberal democracy and so describing the various is the standard. tolerance of different opinions, pluralism etc That rather than adopting one side of a difference of opinion. So what would it do make the change that I seek. The psychiatric/psychological view would still have most weight, my guess about 80-90%, and the not at all well established view of those who believe that they are subject to intensive covert assaults would get a foot in the door, getting about 10-20% of the weight, just a little "might be" that is all that would be. There is no proof, just a lot of people with compelling anecdotal evidence, enough to get the Washington Post to give a small slice of that considerable attention. It does say something though that my attempts to get this stated appropriately result in such a concerted effort to stop such a little change in the article in order to bring it into line with the Wikipedia policies you lot keep throwing at editors that disagree with you, and don't seem to understand yourselves. Jed Stuart (talk) 07:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Enough WP:IDHT. I'm done responding. Read the Discretionary Sanctions notice at User talk:Jed Stuart. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I would have expected more comprehensiveness. Some argumentation. Can you provide those? I think it's very important.. otherwise what's the point in being at this noticeboard nonetheless? This is on even a higher level than a Talk page, thus I suspect we should debate. What you keep on doing is stonewalling mine and Jed's suggestions. But I still have an idea of the why this happens constantly: anxiety towards these unsettling shoking circumstances is the reason, and choosing to be conservative (read as, "in denial") is the safest refuge. I have no idea on what level of your consciousness is happening, I don't know you and I'm not a psychoanalyst. But I can't pretend I don't know there's the seed of psychology here, making a certain form of ethics (the plant) grow, and that it ends producing political results (the fruits) which speciously flow into far-fetched conservative consensus.

Yes, this is about politics, and it looks even Aristotele is on mine and Jed's side, as His philosophical eternal work on politics ends declaring that

the inquiry into ethics necessarily follows into politics

Pretty obvious. Have a good day all, especially Jed though. Note: I'm open to debate majority and minority viewpoints as well as about their weight. But remember you can't write an article on tobacco or alcoholic beverages without giving them hystorical perspective and touching upon production and the harmful health effects. Some things are just too obvious that maybe can slip out of our minds, but they shouldn't. Also, you don't give the same weight to the chance of Political repression via emerging technologies (not pseudoscience) and the chance of being abducted by aliens. 87.6.112.110 (talk) 09:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

See [ User talk:87.6.112.110#This IP is a duck ] and [ Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit filter? Range block? ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I have challenged the editors block at Talk:Electronic Harassment to come here and state their case for violating NPOV as described. It seems to me they have only come here to cast aspersions on my behaviour rather than address the issue. I asked them again and here is my statement and their reply:

"So are any of you going to put up a case for stating the psychiatric/psychology opinion as fact? So far it has been: I am inexperienced, I am pushing a Fringe theory, an SPA, etc. None of you has yet stated that you think the NPOV policy "Avoid stating opinions as facts." should not apply when the opinion is of a well established mainstream institution and the other opinion is just a minority alternative view. You have continually thrown up the NPOV policy article as if it justifies your position, but you fail to say why you think that is so at the NPOV noticeboard. It is not about me, it is about stating the psychiatric opinion as fact. If you don't clearly make your case soon I will attempt to make the change. Jed Stuart (talk) 05:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Review Talk:Electronic_harassment/Archive_3, Talk:Electronic_harassment/Archive_4, and Talk:Electronic_harassment/Archive_5 for all the many ways you've asked this same question and all the many ways it has been answered for you. Please stop this sea-lioning, it's disruptive. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)"

As it is a one against many there, and quite stressful, please someone convince me that I am wrong. They certainly wont. Jed Stuart (talk) 04:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Most all experienced editors have been on the losing side of content discussions at one time or another. We learn that we don't have to be convinced that we're "wrong," but that we do need to abide by consensus, and move on. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC):

Interesting. Jed Stuart says "it is a one against many" but has not followed the advice I gave at WP:1AM... --05:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I have read your document again. It is clearly thought through and communicated. But, to refer to it without saying which section you are referring to gives me nothing as it describes many situations. The one I can most relate to is: "When you think there is a policy violation.In a "one-against-many" dispute, you (as the one) might be upholding a Wikipedia policy or guideline against a majority that isn't following policy. If this is the case, the one prevails over the many. The problem is that for every case where the one is upholding policy, there are at least a hundred cases* where he only thinks he is." I invited you all at EH, who seem to think I am not upholding a policy, to come and state your case. So far it has not been about that at all it has been about my behaviour, which I invite you to take me to ANI over, the appropriate place is it not? Jed Stuart (talk) 03:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

To Shock Brigade Harvester Boris: Yes, I will have to move on soon. The reason that I am persisting is that what I see as the NPOV dispute effects the sense of the entire article, and will have negative impact on those vulnerable people, who are claiming to be targeted, if it continues to promote one side of the controversy and negate the other. Jed Stuart (talk) 03:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

If then, as you claim, there is a policy violation, how then do you explain your utter failure to convince even a single other person that the policy violation exists? It certainly isn't from a lack of trying. I and others have looked at your arguments and found them to be less than compelling. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

That's easy. You all have the same perspective on the subject. Bye for now. Jed Stuart (talk) 05:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I challenge the assertion that I and everyone else except you have a perspective that prevents us from seeing clear policy violations. I personally have on multiple occasions removed material that I would have really liked to see stay -- if it violates Wikipedia policy, out it goes whatever my personal feelings. You simply have not made a convincing argument that any policy violations exist in this case. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, I will try again. Is it not true that it is a NPOV policy to "describe disputes not engage in them" and to "Avoid stating opinions as facts." . Both are prominent statements at the NPOV article. However, it says about the claims of people that they are being covertly targeted: "These experiences are hallucinations or the result of delusional disorders or psychosis," and "The experience of TIs are hallucinations and the explanations arise from delusional disorders or psychosis." Both statements are the opinion of some psychiatrists and psychologists well cited there. However, there is a growing conspiracy theory that disputes this opinion. The TI opinion and of those supporting them is that they are not deluded etc. For the article to be stated in terms that it is a fact that they are deluded is both taking a side in the dispute, resulting in lots of attempts to disrupt the article, and stating an opinion as fact. Thus the article should not say "The experiences of TIs are hallucinations or the result of delusional disorders." It should say "It is the opinion of some psychiatrists and psychologists that the experiences of TIs are hallucinations...etc" or some such. The same for the TIs claims. They should not be stated as facts but as their opinion. I am not that good a communicator, but I think that is my best shot at it. Jed Stuart (talk) 04:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you did indeed try again, in classic sea lion fashion. And, once again, you failed miserably, because your argument contradicts the policy (WP:NPOV) you selectively quoted. The relevant section of WP:NPOV is WP:PSCI, which clearly says:

"Fringe theories and pseudoscience

Further information: Wikipedia:Fringe theories and § Due and undue weight

Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science, but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods. Conversely, by its very nature, scientific consensus is the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic. Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included. This helps us to describe differing views fairly. This also applies to other fringe subjects, for instance, forms of historical revisionism that are considered by more reliable sources to either lack evidence or actively ignore evidence, such as claims that Pope John Paul I was murdered, or that the Apollo moon landing was faked."

