This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors. Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.
Editors can post questions here about whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy, and editors interested in neutrality issues will give their opinion. If you are satisfied with a response, please tag your thread at the top with {{resolved}}.
NOTE: This noticeboard is intended for advice concerning specific NPOV issues. Please be concise.
Post what is wrong with what content where, what you think it should say, and why. This board is intended for NPOV inquiries of a simple nature. For complex issues, please consider an article RFC or mediation.
Be sure to provide evidence--links to sources, passages, etc.
This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Wagyu
Three Mile Island accident
An editor is verging on hysterics over my major expansion of the health effects section of Three Mile Island accident (touch of WP:OWN I think). I'm not claiming it's perfect now, but he seems uninterested in discussion, instead slapping on POV tags without explanation and putting this comment on the talk page. External input would be nice. NB for reference, here's the last version of the article before I started editing a couple of days ago. Rd232talk20:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gah. Wow. Um. You don't need a third opinion here, you need an expert opinion. I think disagreement is primarily about the scientific credibility of sources, and that's a matter which generalists are not able to easily judge. RayTalk00:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Admin user account Jersey_Devil invalid blocking
Admin Jersey_Devil is blocking users without giving reason on the block page. I suggest you take up this person's admin privilege and revoke his administrator right immediately. This block violation by Jersey_Devil was caused by the discussion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans#SamEV. He shouldn't violate his admin privelege by blocking someone when that user didn't insult anyone on this matter. The user blocked is: 24.9.96.166.
I immediatily request Jersey_Devil's violation and revoke of admin privilege immediatily. He also reverted this very contentious topic with "npov" tag and removed the npov tag where there is heated discussion about the article going on for days. Here is his unexplained gross negligence revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans&diff=283512854&oldid=283470015 Someone people respond to this matter appropriately and revoke this user's admin account asap. Onetwo1 (talk) 06:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Edit warring on Hispanic and Latino Americans and NPOV dispute
There has been heated edit warring on the Hispanic and Latino Americans, which resulted in user 24.9.96.166 being blocked by Jersey_Devil without any sort of explanation. We need administrator look into the edit warring on that article. The dispute has been between user "SamEV" and 24.9.96.166 and IP starting with 6 over on that article. Please help with the edit warring dispute on the article and see the talk page under "SamEV" and "Jersey_Devil." There is still NPOV dispute but users SamEV and Jersey_Devil (admin account) are removing the NPOV tag and reverting the article to their liking many times now. Please help. Onetwo1 (talk) 07:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
This user is making contentious requests for citations after his initial requests were addressed. This can obviously get to the point were it becomes ridiculous. Are we to believe that every word or phrase of every sentence in an article needs an outside source? I really don't think that's what Wikipedia was created for. This user is nitpicking down to an absurd level, and I believe there is a personal agenda at work here. ViperNerd (talk) 05:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You demanded sources on every sentence in an article I have invested time in, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and I gladly provided them. When you make claims that are from a POV, you most certainly need an outside source. Check WP:VANITY for further clarification. There is no personal agenda here, I am simply trying to remove POV words from articles, and you continually revert them to their previous versions. Fletch81 (talk) 05:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, really? You are on a POV quest across Wikipedia, are you? Then why don't your user contribs reflect this noble crusade? Nevermind, I think we all know the answer to that question. Why don't you stick to improving UNC-CH articles and let people who truly care about other articles worry about improving them? Thanks. ViperNerd (talk) 06:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I seek to improve articles of interest to me, and articles I feel I may be of benefit to as I come across them. I have a right to attempt to improve any article as much as you do. I have maintained civility throughout this process, yet your tone is not conducive to mutual resolution. This is why I have sought opinion from others. Fletch81 (talk) 06:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But you aren't "improving" anything except articles of IMMEDIATE interest to you. That's quite apparent from just a cursory look at your user contribs. You seem to have no trouble at all finding numerous sources for nearly any statement in the UNC-CH article, but you would have us believe that you can't improve other "articles of interest" by likewise sourcing them? That's pretty disingenuous. ViperNerd (talk) 06:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But you are the one who brought interest up. And now it's suddenly not relevant? Why am I not surprised by this coming from you? ViperNerd (talk) 06:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I used the word interest first, yes, as you certainly questioned my motive in editing articles. My follow-up may seem like an odd juxtaposition and wasn't well-worded, but it was intended to clarify that even though I edit articles I stumble upon of interest, that interest is irrelevant to wikipedia policy. Thank you. Fletch81 (talk) 06:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm still questioning those motives. Because you still haven't addressed the simple question of why you seem so adept at providing sources for some articles, while being apparently unable to provide anything except fact tags and templates for others, even though you have "interest" in all of these articles according to your claims. It's a pretty straightforward question, care to help us out with a straightforward answer? ViperNerd (talk) 06:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The main reason is familiarity. I am very familiar with UNC sources. I know where to look for them. But once again, this is irrelevant. I won't ignore bias when I see it. WP:PROVEIT states "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." You have failed to do so. Thank you. Fletch81 (talk) 06:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After viewing the article, I have a concern that is slightly different from the question of whether facts are properly sourced and cited. I'm concerned by an editorial tone that in places sounds more like a promotional brochure than a neutral encyclopedia article. That issue can only be partially addressed by adding references. I've put more details (including examples of the language that concerns me) on the article's talk page. John Callender (talk) 07:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Assyrianist majority has managed to arrive at a "consensus" among themselves of trashing the carefully balanced neutrality at our article on the "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people". Unless this is undone, we are predictably headed for another year of edit wars, confusion and ethnic hatred in these topics as soon as the Aramaeanist faction kicks into action and starts recreating their Syriac peoplecounter-article.
