Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:58, 12 April 2012

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors. Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Pakistan's denial of Taliban support before 2001

Template:Deadlocked

• There's a deadlocked debate at Talk:Taliban#POV tag (Pakistan's denial of Taliban support pre 2001) and Talk:Inter-Services Intelligence#New content about what was Pakistan's official position to allegations of Taliban support before 2001 (ie. before 9/11). It has been established that Pakistan strongly denies "even providing a single bullet" to Taliban as of now, but the official position on this before 2001 is still disputed and is a point of contention on Taliban article and Inter-Services Intelligence‎ article. I've provided two reliable sources which say Pakistan official maintained that it did not support Taliban before 2001. User:JCAla claims that the president (Musharaf) said other wise in his biography. Which would be the official position? --lTopGunl (talk) 12:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• A quote from Mullen (about an accusation of Pakistan currently supporting Taliban) has also been added to the ISI article while it was already mentioned in the article that Mullen accuses Pakistan of such. I've objected to a full quotation as another quotation from Obama is there too. This is becoming a quote farm. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• The terms "widely alleged" were first being used for the support, this has now been replaced by "widely accepted" by JCAla. This also has POV issues. The term "widely alleged" was put in Taliban article after much effort and consensus. This should be reflected in the ISI article too instead of going over all that again. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• We also have a previous related consensus at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 28#Taliban. How much that is related to this should be judged by uninvolved editors so that JCAla doesn't object. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• That "consensus" is not related as you have been told a thousand times. The time period before 9/11 was not discussed there. The situation for source availability and what is actually said in those sources is completely different for the different time periods. All reliable sources state as a matter of fact that Pakistan supported the Taliban before 9/11 (Pakistani President even admitting to it), while they state as an allegation that Pakistan continues to support the Taliban today. Misplaced Pages needs to reflects the reliable sources according to policy. JCAla (talk) 12:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the following is the sentence introduced by me: "The Taliban regime is widely accepted to have been supported by the ISI and Pakistani military from 1994 to 2001, which Pakistan officially denied during that time, although then Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf now admits to supporting the Taliban until 9/11."

1. We have all reliable sources stating as matter of fact that Pakistan supported the Taliban before 9/11.
2. We have reliable sources stating as matter of fact that Pakistan had an explicit official policy of denial with regards to its support during that time.
3. We have a source describing Pakistan denial during that time while explicitly stating "although the contrary was the case".
4. We have Pakistan's President and Interior Minister (during that time) admitting to "siding with" the Taliban "our boys" in order "to defeat" anti-Taliban forces.

If[REDACTED] wants to present what is the majority position among reliable secondary sources, then it needs to state that Pakistan supported the Taliban before 9/11, while it maintained a policy of official denial, although senior Pakistani officials admitted to the support even calling the Taliban "our boys". Given that an expert such as Ahmed Rashid (a Pakistani who is being consulted by major international government agencies) talks about a number of 80,000-100,000 Pakistani nationals fighting alongside the Taliban from 1994-2001, stating anything else will make a joke of wikipedia's factual reliability and will put it into opposition to all reliable sources. JCAla (talk) 12:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll make some further clarifications to above. Statements like "although Pakistan actually supported" and the kind were not attributed to Pakistan's views by those sources but said by the author. So they can not be expressed as Pakistan's views. Pakistan's position was still denial regardless of being correct. And then there was consensus for using "widely alleged" as the allegation. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, simply "is accepted" would be factually accurate, as it is even accepted by Musharraf himself. The "widely" is only there for you. But really, it should also be removed. JCAla (talk) 12:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

We went over a lot of exercise to end up with a consensus on "widely alleged" (which is still in place on that article). Simply use that one here too. Even you admitted to it there. Why change it? --lTopGunl (talk) 12:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not admit to it there. I said, it was ok as a preliminary compromise with you. But since then a whole lot of new sources have been provided including one where the Pakistani president himself admits to the support. JCAla (talk) 12:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

And why do you want to change that compromise (as you would term it)? After all it is there at Taliban about the exact same sentence. That is called consensus (and those new sources are there on that article too). No use putting a changed sentence about the exact same thing after forming a consensus at one article. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Sources