I hope this helps but I know that it won't. Please drop the stick. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

It looks as you are playing the skeptical but beyond reason part and accountably, as the conspiracy is quite unbelievable at first glance, while Jed Stuart is being open minded yet reasonably because electromagnetic weapons not only are far from being pseudoscience, they are actually authorized for use since time ago. I consider pseudoscience flat earth and extraterrestrial life and parapsychology, but modern weapons why should we? Also reliable sources are all but poor in supporting the validity of electronic harassment. I'm following this debate and I agree with the open minded side. 149.254.224.221 (talk) 02:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

The issues raised at the top of this section have been addressed and consensus is against a change. Per WP:NOTFORUM this page is not available to endlessly debate mind control or other WP:FRINGE stuff. Johnuniq (talk) 03:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe not. In either case, you keep on failing by recognizing it a pseudoscientific topic which clearly it isn't. Thus what has actually been addressed? 149.254.235.50 (talk) 04:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

yes, the issue I have raised has never been addressed by the editors at EH. I am not for one moment attempting to debate whether what TIs claim is true or not. That will play out in the mass media and relevant government processes eventually, if it is true, and if we still have democracy. I am simply attempting to get a balanced and neutral statement of the situation at present as described in the reliable sources cited. That has nothing to do with a pseudoscience. It is about claims of harassment and worse. It also has nothing to do with giving equal weight to those claims vs psychiatric opinion. You are just attempting to gag the discussion of the NPOV issue by suggesting this is becoming a forum about mind control. Since I started work on this issue it has been about one smart manoeuvre after another and none have ever put a case for stating the psychiatric opinion as fact. Jed Stuart (talk) 04:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

To 149.254.224.221: False equivalency. The fact that other flat things exist is not evidence for a flat earth that violates the laws of physics. Likewise the fact that directed-energy weapons exist is is not evidence for a mind control device that violates the laws of physics. Every directed-energy weapon works by emitting some form of electromagnetic radiation, be it microwaves, infrared lasers, or X-Rays. Electromagnetic radiation is easily detected. Likewise, all of the non-energy weapons use the some sort of matter, whether it be air vibrating (acoustic weapons) germs, gas, or the kinetic energy of a bullet or bomb. NO UNDECTABLE MIND CONTROL TECHNOLOGY EXISTS. If a mind control technology did exist, I or any other competent engineer would be able to detect and measure the output of the alleged weapon, just as we can with any other weapon.

To Jed Stuart: Go away. The next time you post your theory that the professional opinions of mental-health professionals are no more valid that the untrained opinions of the delusional people they treat, I will bring this to WP:ANI and ask for a topic ban. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I have never posted such a theory. It is about the way the article is written not about your or my beliefs about mind control technology. That is all irrelevant. Take me to ANI then. If they are still with the basic principles of Wikipedia I will win. That will be interesting to learn about and find out. I did fully intend to leave it there, but you had to keep going with another challenge and your stuff about sea lions etc. I did check out that sea lion article, but it looked like scorpions poo, so I did not read much. As for you, you are a palaverer. Me, I am a TI supporter attempting to get the article as clear and straight as possible. There is a long way to go. Jed Stuart (talk) 00:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear what I am thinking is appropriate in the EH article. It is not that the claims of TIs are of equal weight to mental-health professionals. I think the reliable sources put the view that there might be some form of covert targeting happening. Which, if there is would lead to some re-thinking by those professionals as to how to categorize and treat people who make such claims, not to TIs taking over the asylum or some such. Jed Stuart (talk) 01:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:Neutral Point of View is a matter of WP:Verifiability and WP:No Original Research, especially on medical claims. So it's not clear, how the article can be so supportive of the psychiatric opinion. If I read all the sources and put them in context according to content policies and guidelines and then read the article I find it embarrassing. There is no space to state the claimants of electronic harassment are delusional as a fact, not to mention tagging the article as related to pseudoscience.. it's a conspiracy theory and there's no point in fast-fowarding to debunk it. 149.254.234.126 (talk) 12:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

What I mean is that medical statements and articles in general, should reflect reliable secondary sources and scientific consensus, and instead the electronic harassment article is based on the so-called psychiatric opinion that claimants of EH are defenately delusional. There is no reliable secondary source stating so, let alone any recognized scientific consensus. On the other hand reliable secondary sources speak of claims with due detachment. The most compelling source used to support the so-called "psychiatric POV" is the paper published in a reliable journal about experimental psychiatric diagnoses which is very attentive in declaring the study was conducted on internet based communities and that it's the first of its kind, but especially it is clear in concluding the claimants are only potentially delusional. So this is basically a reliable source stating something else, and primary nonetheless. And then there are a bunch of news articles or blogs which are full of opinion content used to support medical claims, and according to WP:NEWSORG these sources are to be considered primary, generally not reliable as statements of fact (let alone medical statements). The Washington Post article cited by Jed Stuart is actually the one lacking biased opinion content, but even more the one written with greater insight and offering a neutral analytic standpoint.

Despite all this you have other reliable secondary sources speaking of it in terms of something potentially happening but which get rejected, favoring an accountable yet uncalled, against content policies and guidelines, "debunking POV". 149.254.235.157 (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

It's good to examine the NY Times article to demonstrate the non neutral POV, as the other news or blog articles are either on the same wavelength or even worse (the blog used in the lede for medical diagnoses made in the article is not suitable according to content policies and guidelines for example). Similarly to the Washington Post's article, it lacks opinion content (bias by the author) and the publisher is a reliable one.