(background, this is an ethnic group that cannot agree what they want to call themselves. See Names of Syriac Christians). Left to themselves, they just tend to create parallel walled gardens, under "Syriacs" and under Assyrians", in obvious violation of Wikipedia's one-article-per-topic policy).
Forcing them to work together rather than creating parallel versions of Wikipedia draws the hatred of both factions of angry young men to the brave admin. I have been handling this for the past year or so, and I am well hated by both factions for my pains by now, so I would appreciate if some previously uninvolved admin could try to undo the worst damage here. --dab(𒁳)09:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While estimating my decision (which I still believe was based on consensus), please read the relevant discussion here and examine not only WP:NPOV, but also WP:NAME, and which title fits better to the latter as well. Thanks.--Yannismarou (talk) 10:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can't we solve the POV-fork problem by simply protecting the current redirects? I just protected Syriac people (which indeed had seen an attempted re-fork just today). Are there any other candidates? Fut.Perf.☼11:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The term "Assyrian people" is really not neutral, and arameanists will not get satisfied.
Since the article "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people" article has been moved to "Assyrian people", then the best thing to do is recreating "Syriac people" article to avoid all forms of conflicts and editwars etc from Aramaeanists. The people is known as "Syriacs" or "Syriac people" by many journalists, historians, scholars etc. A google test showed that term "Syriac people" got 12.000.000 hits [2] and term "Assyrian people" only got 2,480,000 Hits [3]. An article like "Syriac people" must be re-created to avoid editwars and conflicts. Otherwise the arameanist side will never be satisfied. JeanVinelorde (talk) 12:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, if your goal was to confirm Dab's fears about continued disruption, you couldn't have chosen a more efficient way. Look: POV forks won't be accepted. I said on the other page that I would consider blocking people who rallied for POV-forking or otherwise kept making unconstructive noise. I mean that. Fut.Perf.☼12:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok guys, the last thing I wanted to cause was havoc (being accused of being a partisan [!] is also unpleasant, but it is the minor issue as far as I am concerned in this case) Let me just note that JeanVinelorde also supported the move proposal, even though it was clear by the nominator that the acceptance of the proposal wouldn't entail the creation of partisan articles.
I stand firmly by my position that I just implemented consensus (always in accord with our policies), but if you think that the re-opening of the discussion and the reversion of the move (for the time being) would attract more uninvolved users, so that a broader consensus is formed, I have no problem to do that. I did not go to the article's talk page in order to promote any kind of POV neither I enjoy the creation of playgrounds. I believe(d) I did the right thing after a scrutinous examination of the relevant discussion.
In any case, we should also 1) have in mind what dab himself admitted ("I do believe a title "Assyrian people" is acceptable in the light of English usage") and 2) think seriously if the previous title was in accord with WP:NAME. Final comment: I concur Fut's remark above, and I declare that I am also determined to fight POV-pushing, and forking with every available means.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, it's not in accordance to WP:NPOV and neither is it to WP:NAME. Bethink this, "Syriacs" is the name used by all of the group, Syriacs is the least ambiguous and you have double the more hits in google with it compared to "Assyrian people". The TriZ (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This reads as though it is a page in the school's marketing literature and I don't think it is appropriate for Wikipedia. I think the purpose of this page is to market the school. I very much value the ideas behind wikipedia and loathe marketing masquerading as information - I know nothing about the school and have no other axe to grind.
Taking off the quote from the Sunday Times would probably be enough - there are duplicate links to it both in the notes and external sites so it would be possible to leave in the Sunday Times link under the external site links.
I would like to flag this up on the page but don't know how to do so. Having dyslexia makes trawling through a lot of the rules extremely time consuming so would be grateful if anyone could advise me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.50.15 (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Significant edit war in this article between pro and anti - home births editors. Basically each side just keeps adding studies supporting their POV, particuarly in regards to safety. We seem to be debating the merits of each study which to be honest is beyond us. Some advice on what constitutes a valid source and what doesn't or how to resolve this conflict.