Extended Discussion

I think above sources are enough to tell Pakistan denied the support whatever was actually said by the accusers. Let some uninvolved editors comment since we've both made our case. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment To write that the ISI and Pakistan did not aid the Taliban, found and train terrorist organizations is historical revisionism at its worst. When all academic sources state as fact that this is true, we reflect those sources in the same manner. That is how an encyclopedia is meant to work. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

That's something you've repeatedly being stating on the article talk page deadlocking the discussion. We are talking here about Pakistan's position on this. Do not try to malign the point in question again. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I have said that Pakistan's position is actually irrelevant. We are not here to write a propaganda view of history, we are here to document actual historical fact. When every single source says Pakistan helped found and support the Taliban, so do we. When every single source says Pakistan founded and supports terrorist groups then so do we. When the only sources which say Pakistan has denied doing these things also say the opposite is the truth, then so do we. Both your sources above for Pakistan denial also say the denial is a lie. We must not misrepresent history by giving any credence to them. If you can present 10 academic sources which say Pakistan has not given aid to terrorists and to the Taliban we can talk, until then we need to represent what every source on the subject says. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• The sources given above by JCAla are mostly for whether or not Pakistan supported Taliban, I don't think they have anything to do with the denial from Pakistan which is the topic of discussion here. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• If we are going to show a denial of support then we have to put that in context. Why do Pakistan feel it necessary to issue that denial; what time period is being referred to, etc. To ignore such points would certainly be POV and would also make for plain weird reading. - Sitush (talk) 10:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

There's already a larger consensus for showing denial where ever any accusations are made, so I'll not be discussing that. As for context... all previous discussions on the talk page, where it has been discussed at length, show that lede is too long for larger amendments. The body already has the context. the statement in lead currently says Pakistan claims to have "dropped" all the support - context or no context, that is completely wrong as it attributes an agreement to Pakistan's views. JCAla presented a source for Musharaf agreeing in his autobiography but all the official views in RS say Pakistan denied. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I am a bit dense this morning, but I cannot make sense of your points above. The lede has to summarise the article; the article has to be balanced - both of these would indicate showing both "sides", provided that they are sourced reliably. There do appear to be reliable sources. What exactly is the problem? - Sitush (talk) 11:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The lede currently says Pakistan claims to have "dropped" the support. There's no reference saying that Pakistan previously agreed as implied by this statement. The lede is currently incorrect. That is the main issue. Further, yes the lede is a summary but it can not have the whole story, that is meant for the body. A simple denial (which is correct) is just enough. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

There seem to be plenty of sources above indicating a commonly-held belief that there was pre-9/11 support. It would surely be a simple matter to come up with a phrasing to represent the situation. Whatever the official Pakistan position may be - now or in the past - is just a part of that whole. How would you prefer to see it phrased, bearing in mind that it probably should be in the lede in one form or another? - Sitush (talk) 11:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, those sources are discussing the support. This discussion is about the denial. Yes, it is a part of the whole, but the issue of how to present the whole is already handled in previous consensus, but JCAla changed it to "dropped" all support as Pakistan's views, which is wrong. I've linked those discussions in the start. This would be a preferred version:

"From 1995-2001, the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence and military have been widely alleged by the international community to have provided support to Taliban. Many international officials have continued these allegations today, but Pakistan strongly denies supporting the group at anytime."

Now this one will include the denial for the current support as well as previous in a single phrase in appropriate weight. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I will have a think. One immediate comment is that the word "strongly" is most likely inappropriate: it appears to be subjective. - Sitush (talk) 12:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Just dumping the current statements here, for comparative purposes.