Albeit it is rather written from the psychiatric standpoint it's still very careful in describing the claimants mental state, indeed the author uses terms such as "some", "appears", "drawing the concern", "interest of researchers" in key sentences of the introduction, and concludes with "people who may be psychotic". The very difference with the Washington Post's article is the focus of the article, because exactly as with the primary source cited in the previous comment, the author of the NY Times article (and most of the sources cited in electronic harassment) is focused on the possible effects of internet communication on potential (or even likely) mentally ill subjects. The veracity of the claims is not the focus.

The NY Times article rather sheds a slightly brighter light on the psychiatric opinion, yet it's about something other than the claimants mental state, it's about the possible effects of internet communication. It doesn't hint there's a scientific consensus on the claimants mental state: it actually offers mutually challenging opinions in that regard. Again, surely it does supppse a likely pathological condition, but nothing more than that.

Then it is a reliable secondary source, but reliable for what indeed? It seems not for the medical diagnoses presented as a fact in electronic harassment (which even goes as far as substantially hinting this view is unchallenged on reliable sound bases, which is false). Those should be adjusted the way Jed Stuart advises, as well as the whole "debunking POV" to:

• properly use the sources already cited in the article
• embrace other reliable secondary sources offering the opposite POV (First Monday (journal) article, and the expert analysis it cites published at the military website)

To be noted is that the only source justifying the "debunking POV" is the one from Richmond yet it's far from describing a scientific consensus, which should be proved somehow in order to report medical diagnoses as fact. Also, a politician speaking in defence of the government he works for falls under a conflict of interest, and other more influencial politicians supported the opposing POV. 149.254.235.78 (talk) 12:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC) Update: I wrote this comment according to last week's version of the article. In the last days a new NY Times source was added. 149.254.235.107 (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

So yesterday, someone added these three edits: [3] [4] [5], which go against the current consensus, yet the talk page is locked so I can't file an edit request. Can someone who's able remove them?Inmate XIII (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Spamlinks and duplicated text have already been removed from those edits. As for the added news coverage of individuals claiming to be electronically harassed, best to bring up any concerns with it on the article Talk page. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I have re-opened this discussion. I don't accept 'its boring' is a valid reason for closure coming from someone who has not been a participant. If its boring then don't read it. It is a serious discussion about what some of us believe to be a serious policy violation potentially having serious impacts on the lives of TIs. It is not here for Begoon's entertainment. Jed Stuart (talk) 05:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC) I have re-opened a second time. That closure was also done by someone on the other side of this dispute. That is not acceptable in my view. I would accept a truly uninvolved editor closing it if given good enough reason. This is just abuse of process/sabotage. @Johnuniq:.Jed Stuart (talk) 03:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Extensive quoting from a propaganda source: the Wehrmachtbericht in articles on World War II German officers

Many articles on German military men of the World War II era contain verbatim quotations from German Armed Forces High Command's communiques, the Wehrmachtbericht. It's based on the (inherently unreliable) war-time Nazi propaganda, and I believe does not belong in the articles on this basis alone. But I'm not sure what Wikipedia policy may be applicable. Could someone more knowledgeable clarify?

This appears to be either WP:NPOV or extensive quoting from a WP:Primary source. Or perhaps this is WP:NOR? Please see example 1 or example 2. Please also see discussion and more examples at Wehrmachtbericht transcript, take 2, on the Field Marshal Rommel's talk page. Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I have renamed the section so that it's clearer which propaganda source is meant. The title is a bit unwieldy but I hope it may attract other editors to comment. I'll provide a fuller comment soon. Roches (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: You make a very good observation ïn the talk page about Rommel: "Articles on Allied military units and individuals don't include the text of mentions in dispatches or communiques, and rightly so." As I see it, these are the possibilities for quoting the Wehrmachtbericht in the future:

• State only that the individual was mentioned in the Wehrmachtbericht, with no quotations, as in the Rommel article.
• Permit brief quotations, as in Michael Wittmann: "on January 9, [Wittmann] destroyed his 66th enemy tank with his Tiger on the Eastern Front."
• Permit full quotations in German and English, as in Georg von Boeselager.

I do not think it is best to delete the existing quotations. Content would be lost which had to be gleaned from a German source and then translated. (There are alternatives, like moving the quotations to Wikisource.) Roches (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@Roches: It appears that you advocate keeping the existing Wehrmachtbericht transcripts. What would be the policy or guideline that would support keeping this material? K.e.coffman (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• Sounds like WP:OR -and- Primary to me. As interesting as it is, if your description of the source is accurate, the quotes should all be deleted. The material needs to come from reliable secondary sources, such a historians. The one you mention hardly sounds like such. Based on what has been stated here: I vote DELETE. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• Absolutely must not be used as a source for facts. Might in some circumstances be used to source claims with attribution that makes it clear that a Nazi propaganda outlet is being cited. Remember that all sources are reliable for their own content, including fictional sources, so it can come down to whether a mention in the Wehrmachtbericht is notable. Zero^talk 02:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Can you cite the sections of policy and guideline that are the basis of this, especially where you say that claims can be attributed to the primary source about itself? In the Séralini affair I am pretty sure this was rejected, where it was claimed that the "Study itself is not a source for the lede" [6]. A number of editors here at the talk page agreed that Seralini's studies were not RS for the article about Seralini's study. The only thing that mattered is what his critics had to say. If for example, the author never said in the study that GMOs caused cancer, that did not matter, what mattered was not what was actually in the study, but what the critics said was in the study, and so reference to the study itself was relegated to the bottom of the article. Seralini's own opinions (and those of his supporters) about the matter about him were, therefore, considered either WP:fringe or WP:undue and buried among the criticisms. Does that approach seem consistent with your view of how to address the reliability of a source about itself? --David Tornheim (talk) 04:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the quotes should be removed. Doug Weller talk 07:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: You can read at WP:ABOUTSELF that sources can be used about their own content, even if they are unreliable about things other than their own content. In case my intention isn't clear, two examples. (1) "Generalleutnant Schultz captured Stalingrad single-handedly" (source Wehrmachtbericht by date) is not acceptable since Wehrmachtbericht is not a reliable source. (2) "The Nazi propaganda communique Wehrmachtbericht claimed that Generalleutnant Schultz had captured Stalingrad single-handedly." (source Wehrmachtbericht by date) is 100% within the rules if it can be verified that Wehrmachtbericht indeed claimed that. It would be better if (2) could be cited to a secondary source, but there is no rule against citing primary sources directly. I'm not willing to investigate the Seralini article, but your description of it sounds rather shocking. Zero^talk 13:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment: The Wehrmachtbericht is not being used as a source; the articles contain verbatim quotations, such as below.