This is a subject where it is critically important that a balanced view be given, and that is not where it currently stands in my opinion. I've pointed out a couple examples, and suggested that parts of the article, particularly the safety section, be disputed until both sides can agree in discussion on how to present a more complete picture. Valid studies would be medical studies, conducted by medical universities, which the home birthing community appears to loathe. However, anecdotes and nonsensical stats do a disservice to the subject, and only confuse the issues. Right now, the article's Safety section reads like the material I can get on any pro-home birthing site. Astynax (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've also added to the tag on the talk page to point to the Reproductive category within the WPMED project. You may want to ask for participation there, as they would be more familiar with the studies. Astynax (talk) 18:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This seemingly obscure little article has some strange business that seems possibly related to a section a few up. A couple of editors have repeatedly altered the lead, which currently reads, "Baqofa (also, Baqofah or Bakofa) (Syriac: ܒܝܬ ܩܘܦܐ) is a Chaldeanvillage in northern Iraq located near Batnaya." This is a fairly straightforward recounting of the source, such as it is, which says, "Baqofa is a very old Chaldean village located 15 miles north east of Mosul and less than two miles from the village of Batnaya, it's roots goes back to the Assyrian era."[6]. Their preferred version: "Baqofa (also, Baqofah or Bakofa) (Syriac: ܒܝܬ ܩܘܦܐ) is an Assyrian (Chaldean-rite) village in northern Iraq located near Batnaya." Obviously, this is part of a much larger debate. I've invited sources to no avail; while I've been told they exist in other Wikipedia articles, they haven't been added to this one yet, and I haven't found a thing. (I came to this article following a listing at WP:CP; I know practically nothing of the subject, though I rewrote the article to address copyright concerns.) The most recent to promote this text is an IP editor who seems to be tracking the issue across several articles, coupled with some Swedish obscenities: [7]. Knowledgeable eyes would be appreciated. I'm not even through with today's CP listings, and it's already tomorrow. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)01:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Baqofah Explained
I will try to explain in simple words and in one paragraph. There is a vigorous movement since 2003 to unite all Christians in Iraq under the name Assyrians for political reasons. Historically, most Christians in Iraq were united under the name Chaldeans or simply Christians with small minorities here and there. Assyrian extremists where always there and were ignored for the most part but lately they are being supported by politicians Kurds in north Iraq to gain control over a small valley in Iraq north of Nineveh where most of the Chaldean villages exist today (Tel Keppe, Tel Skuf, Batnaya, Baqofah, Alqosh). The Chaldean people don’t want any territories or land, they simply want to freely practice their religion and simply be called and their villages by a name they have been known by for hundreds of years, going back to references to their names dating back to Marco Polo’s visit to that region. The conflict over the two names is happening everywhere on the internet and it is unfortunate to see it happening here, for no reason other than the ones I explained above.
As there is only one person posting a dispute (suspect) due to bias and personal opinion.
I vote, due to several positive comments posted, the dispute should be dropped...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.25.255.194 (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Self-hating Jew
Self-hating Jew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Some additional eyes on this would be helpful. Two editors want to remove the current intro [8], one describing it as "blatant POV", the other expressing a similar opinion previously on the Talk page. Yet no evidence is given, merely bald assertion; and discussion doesn't seem to have even started properly, never mind got stuck. Rd232talk18:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that the article eCRATER has a "written like an advertising" notice and that the "neutrality of this article is disputed". The notice says to check out the discussion on the talk page, but the editor who flagged the article didn't leave any commentary.
I'm new at writing, so I'm really not sure how should I rewrite it so it doesn't appear as an advertising. I tried to describe what the company/site does without praise or bashing. I would really appreciate if someone point out to me how can I fix it, or if someone more experienced in writing can fix it.
It looks like a fine start to me, and it doesn't look like advertisement or blatantly non-neutral. I've removed both tags with a note of explanation at the article's talk, requesting further information if the tags are restored. I did a search to see if there were some obvious controversies being excluded, and I didn't come up with anything. I also suggested some possible additions at the talk. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking a look, I really don't want to go on a wrong path here. I want to continue learning and writing on Wikipedia. --Kuraiya (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
David Oei's former wine shop
Initially added as the first reference in the article [9], it turned out the wine shop was no longer owned by Oei at the time this reference was added. It was updated by an ip, claiming to be Oei himself [10] Discussed in Talk:David_Oei#Advertisement. It has been unchanged since:
From December 1994 to June 2004 he was the owner of Carlyle Wines, a wine shop that was located on Manhattan's Upper East Side, which was selected by Cadogan Publishing as among The Best One Thousand Establishments In America.[1]
COI issues aside (Editors claiming to be Oei have edited the article with other ips and as Carlylewines (talk·contribs)), my initial response to this information was to remove it as being unimportant and promotional. We've no reference about the Cadogan listing, nor any idea if that is a notable listing. --Ronz (talk) 00:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This info about the store was initially written by the editor who created this article. He's responsible for nearly all the info on that page. Since I discovered the page I've made a couple of corrections and very small additions to the article, not knowing how the system works. Now that I understand the system better I shall never edit again. I did not figure out that I needed an account to do that and therefore the unsigned edits. Since I've open the account as Carlylewines I've also neglected to sign my post properly at times. That being said, I don't claim to be David Oei, I AM David Oei. 421 West 57th St. NYC 212-489-6039. This store was opened by me on June 16th, 1994 and closed by me on June 31st, 2004. Ninety percent of my energies went into this store during that time although I managed to continue part-time in my musical life. Carlylewines didn't exist before me and it died with me. There are no other wine stores with that name that I know of. I will totally abide by the ruling on this issue and I thank user Ronz for going this route, but no one will convince me that 10 years of my life, a quarter of my adult life, is not critical to my life story. (Carlylewines (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Carlyle Wines was chosen to be included in the inaugural issue (Nov. 1999) of 'America's Elite 1000-The Ultimate List- Millenium Issue-The Inside Story Behind America's top 1000 names' by Cadogan Publications Ltd. of UK fame. On page 80 you will find the following description of Carlyle Wines.