Wehrmachtbericht samples

Date	Original German Wehrmachtbericht wording	Direct English translation
Saturday, 22 June 1940	[In den Kämpfen der letzten Tage haben sich durch unerschrockenen Einsatz in kühnen Einzeltaten besonders hervorgetan: der Oberst und Kommandeur einer Schützenbrigade Neumann-Silkow, der Oberleutnant und Chef einer Reiterschwadron Freiherr von Boeselager, der Leutnant Michael in einem Reiterregiment und der Leutnant Meder in einer Panzerjägerabteilung.] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)	In the fighting in recent days, in fearless action in bold individual acts have particularly excelled: the colonel and commander of a rifle brigade Neumann-Silkow, the lieutenant and chief of a cavalry squadron Freiherr von Boeselager, the Lieutenant Michael in a cavalry regiment and the Lieutenant Meder in an anti-tank battalion.
1 September 1944 (Addendum)	[In den schweren Abwehrkämpfen zwischen Bug und Narew hat sich die 3. Kavallerie-Brigade durch unermüdlichen Angriffsschwung und Härte ausgezeichnet. An ihrer Spitze fand der bereits Anfang 1942 mit dem Eichenlaub zum Ritterkreuz ausgezeichnete 28jährige Brigadekommandeur Oberstleutnant Georg Freiherr von Boeselager den Heldentod. Sein im gleichen Frontabschnitt kämpfender Bruder, Ritterkreuzträger Major Freiherr von Boeslager, hat sich erneut durch höchste Tapferkeit hervorgetan] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)	In heavy defensive fighting between the Bug and Narew has the 3rd Cavalry Brigade particularly excelled by showing relentless momentum and hardness. In the lead, already in 1942 decorated with the Oak Leaves to the Knight's Cross, the 28-year-old brigade commander, Lieutenant Colonel Georg Freiherr von Boeselager found a heroic death. His in the same sector of the front fighting brother, Knight's Cross bearer Major Freiherr von Boeselager, again excelled with highest bravery.

Date	Original German Wehrmachtbericht wording	Direct English translation
5 July 1944	[Südlich Minsk kämpfen sich unsere Verbände weiter zurück. Nordwestlich der Stadt wurden heftige Angriffe der Bolschewisten abgewiesen. Hier schoß eine Panzerkampfgruppe unter Führung des Generalleutnants von Saucken in beweglicher Kampfführung in der Zeit vom 27. Juni bis 3. Juli 232 feindliche Panzer ab.] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)	In retreat, our units keep fighting back south of Minsk. Northwest of the city the violent attacks of the Bolsheviks were repulsed. Here an armoured battle group, under the leadership of Lieutenant General von Saucken, destroyed in mobile warfare in the period from 27 June to 3 July 232 enemy tanks.
9 May 1945	[Dem Oberbefehlshaber, General der Panzertruppe von Saucken, wurden als Anerkennung für die vorbildliche Haltung seiner Soldaten die Brillanten zum Eichenlaub mit Schwertern zum Ritterkreuz des Eisernen Kreuzes verliehen.] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)	The commander-in-chief, General of Panzer Troops von Saucken was awarded the Diamonds to the Oak Leaves with Swords to the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross in recognition of the exemplary attitude of his soldiers.

Date	Original German Wehrmachtbericht wording	Direct English translation
Thursday, 10 April 1940	[Die militärischen Maßnahmen zum Schutz der Neutralität von Dänemark und Norwegen wurden am 9. April von starken Einheiten des Heeres, der Kriegsmarine und die Luftwaffe unter dem Oberbefehl des Generals der Infanterie von Falkenhorst, von Seestreitkräften unter dem Befehl des Generaladmirals Saalwächter und des Admirals Carls und von zahlreichen Verbänden der Luftwaffe unter Führung des Generalleutnants Geißler in engster Zusammenarbeit durchgeführt.] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)	The military measures for the protection of the neutrality of Denmark were carried out on 9 April from strong units in close cooperation of the Heer, the Kriegsmarine and the Luftwaffe under the high command of General of the Infantry von Falkenhorst, of naval forces under the command of Generaladmiral Saalwächter and Admiral Rolf Carls and from numerous Luftwaffe units under the leadership of Generalleutnant Geißler (sic).

Date	Original German Wehrmachtbericht wording	Direct English translation
Friday, 31 October 1941	[Von deutschen und rumänischen Truppen scharf verfolgt, ist der Feind auf der Krim in voller Flucht. Damit haben die langen und schweren Durchbruchskämpfe ihre Krönung gefunden, mit denen die Infanteriedivisionen der Armee des Generals der Infanterie von Manstein im Verein mit dem Fliegerkorps des Generalleutnants Pflugbeil die schmale Landengen bezwungen haben, die zur Halbinsel führen.] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)	Sharply pursued by German and Romanian troops, the enemy in the Crimea is in full retreat. With this, the long and heavy breakthrough battles have found their coronation. The infantry divisions of the army of General of Infantry von Manstein in conjunction with the Air Corps of Lieutenant General Pflugbeil have concurred the narrow isthmus leading to the peninsula.
Saturday, 30 May 1942	[Die Luftwaffenverbände des Generalobersten Löhr und des Generals der Flieger Pflugbeil unterstützten in schonungslosem Einsatz die Kämpfe des Heeres in der Abwehr wie im Angriff und schlugen die feindliche Luftwaffe aus dem Felde.] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)	The Luftwaffe forces under the leadership of Generoberst Löhr and General der Flieger Pflugbeil supported in ruthless commitment the defensive as well as offensive combat of the Army and forced the enemy air force from the battle area.

Date	Original German Wehrmachtbericht wording	Direct English translation
18 August 1944	[Soldaten aller Wehrmachtteile, unter ihrem Kommandanten Oberst von Aulock, haben hier dem Ansturm stärkster feindliche Kräfte in fast dreiwöchigem heldenhaftem Ringen standgehalten und dem Gegner hohe blutige Verluste fügt.] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)	Soldiers of all Wehrmacht branches under their commander Oberst von Aulock, have resisted here strong enemy forces in nearly three weeks' heroic struggle and have inflicted high, bloody casualties on the enemy.

References

K.e.coffman (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Ping @David Tornheim and Zero0000: -- wanted to clarify that the transcripts are not used as a source; they are reproduced within the articles as shown above. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I see now. I also note that the German wiki doesn't have them. It seems to me that they fail WP:UNDUE without a secondary source indicating them as important. Zero^talk 13:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Zero0000. I had seen the transcripts before I commented the first time. If the secondary source is discussing them, then the quotes make sense; otherwise, no. 18:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I've been away but want to comment again. I don't think the Wehrmachtbericht (WB) is a reliable source for everything because it uses heavily propagandized terms. But, in these articles, the quotations are clearly presented as coming from a Nazi source, and readers will know there is a bias. I don't think WP:UNDUE applies. How is it adding undue weight to include a quotation that summarizes what someone did? I suspect these are not reproduced in German Wikipedia because the Wehrmachtbericht is available in German, so German readers can access it. English readers likely require a translation... and some of these might be the only available English translations. Roches (talk) 18:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Addition: Since I am probably going to be asked for policies or guidelines: WP:IAR. Roches (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:IAR is not convincing in this case. Neither is fact that someone took the trouble to translate Nazi propaganda and that now "these might be the only available English translations". K.e.coffman (talk) 03:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment - without comments or interpretations by neutral secondary sources, how do we know what (if anything) in the quotations from or claims in Wehrmachtbericht has truth to it? And if those comments or interpretations exist, why do we need the Wehrmachtbericht quotations and claims at all? I have seen a similar problem in relation to articles on decorated Azerbaijani soldiers - all the source material regarding their decoration is heavily propagandized, yet such articles cannot be deleted because there are Wikipedia rules that say a soldier receiving a military decoration at a certain level has an automatic level of notability that justifies an article (even if there is no content to put in the article because there are no suitable sources). I think this rule should be changed and that unless neutral secondary sources have commented on the award or on the military activities of the subject there should be no such automatic acceptance of notability. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Heath W. Lowry

There are multiple NPOV complaints about the article on Heath W. Lowry. One editor thinks the article is too critical of Lowry, another thinks the article gives too much credit to Lowry's research and opinions. I think this version of the article is fairly neutral.

Specifically, a dispute has arisen over this edit. The editor claims that these changes will improve the neutrality of the article, which gives too much credit to Lowry's claims and research as it is now. However, the information is factual and well-referenced, and it does not overly represent Lowry's work as the academic consensus on the subject. In fact, the criticism section is fairly detailed and well-documented, so it's not as if an average reader will miss the fact that Lowry's conclusions have been contested. Lowry is also already categorized as an Armenian genocide denier.

Additionally, I think the editor's recent editing history suggests WP:POVPUSH. These edits include mass deletion of information on biographical pages within the Armenian genocide denier Category with the same copy-pasted explanation "too much weight placed on revisionism not taken seriously". --Iamozy (talk) 18:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi everyone. About this issue and other similar articles, I am of this view. Massive deletions with minimal explanations cause to many complications. I do agree that some of these articles need a bit of fine tuning. And that's what the talkpage is about. These articles are about individuals who yes have engaged in denial of the Armenian Genocide. But to then delete parts of the article which discuses(or deals with) and has views from others (in their own words or from scholars overviewing them) is also a issue. The reader needs to know what that individual has espoused as views and based on whatever they have based it on. Yes it may be or is unpalatable, but these articles already are complex to begin with, due to their controversial nature. I would say to the editor who wants to push through with much of these changes that they need to make use of the talkpage and place suggestions for changes here or there, and possibly much of those changes may go forward. But through discussion, not big deletions outright. Doing the latter is not acting in good faith. I am willing to work in the spirit of cooperation and robust, yet polite and respectful discussion. Best.Resnjari (talk) 06:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Having looked at the content of lasert101"s edits, they seem appropriate and fully justifiable. However, this editor needs to do more to indicate that they are indeed fully justifiable. Edit summaries are not particularly suitable for this - using the article talk pages would be better. 78.187.215.140 (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC) (Tiptoethrutheminefield - I am currently unable to sign in)

Not all edits and not in the way that editor has gone about it in the deletion of massive chunks of content. Talk page needs to be used to highlight what changes are needed and for it to be done step by step.Resnjari (talk) 03:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I am neither Turkish nor Armenian and have never edited on this subject, but looking at this contested edit, I agree with Iamozy and Resnjari's concern. My favorite WP:LAW of Wikipedia is Raul's razor: "An article is neutral if, after reading it, you cannot tell where the author's sympathies lie." While it may have some virtues, the edit in question advances its sympathies powerfully and unnecessarily.

Take for instance the opinions of historians Michael M. Gunter and Alan Fisher. The previous version quoted both directly as they questioned the notion that Lowry worked for the Turkish government. The previous version concludes, "However, [Lowry] continues to believe that the loss of Armenian life during WWI fails to fit the definition of "genocide," and that his conclusions are supported by his research." As readers we have been informed of Lowry's opinion and of some scholarly opinions defending him. Fine.

Lasort101's edit removes all this entirely and simply writes, "Lowry admitted in an interview that the letter to the Ambassador was a mistake. However, he continues to deny the genocide."

I think the Armenian genocide is real and should be called this. However, the text as edited teaches me less about Lowry's views, about conceptions of his work, and is written from an explicitly partisan framework (e.g. rather than quote Lowry stating that Armenian deaths fail to meet the definition of genocide, instead state in Wikipedia's voice that he is a genocide denier). It also presumes that as a reader, I'm too stupid to learn of scholarly discussion on the topic and should be spoonfed one particular point of view. The fact that anyone would think this is necessary seriously calls into question the intellectual rigor of their position.