"Kevin Bacon is a regular customer at this smart little wine store, which boasts an impressive array of wines, brandies and spirits. Each bottle has been personally selected by proprietor David Oei, whose expertise and commitment to service make this a must stop destination for wine lovers. The store is particularly strong on burgundies, which is unusual for New York. Woody Allen and Sharon Stone are also frequent customers." (Carlylewines (talk) 05:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Kathleen Battle: NPOV and deletions by one editor
The Kathleen Battle article is found here. [11]. While I do not know his age, I suspect he is a very young editor and clearly a fan of Ms. Battle. He repeatedly deletes any information regarding the behavior that led to her firing from the Metropolitan Opera regardless of how well sourced. The firing itself and the circumstances surrounding it received a lot of press attention and are well documented. Its significance to the biography is that it ended her celebrated operatic career. The most recent passage he purged was:
Although Battle gave several critically praised performances at the Metropolitan Opera during the early 1990s, her relationship with the company's management showed increasing signs of strain during those years.[2] As Battle's status grew, so did her reputation for being difficult and demanding. [3] In October of 1992, "when Miss Battle opened the Boston Symphony Orchestra season, she reportedly banned an assistant conductor and other musicians from her rehearsals, changed hotels several times, and left behind what a report in The Boston Globe called 'a froth of ill will.'" [4] In February 1994, during rehearsals for an upcoming production of La Fille du Régiment, Battle was said to have subjected her fellow performers to "withering criticism" and made "almost paranoid demands that they not look at her." [5] General Manager Joseph Volpe responded by dismissing Battle from the production for "unprofessional actions" during rehearsals. Volpe called Battle's conduct "profoundly detrimental to the artistic collaboration among all the cast members" and indicated that he had "canceled all offers that have been made for the future." [6] Battle was replaced in La Fille du Régiment by Harolyn Blackwell. [7] At the time of her termination from the Met, Michael Walsh of Time magazine reported that "the cast of The Daughter of the Regiment applauded when it was told during rehearsal that Battle had been fired." [8]
He distrusts media accounts regardless of the source. He wants primary source eye witness accounts. His stated reasons for the deletions include:
"Is Time Magazine considered a high quality news organization like AP?" [12]
"You state, "The consensus view that Ms. Battle caused her own firing by being difficult and demanding is not presented." In your statement lies the very reason that the portions you feel should be present do not seem appropriate per wikipedia, which is why I remove them. "The concensus VIEW" does not mean something is FACT. That is, concensus view DOES NOT EQUAL fact. In WWII Germany the concensus view was that those of jewish decent were greedy, selfish, inferior. Media helped to spread this view. German people were not "bad" people, but a critical mass and media helped keep this view prevalent which certainly did the opposite of "do no harm." / If concensus view were supported by "stone cold proven facts" (verifiable events and from credible, unbiased witnesses), then it would qualify as fact."
[13]
He doesn't have an understanding of wikipedia concepts or how to apply them. Believe me the debate/educate approach really is pointless. I don't know how to deal with him apart from a continuous neutrality tag which isn't improving the article. Should I remove the tag - the article isn't moving toward NPOV? Any suggestions are greatly appreciated. --Eudemis (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative Theory Critiques Need a more Neutral Stance to prevent violation of Wiki Policies
Meaning of the term "conspiracy theory"
Note: Copied from Controlled Demo page: I wholeheartedly agree that this article should be retitled. The additon of the word "conspiracy" only serves to make the article anything but neutral. The title of this article is in clear violation of Wiki's policy of a neutral point of view. An adequate title to remedy the situation might be : "World Trade Center Controlled Demolition Theory" or something to that effect.(Peterbadgely (talk) 21:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)) peterbadgely
I have reviewed the messages below this, and since one of the editors referred to "controlled demolition proponents" rather than using the word conspiracy, I feel that "proponents" may be an adequate remedy to the above violation of neutrality rules. Note that the word proponent was promoted by a detractor of the banned editor. There must be a more adult manner to deal with these alternative theories. Note that Wikipedia will be read centuries from now, so much the better if we look upon all sound (or arguable) theories with a neutral and inquisitive mind in the present day (2009).(Peterbadgely (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)) peterbadgely —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterbadgely (talk • contribs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterbadgely (talk • Just a note regarding your term sock puppet. before I just clicked on the term and read it's meaning I had no idea what it meant. I can assure you, that I am not that. I will update my personal page for clarification. thanks.contribs) This template must be substituted.