Nationalist, partisan editing weakens both the encyclopedia and the editing environment, by forcing editors into ideological camps instead of encouraging them to neutrally describe the often contradictory and complicated views of various reliable sources. - Darouet (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

It is wrongly assumed that scholars who are specialized in a field have a notability independent from the institutions they are affiliated with. Basically here, the criticisms are specific to his affiliations (Turkey funded departments or chairs) in the same manner as the criticisms of the said majority view are not particularly directed against a scholar but rather the institutions (or positions) they represent. Just checking the material from several articles and talkpages, this confirms it. Examples include Taner Akçam or Vahakn Dadrian and their affiliations with the Zoryan Institute (Armenian studies). We should therefor be careful for that matter when quoting scholars independently from their affiliations, because by doing such we might mislead the reader.

I do agree with Darouet, but I have to clarify on what is full disclosure. It is relevant to include Michael M. Gunter, but the reader ought to know somehow that he has an admitted bias in his book (on the subject) which was meant to present the Turkish position regarding the Armenian claims of genocide during World War I and the continuing debate over this issue (Source: Armenian History and the Question of Genocide, by Michael M. Gunter. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2011. p. ix). Guenter Lewy shall remain in this article as agreeing with Heath Lowry, but his declaration of bias (which ought to be mentioned) was already reveled in the 70s with his terming of the war crime industry (America in Vietnam. New York-Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1978.), along with the fact that his treatment (besides his answers after the accusations) of all other war crimes (besides the Holocaust), all ended up without the G-word; and that he was considered in an article as one of the few remaining adherents of the uniqueness (of the Holocaust) [7] It is understandable that some scholars might consider the tragedy of their own people as Unique (ethnocentric bias), I am not judging him, just mentioning that we can not just throw names without full disclosure of their affiliation, as if scholars have a notability outside of their institutions, affiliations, etc.

See what is the solution Darouet? Uses of terms such as deniers, canards paint a picture, they introduce unnecessary bias, the whole picture is sufficient to immunize articles from bias. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

There is no "Turkish position", there is the official position of the Turkish state as presented by the representatives of the Turkish state (or by its agents/employees, like Lowry). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Tiptoethrutheminefield, the term Turkish position was not my words, I merely quoted textually from the author. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 00:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

First of the Armenian Genocide is fact. The same way that the mass killings and ethnic cleansing of Balkan Muslims is fact throughout the 19th and 20th century. I was particularly disturbed that Lasort101 deleted [[8]] from the article Justin McCarthy (American historian) an important inline citation from academic Bleacher who has overviewed Mc Carthy's work in relation to Muslim casualties in the Balkans and also Daniel Pipes overview too, which both acknowledge Mc Carthy's genocide denial but also acknowledge that his scholarship on Muslim casualties is of important merit and scholarly sound too. To those who have an interest in these articles, the same way as genocide denial is painful for Armenians, denial of the horrors of that period by (Christian) Balkan states and their peoples, even of events that happened in current times too is also painful. Such deletions do not assist in any way as Yahya Talatin has pointed out issues with placing one peoples suffering over the other and vice versa. On this article, I agree with Darouet's position on this matter. As for Turkish positions, yes some are by the state, others are not. To make a broad catch all is problematic as the majority of scholars in both the West and East get government funding to do research. The question is when receiving that funding are they beholden to that government or are they allowed to go about research independently? Best.Resnjari (talk) 06:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Antisemitic canard

An editor recently added an NPOV hat note to the article Antisemitic canard for unclear reasons. Several editors have tried to clarify on the talkpage, but the another editor added the hat note without clarifying explaining despite the consensus thus far that there is not an NPOV issue. The best I can tell, Godsy feels it's not neutral to claim in WP's voice that the topics addressed in this article are canards (hoaxes/myths). I'm not sure if that's an accurate interpretation of Godsy's issue with the article and we have no idea how Twinsday, the editor who added the hat note, feels. I wanted to get more input here before removing the hat note. Thoughts? —PermStrump(talk) 02:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Twinsday added the {{POV}} template to the article. My opinion can be read at Talk:Antisemitic canard#Neutrality, I'm not going to reiterate it here.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I thought you added it. I updated my original comment. —PermStrump(talk) 03:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Godsy arguments. I also agree with adding the POV tag, this article does clearly have neutrality issues! Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The article does not need a POV tag as no one has articulated how the article fails to proportionally reflect the body of knowledge on the subject. It seems that the POV tag is being used (inappropriately) to warn readers that a couple of editors don't agree with how sources have covered the subject.- MrX 23:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

An antisemitic canard is a false story inciting antisemitism. Despite being false by definition, antisemitic canards often form part of broader theories of Jewish conspiracies.[1] Then it goes on to provide several examples of those said false stories! It is one thing to claim them as minority views and another to just plainly claim them as false. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 23:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

We are not claiming them as anything. We're reflecting the reliable sources on the topic. What reliable sources suggest that the antisemitic canards covered are true or even genuinely entertain the idea that they might be true? —PermStrump(talk) 05:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not seeing a valid NPOV complaint here. If the article text accurately reflects what reliable sources hold to be factual, then it is NPOV by definition. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

This has little to do with whatever or not sources are reliable. It just doesn't seem right to start the lede by stating those are false and go on with a list of things (it's more of a thesis than an encyclopedic article). The neutral stance would be to at least mention that those are generally viewed as false by scholars. There are also controversial titles like (but not limited to) Accusation of anti-Christian bias or Dual loyalty: ethno-centric bias are common among any groups and Jews aren't immune to that. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 13:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

That's what a canard is, so it's perfectly fine to describe it as such. If your complaint is about article structure, then that can be addressed by adding more context, but it has nothing to do with neutral point of view.- MrX 13:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

See above, I already gave two explicit examples. Accusation of anti-Christian bias or Dual loyalty, those two aren't false... because Jews are prone to ethnic-centricism like any other group! Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 13:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

If they are true, they are not Canards. The key word being 'if'. The anti-Christian bias is based on historial rather than the current situation, so is obviously false. You might as well say modern Catholicism is anti-Islam. The dual loyalty argument is far too complicated to get into here, but *some* Jews do indeed place loyalty to their Religion/Ethnic group over their country. Some dont. The canard is saying that the Jews as a group are more loyal to themselves than their country. Which is obviously a blanket generalisation and easily disprovable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Cites for "Jews are prone to ethnic-centricism like any other group"?- MrX 17:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

"This has little to do with whatever or not sources are reliable." WP:NPOV only has to do with what reliable sources say. —PermStrump(talk) 18:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Modern catholicism does imply some form of anti-Islam and vis versa... (this supports my point) also, there is no such thing as solely false claims. Those are claims which are considered as false by majority of scholars (that's different). MrX do you really need citations for the statement above? All self-identification with a particular ethnic group requires a form of ethnic-centricism.