Unless the proponent believe in spontaneous detonation of explosives that just happened to be there for a benign reason, and it was all a huge coincidence, then they must believe in a conspiracy. No OR, just application of definitions. Now I don't believe that proponents of this "theory" do believe it was an accident or coincidence, and hence the article is correctly named. It is also correctly named per WP:COMMONNAME, and other guidelines, while not being in conflict with any wikipedia policies. It is neutral, and moving it towards the conspiracy POV would move it away from neutrality, not make it "more neutral". Verbalchat08:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
:::like many other people who have read and misinterpreted [the essay There Are No Conspiracies], you are obviously confusing conspiracy theories with actual civil conspiracies, criminal conspiracies and political conspiracies, such the ones you mentioned. Domhoff isn't arguing that the latter don't exist (since that would be absurd), he is arguing that "conspiracy theory" has come to be defined as a theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators, such as a "secret team" or "shadow government", which contradicts institutional analysis. --Loremaster (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
As Richard Gage, the foremost promoter of the controlled demolition hypothesis, points out, he has no idea who planted the explosives, and he refuses to speculate because he is not a conspiracy theorist. He merely points out that a crime has been committed. That's documented in his CBS interview, which is archived. Therefore you can have a controlled demolition hypothesis without a conspiracy theory. So, we have four options. We can change the title of the article to make it honest, or we can Wikilink after we eliminate the social science references from the Conspiracy Theory article and replace them with social epistemology references to make that article honest, or we can eliminate Richard Gage from the present article, which leaves it dishonest, given his prominence, or we continue with the present BLP violation, which violates WP:Honesty about as much as is humanly possible. Wowest (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you forgot to add that the NPOV academic sources such as NIST and Bazant et. al. that are used for all the 911 articles are excluded from your definition of reliable sources because they use the term hypothesis instead of conspiracy theory or is there another reason for ignoring them that I overlooked. Wayne (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I quote "As Richard Gage, the foremost promoter of the controlled demolition hypothesis, points out, he has no idea who planted the explosives, and he refuses to speculate because he is not a conspiracy theorist. He merely points out that a crime has been committed.". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thats an observation about Richard Gage, with CBS given as the source. It's included in a comment by a Wikipedia editor, not in a Wikipedia article. — Cs32en (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conspiracy Theory-noun:a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for an unexplained event. Hypothesis-noun:a tentative theory; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena. It is clear that the article content is more applicable to the second definition (what could have happened) than the first (who did it). To use newspaper instead of encyclopedic terminology is POV and inappropriate in this instance. The Nist uses several phrases in ther reports when talking of controlled demolition. 1: Controlled demolition hypothesis (which is the most common term they use), 2: Controlled demolition theory, 3: Controlled demolition event and 4: an alternative hypothesis. Many books by academics debunking CD such as We See Conspiracies That Don't Exist The Physics of 911 and The Absurdity of Controlled Demolition also use the term Controlled Demolition Hypothesis instead of Conspiracy Theory. Based on their own comments I suspect that many editors supporting the current name do so solely because it is POV. Wayne (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The term "conspiracy theory" is generally intended to convey the impression that the proponents of the theory would think that all other people would conspire against them, covering things up etc. Thus, the pejorative meaning of the term is that the mindset of the proponents of such theories would be in some way identical or similar to that of people suffering from paranoia, a mental condition. Referring to a possible alternative meaning of "conspiracy theory", i.e. a theory about a conspiracy, obscures the primary intention with which the term is actually being used. The term is not a neutral expression and thus should not be used in an encyclopedia, except when attributing it to a notable person or institution that uses it. — Cs32en (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources." (WP:NPOV). This does refer to perspectives that are reported by those sources, it does not refer to how those sources present them. There is a reason why WP:NPOV uses the term "evidenced", which is not casual language. "It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively."
"Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it actually is. [...] Furthermore, one may not be able to write about a fringe theory in a neutral manner if there are no independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality about it." (WP:FRINGE) This does not mean: "You must write in a non-neutral way!" It means: "You may be unable to write in a non-neutral way." However, there are enough reliable sources on what the controlled demolition hypothesis is about, so there is nothing that would prevent us to present it an encyclopedic, neutral way. And of course we should report that it is a minority viewpoint and that most media refer to it as a fringe theory. — Cs32en (talk) 17:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources." It is evidenced here: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27].
Exactly.......but which reliable sources? The arguably POV media or the supposedly NPOV academic ones? No matter how many times this is brought up you completely ignore it and keep falsly including NIST in the sources using "conspiracy theory". Please address this. Wayne (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"No matter how many times this is brought up you completely ignore it and keep falsly including NIST in the sources using 'conspiracy theory'. Please address this." I didn't include the NIST in the above list of sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies as I was not specifically refering to the "list" above but to one of your replies on the article talk page and the fact that you generalise about what RS are which includes it. Wayne (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You call subjects by the name, not by the attribute. Wikipedia:COMMONAME: "What word would the average user of Wikipedia put into the search engine?" You don't suppose anyone would look for "World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories", do you? If you google this, you get exactly 18 links at this moment, most of which point to Wikipedia content. So it is clear that "conspiracy theories" is not part of the commonly used name, while it may be an attribute used in connection with the topic. Attributes should, of course, not be part of encyclopedic lemmata. — Cs32en (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your 1st link support a more NPV
NY TIMESThe controlled-demolition theory is the sine qua non of the 9/11 movement — its basic claim and, in some sense, the one upon which all others rest. It is, of course, directly contradicted by the 10,000-page investigation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which held that jet-fuel fires distressed the towers' structure, which eventually collapsed.
So does your third.
US NewsIn the paper, Jones does not make specific accusations about who brought about the towers' collapse and avoids the casual finger-pointing that characterizes much of the movement. But when pressed, he cautiously blames the supposed demolition on Bush administration officials eager to sow war in the Middle East.