To Only in death, be it historical or not, it is one thing to claim it false and another to stat it has been revisited in most published literature as false! I think we are diverting from the initial question here. The real issue is that we don't get to decide what is true or what is false. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The issue of whether the article should have a POV tag as been resolved. This is NOTAFORUM for discussing original research. - MrX 19:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

You are correct, we don't get to decide what is true or false. So why do you insist on trying? The sources say these are canards, and we follow the sources. It is not our job as editors to correct mistakes you think you've found in a reliable source, or inject your own opinions into the article. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

MrX, I think I was clear that I do believe the POV tag goes there and the last time I have checked, there is none. The issue can not be resoled unless there is consensus. And would you please specify what is the original research in question?

Someguy, I have some difficulty following you. I do agree with your central argument (You are correct, we don't get to decide what is true or false.). But lets quote the lede again: An antisemitic canard is a false story inciting antisemitism. I am merely quoting the lede to make my point. Just right there it fails the basics... according to whom (source attribution) the arbitrary selection provided as canards are false? This has nothing to do with my opinions being injected in the article. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 20:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS doesn't mean unanimity. There is, however, unanimous consensus here among people making arguments based on WP's policies that the POV template doesn't belong. WP:NPOV doesn't mean uncontentious or showing both sides equally. It means the articles reflect POVs in proportion to how they are covered by reliable sources. Not a single editor arguing for the POV template has provided a single reliable source demonstrating why we should even be having this conversation. —PermStrump(talk) 20:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes but that's Tautological. I am asking no such thing as any equal coverage of the other sides position! I am not even asking any coverage. Just pointing out that there is something wrong to build on what as an axiom has been initially classified as false. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 20:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Yahya, these canards are false according to the sources used in the article, and I do not see your arguing that this is not the case. Statements of fact need not be attributed when there is a single predominant point of view in the reliable sources. It is your opinion that the falsehood of the canards is not a fact. It is your opinion that is being excluded from the article, and rightly so. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Someguy, again, that's tautological! On top of that we're engaged in a circular discussion. Like I have clarified, my criticism has absolutely nothing to do with the subject itself. It is not my opinion (because nowhere have I stated I believed this, you assumed)that the falsehood of the canards is not a fact. Neither that it is my opinion that is being excluded from the article. I didn't even read the article past the lede and the sections titles. And any comments I have raised have to do with both, not anything else. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

"It is one thing to claim them as minority views and another to just plainly claim them as false". Your words. Insignificant but notable viewpoints can be described as false if that is how an overwhelming majority viewpoint describes them. I'm mentioning your opinions because you keep bringing them up, like "ethno-centric bias are common among any groups and Jews aren't immune to that", "Modern catholicism does imply some form of anti-Islam and vis versa". And the wrongest statement of all from your arguments, "The neutral stance would be to at least mention that those are generally viewed as false by scholars." When essentially every scholar agrees that something is a fact, to diminish that to an opinion in Wikipedia's voice is decidedly non-neutral. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Come on someguy, these are straw man arguments. Why am I under the impression that a false dichotomy is being created here? My comment on ethnocentricism was an answer to some specific titles of subcategories, your conclusions (mostly implied) from them are non-sequitur when considering under which context they were made. I clarified with the following which you have excluded from your selections: All self-identification with a particular ethnic group requires a form of ethnic-centricism. The point being made there is that those titles can certainly not be just tagged as false. Besides, minority or fringe theories technically should not be described as false, this goes against editorial policy (which requires some form of source attribution). If the overwhelming majority of scholars endorse a position, this should be reported as such and sources should be provided. Going from there to claim false is logically fallacious (Argument from authority). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahya Talatin (talk • contribs) 22:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I missed this recent edit [9] which is somehow an improvement even thought it still doesn't address the issues with the titles of the categories. I know what I am reporting here is widespread on Wikipedia (Argument from authority in lede) but I had to bring it somehow and the occasion presented itself after a controversy on the Armenian massacres talkpage. In no way I am endorsing views, or supporting opinions from the minority sides, or requesting coverage. Just that it is made clear. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 02:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: looking at the article Antisemitic canard and its various subsections, I see no problem with the neutrality of the lead, i.e. in defining these various beliefs (canards) as rumors, false and defamatory. Each item mentioned is its own well known trope. If there would happen to be truth to one of them (though I'm quite doubtful that'd be the case), it could conceivably be struck from the list or qualified, so long as this extraordinary action was very well supported by high quality, reliable sources.

Concerning the cleanup tag, it is therefore obviously unwarranted, unless it is meant to spur development of the lead to summarize various canards. That doesn't seem to be the point of the tag at present.

Lastly, because these tropes have such long histories and because we're talking about article improvement, an introductory paragraph explaining some sociological theory of their general origins might be helpful. But that's another issue. -Darouet (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• All good points, Darouet. —PermStrump(talk) 01:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• Hi Darout, this is not about whether or not one sees something wrong in defining those as false or derogatory. We can just not contaminate articles with our own thoughts. Someone has yet to address that it seems to go against editorial policy to just throw an axiom (particularly false) in the lede (without including, with it, whom (could be all of the academia doesn't change anything) is claiming it) and build the rest of the article from that. I don't see someone here having directly raised this here so far (I might have missed though). I have already mentioned that it is considered as logically fallacious to claim something false by merely calling upon authority (Argument from authority). We should be careful to claim consensus on delicate subjects only on number of editors because we might be in a situation of Pluralistic ignorance. See for instance how it was assumed I was holding fringe positions (when I never once even gave any opinion on the content other than the titles of the categories). I am being the devil's advocate here. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahya Talatin (talk • contribs) 14:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from @Yahya Talatin: we don't want to simply write our opinions as facts, and need to be mindful to carefully attribute various beliefs and positions to their sources. For instance, some scholars view the Russian Revolution as a democratic and egalitarian upsurge, some view it as a totalitarian coup d'etat, and many have views in between. There are respectable scholars on all sides, and all their views would need to be qualified. On the other hand, we don't qualify our writing about the ancient age of the earth (4.6 billion years old), even though some theological sources maintain the earth is merely 6,000 years old. That is because we are sufficiently confident in the age of the earth that we present its age as a fact.