In fact none of them use the phrase "controlled demolition conspiracy theory" so I fail to see how you can argue WP:COMMONAME. I agree that the majority of main stream media is dismissive if not hostile to controlled demolition proponents and we should say that. Tony0937 (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tony: You raise a good point and I've been concerned about this as well. Just to give you some background, the article used to be named "World Trade Center controlled demolition hypothesis". But the word "hypothesis" was disputed since reliable sources rarely use this term. So a couple weeks ago (or so) the article was renamed "World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theory". So for the past two weeks, the debate on that page has been whether the article should be "World Trade Center controlled demolition hypothesis" or "World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theory". If memory serves correctly, those were the only two suggestions for the article's title. Between those two choices, I voted for the later on the following basis:
"I did several Google searches on 'Controlled demolition hypothesis' and the vast majority of hits come from 9/11 conspiracy Web sites, none of which qualify as WP:RS. If you ignore the conspiracy Web sites (as we should) and only look at reliable sources, the term 'Controlled demolition hypothesis' is hardly ever used. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources refer to the "controlled demolition" of the World Trade Center as a conspiracy theory."
Obviously, I speak for myself and not any of the other editors, but that was my thinking. (How "World Trade Center" got prepended to the article's title, I don't know. I'm a relatively new editor.)
That would not indicate that the article would have anything to do with the World trade center. We can assume that people who look for this topic would look for "WTC ...", "World Trade Center ...", "9/11 ...", "September 11 ...". And the article is not about controlled demolition (a well known concept), but about the hypothesis that such a controlled demolition occured (a notable minority viewpoint). So, actually, hypothesis (or theory) is the basic term that needs to be in the article's name. — Cs32en (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice WP:OR, but we're supposed to be following WP:RS. As I've already said, most (but not all) reliable sources don't use the word "hypothesis" in regards to the controlled demolition conspiracy theory. I've already provided seven cites to reliable sources - none of which use the term "hypothesis". I can provide more if need be. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources that you have presented don't use any name for the subject of the article, and those that do are calling it hypothesis or theory. Your inference that they would call it conspiracy theory just because you can find the term "conspiracy theory" somewhere else in the articles that you present is WP:OR on your part. — Cs32en (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked again at the sources that were given:
The New York Times calls it the "controlled-demolition theory"
The U.S. News and World Report does not contain a name but says that Steven Jones promotes conspiracy theories, and that he "suggests the towers were felled by a controlled demolition".
USA Today does not contain a name but says: "[Seven WTC] has been the subject of a wide range of conspiracy theories [because of the suspicion] that someone intentionally blew up the building in a controlled demolition." For USA Today, controlled demolition may be one of several conspiracy theories. However, subsuming is not naming, and the Wikipedia article Dog is not called Dog animal. The wording of the BBC article is similar.
However, the U.S. government agency NIST refers three times to controlled demolition hypothesis and once to controlled demolition theory[28].
So the only two sources that actually use a name (NYT and NIST) are using controlled demolition hypothesis or controlled demolition theory. — Cs32en (talk) 20:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update. It's a bit the same as with USA Today. But as they have chosen the title "Debunking the 9/11 Myths", why don't we call the article "World Trade Center controlled demolition myth"? — Cs32en (talk) 00:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TIME magazine calls it an explanation (Note: "explanation" does not mean "correct explanation" in this context): "There are two competing explanations for these puffs of dust: 1) the force of the collapsing upper floors raised the air pressure in the lower ones so dramatically that it actually blew out the windows. And 2) the towers did not collapse from the impact of two Boeing 767s and the ensuing fires. They were destroyed in a planned, controlled demolition." — Cs32en (talk) 02:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The word "conspiracy" used to describe this theory is inappropriate unless it is referring to Conspiracy(crime) (which it is not). Common sense and general awareness of the subject matter lead one (even after a cursory glance at the sources) to realize that the word is not neutral in this context. If Wiki desires to take a non-neutral stance regarding the issue, then this is another matter all together. However, since the so-called reliable sources use conspiracy to describe controlled demolition in a biased, negative, demeaning, and inappropriate way, can those reliable sources be used as a source for a word in a non-neutral title? It seems that an easy remedy would be for Wiki (as an encyclopedia) to distance itself from the biased information and simply rename the article. Can information which is not neutral be used in a title to a Wiki article as long as the slanted, biased, non-neutral term is from a reliable source? Is there a cost benefit analysis between reliable source and the policy of neutrality? (68.14.146.78 (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)) peterbadgely[reply]
Some of those sources even use "conspiracy theory" in their titles. You're right that "hypothesis" is not used at all by reliable sources. It is a neologism contrived by those who promote fringe views. JehochmanTalk02:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only dead horse I see being beaten here is the assumption that anyone would doubt that these sources are reliable sources. The government agency NIST uses the terms "controlled demolition hypothesis" and "controlled demolition theory", and it's certainly not involved in contrieving language to promote fringe views. — Cs32en (talk) 02:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most reliable sources do not use any name that refers to the topic of the article. Those that do are using the terms controlled demolition theory or controlled demolition hypothesis (NIST, NYT), while Popular Mechanics may implicitly use conspiracy theory, as its text is one of the few that address specifically the topic of our article and not some wider issue, such as the 9/11 Truth Movement in general. — Cs32en (talk) 03:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to the formal aspects of the naming issue, that would be a possible entry for a disambiguation page, as such entries are based on the principle of subsumption, and there are WP:RS sources that do such a subsumption with regard to the subject of the article (see my comments above). It would still not address the WP:NPOV problem. Newspaper language is different from encyclopedic language. The other problem is that the name itself would then be "controlled demolition", while people would search for something that has "World Trade Center" as part of the name. — Cs32en (talk) 03:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Under the Controlled demolition page, there was a section which linked to this discussion of Neutrality page. There is NO attempt to purposefully disrupt or violate repetition rules. Peterbadgely has been a member for less than a week and is becoming accustomed to the process and rules. Peterbadgely respectfully requests that Jehochman consider this before requesting that sanctions be applied for unfounded and unsubstantiated accusations. Not only will peterbadgely branch out to other historical subject matter, but peterbadgely will improve the neutrality application of Wikipedia in general. (Peterbadgely (talk) 22:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Further note: Is there a way that members can receive copy of another members lobbying efforts to get one sanctioned, so that a member can respond before a sanction is considered? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterbadgely (talk • contribs) 22:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I just wanted to understand your personality. If the administrators at Wiki are as intelligent as I think they are, then I believe they understand as well. Thank you. (Peterbadgely (talk) 22:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
The discussion that took place before the article was renamed started at 03:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC) and ended at 03:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC). 5 editors have participated in the discussion. This is probably not the appropriate way to proceed when dealing with a controversial topic. As the scope of the prior discussion was clearly insufficient for consensus building, I see this discussion here as legitimate. Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with bringing up the issue before the community if involved editors are unable to achieve consensus or if there are concerns that a given action is inconsistent with established Wikipedia policies, if this is not done repeatedly during a short period of time or in an otherwise distractive way. — Cs32en (talk) 02:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The request to rename the page was posted at 03:46 on 5 April. Three editors supported the change and one opposed over the next six hours before Jehochmanassumed consensus and changed the name. Two of the three supporters lied to justify their support by stating NO RS uses the term hypothesis. None of the three supporters replied to the concern raised by the opposing editor. These actions are a violation of WP policy and policy requires the original name be reinstated pending consensus. This was requested at 08:02 on 6 April and denied, basically on the grounds that conspiracy theorists do not get a say. Several editors then restarted the section with suggestions for an alternative name without using either hypothesis or conspiracy theory to which a single editor replied (the only reply given) that only New York media "has any legitimacy" and all other media is "likely to be quite dubious". The discussion restarted again on 26 April with three editors for and three against. The next logical step is here as it is obvious there is not only no consensus but not even a legitimate willingness to debate on the part of supporters for the current name. When debate fails WP:ARB9/11#Discretionary sanctions are invoked and all opponents are accused of disruption which seems to be an increasingly common tactic. This issue is quite important to WP as it goes directly to the heart of WP's legitimacy as an encyclopedia. Is there someone in WP in a higher position than admin that can review the issues raised here? I apologise if I offend anyone but I have no faith that a popularly elected admin has the skills to mediate in this particlar case. Wayne (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion on Commons has resulted in "Keep", but that explicitly does not imply a judgment on whether it is factually correct or could be used legitimately in Wiki article space. With regard to formal aspects, I'd say the way the image was compiled amounts to original research, so it should not be used in articles. It also lacks sufficient information on what is being regarded as German language. There is a difference between Germanic languages and German. I have a map of the "area of Germanic languages" from a 1953 encyclopedia here that includes the Netherlands, parts of Lithuania, and also Denmark and Sweden. So the area in the map File:Historisches deutsches Sprachgebiet.PNG seems to be either too large (for "German") or too small (for Germanic languages), and I would support deleting the image. If someone should find a reliable source or any notable institution that defines "German" in the way the uploader did, then the image might be uploaded again, with proper sources given. — Cs32en (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked out the image and it does not represent specifically Germanic languages or German. It is a (still current and accurate) map of the six major German dialect branches (combined) - Friesisch, Niederdeutsch, Mitteldeutsch, Fränkisch, Alemannisch and Bairisch-Österreichisch. Wayne (talk) 19:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Dutch area has a different (brighter) color in the map. The reader would think that it would be a variant of German. There is no explanation in the legend, which simply says "German language area", the file name translates to "Historical German language area". I don't think the map is grossly inaccurate otherwise, but it's impossible for the Wikipedia community to check its accuracy, as its composed of so many different sources in a way that I would characterize as original research. And the map actually claims to be accurate with regard to very small areas, especially in the east. The problem here is that alternative proposals might not be factually accurate either at the moment. It should not be difficult to find a non-copyrighted map from an admissible source that shows the language area from about 100 years ago. --Cs32en (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I assume (WP:OR) the dutch area is brighter because although the dialects are part of a major family group they are not widely spoken. West Frisian is spoken in the West Friesland area while Lower Frankish is spoken in the rest of the brighter area. Both are of course German dialects. The map might be more relevant if the author modified it by colour differentiation to show the six different dialect families. As it uses multiple sources this map is minutely detailed compared to what you will probably find on the web so if modified may be a good one to use. Wayne (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is Marburg University's dialect map.[50] Check the boxes to get the different dialects. And here's one [51] that shows some of the language islands. Wayne (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've found a map of dialects spoken in the Benelux countries here. Low Frankish or Low Franconian might be regarded as a precursor of a German dialect, but today's Low Franconian is, according to the Wikipedia article, a subset of the West Germanic languages. The German Wiki article Niederfränkische Sprachen says that Dutch is the Dachsprache for Low Frankish. So most of the area that is bright green in the map is not German language area. I'm not a language expert, so I don't want to make any statement on whether any part of it belongs to the German language area or not.