In the case of anti-Semitic canards, I think what you see is that I and other editors regard their existence and falsehood as sufficiently demonstrated, so that we no longer consider the idea just a hypothesis, but rather as an established fact. Conversely, we do not view beliefs that these canards may represent real Jewish conspiracies as contributing any part of educated or scholarly world opinion. That is to say, no sources considered in any way notable or reliable maintain that these conspiracies have basis in fact. Instead, all sources describe such ideas as false. For this reason, we present the ideas as canards without qualification. It is possible we are all wrong, just as we might all be wrong about the age of the earth, but if that's true, we have no way knowing. -Darouet (talk) 15:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Darouet. The calculated age of Earth is like an institutional solipsism (relying entirely on unstable constructs as its foundations)... claiming it as fact without attribution is therefor a logical fallacy. I would point out that scholarship is leaning towards a constructivist model of [even hard] science (with all its epistemological implications). It was maybe a mistake from my part to target one article for something which seems so widespread on Wikipedia. I will find a more appropriate medium to defend my point. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 15:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Yahya, I think you will find that the problem you describe is not in any way a widespread mistake - it is extremely deliberate. WP:NPOV explicitly states, Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, and further Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. "Factual" and "uncontroversial" are determined by prominence of such claims in reliable sources, not by whether something is factual according to formal logic. You are not going to change this on an article-by-article basis. Put your ideas together and make an argument at WT:NPOV or WP:VPP. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with you that probably I should find a more appropriate platform. Just one last point to clarify, while I can see why the scholarly minority isn't included, yet I can still quote policy and claim that we ought to include it's scholarship consensus that it's false (as the quote above doesn't necessarily imply that there should be no source attribution) rather than it being false (separation between subject and object). But then we could be accused of systematic bias, because someone could then allege it's only Western scholarship consensus. It is delicate, because in this particular case the inclusion of Eastern scholarship would create other problems (particularly from countries like Iran) I need not to mention. With the flow of free information this is the reality we are currently facing. I do have some proposals to address those issues at large, but I would be needing help on where or how to address this. Ideally, having someone fix my grammar in my sandbox prior to posting it. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Really, this is a different topic, and so we should close this particular discussion. Views from Iranian media might be in the minority, but still very important for topics related to Iranian or regional politics. But minority Iranian media views on topics related to Anti-Semitic Canards or the age of the earth would not be helpful. -Darouet (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Darouet, see my reply on the entry above on Heath W. Lowry which you have commented. You will see where I am getting at. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Yaḥyā, I think that you are confusing WP:DUE and UNDUE. Playing devil's advocate can sometimes be useful in order to maintain WP:NPOV but, as editors, it is imperative that we use WP:COMMONSENSE to evaluate whether it is WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Frank S. Welsh

A strange article with large chunks of unsourced, essay-style, overly-positive content. This material was recently restored by the long term contributor; I reverted but would appreciate some eyes on the article. The discussion of the revert can be found at Talk:Frank S. Welsh.

Yes, I was reverted. The editor also removed the cleanup tags. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Death of Osama Bin Laden

The Death of Osama Bin Laden article contains a "legality" section reviewing positions on the legality of the killing under U.S. and international law. I recently added the views of Benjamin B. Ferencz, and this addition was removed by Glrx.

Ferencz was chief prosecutor of the Einsatzgruppen trial in the Nuremberg trials, advocated for the creation of the International Criminal Court and recently received the Harvard Law School medal of freedom. His comments on the legality of Bin Laden's killing were reported by the BBC ([10]), The Guardian ([11]), The Week Magazine ([12]), CBC News and UK's Channel 4. He also published a short letter in The New York Times ([13]). Ferencz is a notable jurist, his views were reported by high quality media, and similar views are held by other scholars (e.g. Philippe Sands, Professor of Laws and Director of the Centre on International Courts and Tribunals at UCL).

Glrx argues that Ferencz's position violates WP:DUE since the Nuremberg trials were "years ago," his view is held by an "extremely small minority," and Ferencz's legal position is "not concrete." Glrx further argues that Ferencz's position is "speculative" and lastly states, "You need better sources if you want to imply that Obama, Clinton, Holder, Brennan, Panetta, McRaven or seals are guilty of murder."

I believe this position is highly tendentious: the section titled "Legality" is meant to document views on the legality of Bin Laden's killing, and Ferencz's is one such notable view. I'd like further input because I believe editing with the purpose of defending a list of people from theoretical prosecution would require an inherently prejudiced, rather than neutral review of the killing's legality. -Darouet (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I see now that many more views of this kind were once in the article, and later removed. Respecting length requirements, I believe some portion of it should be returned. -Darouet (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any legitimate reason for the complete removal. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 22:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree. The position is by a notable expert and has been widely published in reliable sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

They should clearly be restored with care to not giving them too much weight. However, WP:NPOV requires a reliable source actually establishing minority vs. majority opinion before making such claims in the article. Scoobydunk (talk) 22:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

A quick search on the matter, I didn't find a clear majority vs minority contrast here. In fact, most Western countries are against death penalty (particularly prior to fair trial) and are for due judiciary process. It can be said, that under their own jurisdiction, the death of Bin Laden isn't so easily definable as legitimate. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks all. Not clear if we have a source that describes the relative importance of these positions, though we do have very significant individuals/scholars and institutions that have taken different positions. We can keep an eye out for such a review to help determine weight. -Darouet (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

2016 Democratic National Committee email leak‎‎

Could we have some more eyes on this article? For the past week I've been attempting to monitor this page to keep it within wiki standards. Most recently a section titled "Racist emails" was added. I haven't looked too closely at these additions yet (from what I can tell it appears to be sourced), but I'd appreciate the extra help. FallingGravity (talk) 08:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Conlan Press

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.

---

Please see Conlan Press, where Rosscoe99 recently expanded the page greatly to something that I'd consider heavily non-neutral (bordering on an attack page, really). I reverted them but was reverted again. Could we have some more eyes on it and discussion on the talk page? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Special:PermaLink/732463033 is pre-expansion, and Special:PermaLink/732463196 post-expansion, FYI. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

This is now extending to Peter S. Beagle, where I'm reverting as well due to WP:BLPRESTORE. Cross-posting to the BLP noticeboard. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:36, 1 August 2016 (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.