Prussia invented the term Deutschniederländisch ("German Dutch") for some Dutch dialects, meaning that they would be some German variant of Dutch. (Prussia would of course not have agreed that German would be a variant of Dutch.) This term is logically inconsistent, and has been largely replaced by "Kleverländisch", which is sort of a German translation of South Guelderish. — Cs32en (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The German Wiki has a section on dialects that are being spoken by people who formerly spoke Frisian, and that are therefore sometimes referred to as "Frisian" dialects. The nomenclature seems to be somewhat inconsistent, although there appears to be agreement on the substance of the relationships between the dialects and languages. --Cs32en (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That section explicitely states that those dialects are not considered to be varieties of Frisian languages ("Nicht zu den friesischen Sprachen gehören verschiedene Varietäten in den friesisch besiedelten Gebieten (...)"). Anyway, the problem is solved now, since the map has been replaced with a new one. Wutsje (talk) 10:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I wanted to say: they are called Frisian, but they are not Frisian. I can't find the new map at the moment. Could you add a link here, Wutsje? — Cs32en (talk) 14:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The new map seems factually correct. I'm not an expert and can't say anything on the details (smaller areas etc.). More information on the source should be given (current description: "Based on a map by Dr. V. Schmidt and Dr. J. Metelka."). — Cs32en (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, the article Troy Davis case is not written from a NPOV. The article is very one-sided and does not address both sides of the issue. The article only makes an attempt to convince the reader of Davis's innocence and does not address or downplays evidence against him. Regardless of induvidual editors views, this article must address both sides at least until the Supreme Court decides the issue. JakeH07 (talk) 23:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
New Romanticism
Can someone please look at New Romanticism, I've an anon reverting me as I attempt to summarise sources neutrally. I've attempted to explain on the talk page, but the anon is not listening. I requested semi-protection but that was denied. Appreciate input. Dispute currently centres on this edit, [53], with the anon refusing to list the three bands based on their point of view. I think the current text doesn't work because it renders meaningless the introduction of Martin Fry. In my version the point is supported by the source provided, Rimmer's "New Romantics: The Look'", while the Sim reference supports the point that a number of sources see the band as a NEw Romantic band. Appreciate thoughts. HidingT13:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sajeeb Wazed
This entry does not fit the usual standard of ethics and balance seen in wikipedia, and should be entirely removed.
Twice I have tried to insert sections WITH REFERENCE SOURCES regarding negative aspects of this living person's character. They are well documented cases which can also be verified from the American FBI, if anybody so wishes. On both occasions "Raguib" deleted my insertions. And now it has been given a "protected" status.
What now remains is a one-sided completely unreferred eulogy of a person whose contribution ranks less significantly than millions of young Bangladeshi expatriates.
Hi. I attempted to implement a more NPOV wording here. This was reverted by User:BassPlyr23 who has since removed tags I added from the article and accused me of being a "Palestinian sympathizer". Regardless, I still think "killed" is the mot juste here as no murder verdict was ever handed down. What do others think? --John (talk) 13:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A killing can be a murder without a murder verdict, otherwise there would be no such thing as an "unsolved murder". Calling this a murder is accurate, and therefore NPOV in my opinion. If anything, massacre is more inflamatory than the word murder is, but both are accurate in this situation and should therefore be maintained. TheSeeker 4Talk15:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One user claims this source is not neutral since within the article there’s the following mention: The turning point of the war was the occupation of Lima on January 17, 1881, a humiliation the Peruvians never forgave, Daza...as brutal and incompetent as his predecessors
Yet, given the context of the war several sources talk about humiliation.
See for example the headline of the NY times in 1879.
The humiliation of Peru; The battles which preceded the occupation of Lima.[54]
I must also add, that the source is not being used to claim that Chile humiliated Peru during the war, but rather to verify that Bolivia (another country involved) declared war first.
Please advice is this a neutral source?
You are laboring under a misapprehension. WP:NPOV is a policy we use to guide our writing of Wikipedia articles, not a policy that we use to judge sources. All sources have a point of view. Dlabtot (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is true; a better place for feedback about the appropriateness of that source would be the reliable sources noticeboard. It seems though that you may be alluding to an issue of undue weight, which of course is a point-of-view issue. You may wish to clarify your request, either here, there, or at both noticeboards. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Archie Bunker (fictional character)
I demand a neutral point of view in reference to a debate, in which I am involved with User Mythdon. I am convinced that this User is abusively using the term "Policy" in this discussion.
Also, shouldn't the above referred discussion have taken place here rather than on my personal talk page?
Finally, if User Mythdon is correct in pointing out the lack of "Notability" for the source I am referring to, please indicate what would constitute a notably valid source in the case of a fictional character which is part of a notable fictional TV series.
![[51]](http://pascal.kgw.tu-berlin.de/gnom/Lehre/kw1/06_dialektologie/dialekte.jpg){kind=link}