From 1995-2001, the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence and military are widely alleged by the international community to have provided support to the Taliban. Pakistan has been accused by many international officials of continuing to support the Taliban today, but Pakistan claims to have dropped all support for the group since 9/11. - Sitush (talk) 12:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey Sitush, can't believe someone is finally trying to take part in this discussion. ;) The thing is, all reliable sources state Pakistan supported the Taliban before 9/11, while it maintained a policy of official denial, although senior Pakistani officials admitted to the support even calling the Taliban "our boys". So, that is what[REDACTED] should reflect. Unfortunately, TG is wrong. I did not introduce the "dropped" into the sentence, that was another editor. This is the sentence I introduced: "The Taliban regime is widely accepted to have been supported by the ISI and Pakistani military from 1994 to 2001, which Pakistan officially denied during that time, although then Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf now admits to supporting the Taliban until 9/11." The sentence is a compromise version for TG. Normally, and factually correct, it should be:

"The Taliban regime was supported by the ISI and Pakistani military from 1994 to 2001." JCAla (talk) 15:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• I find TopGun's version better since it is more impartial and not judgemental, which is what JCAla's proposal is. Even if JCAla's proposal were to be added, there should be a statement added to make it impartial, suggesting as to why Pakistan viewed the Taliban as a better party to rule Afghanistan i.e. to bring peace to war-ravaged Afghanistan (getting rid of Afghan warlords) as well as kicking out anti-Pakistan factions made up of minority ethnic groups, such as as the Northern Alliance. Mar4d (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

TopGun's version is not even grammatically correct and consequently it makes little sense. I am still thinking about how best to deal with the general issue. - Sitush (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

What do you find grammatically in correct in my version? (PS. The changes I made were only the modification of word 'dropped'). --lTopGunl (talk) 12:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Mar4d, my statement is not judgemental, it reflects what is written by all reliable sources presented. Why Pakistan thinks the Taliban should rule Afghanistan really has no place at all in the lead of the Taliban article. BTW, your statement about the "why" is full of (partly misplaced) judgement and prejudice. JCAla (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not you added that version, the fact you are defending it puts the burden on you. You're recent suggestion didn't even have any attribution. We do have a previous consensus both here and then a lot of discussion on the article talk page to keep it this way. It will be disruptive to go back removing attribution again. We're discussing denial here. Pakistan never said it 'dropped' the support. Infact all official sources say Pakistan did not support Taliban in the past as well (and the current support is strongly denied). You can not attribute the incorrect statement to Pakistan's views as currently in the lede in terms of 'dropped'. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Also about the use of word 'strongly', it has a previous consensus... someone sneaked it out of the lede without changing that consensus. 'Strongly' is exactly what Pakistan has in its denials for Taliban support. There are reports that say Pakistan denies providing even a single bullet to Taliban. Also this has to be in balance with the 'wide' accusations. This was perfectly in balance. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you see the sources above? Can you understand what they say? Stop claiming consensus where there is none. JCAla (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The sources are about support. Can you specify or only add which sources are about Pakistan's views? It seems to be a flood at the moment. About the consensus, we did get a consensus on this noticeboard that attribution is needed. Atleast you will agree to that for the current support, so do not contradict it. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I would ignore the "consensus" point entirely. Partly because I, for one, cannot see it but mainly because if there is a deadlock then surely by definition there is no consensus (ie: it is not just me that cannot see it). I see sufficient sources to indicate that a mention should be made of pre-9/11 support. The issue is really how best to phrase it. - Sitush (talk) 18:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

There's no use of coming to this noticeboard if we could form consensus at the article talk. We do have consensus on attribution but there's no consensus (actually we did form one but JCAla later readded what he wanted and since then is in disagreement) as such on this phrase yet and the current standing version is attributing something incorrectly to Pakistan's views/denial (not the actual fact which is not the topic of discussion). JCAla disagrees with that though on basis's of Musharaf's autobiography. I don't have any issues if it is said that Pakistan was accused of support before 9/11 as well, but as you said, the deadlock is on the rephrase. Then it should be mentioned that Pakistan denied this support. In anycase there's still no source saying that Pakistan says it dropped the support (because they never agreed they supported). --lTopGunl (talk) 11:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Looks like the best way forward will be an RFC, this shouldn't be stuck for this long. I'll write up a summary and add a section below soon. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

We should let someone such as Whenaxis write the summary. You are heavily involved and I doubt you can write a neutral summary. JCAla (talk) 07:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

My RFC summaries usually present both views, specifically the one that opposes me as I intend to get rid of the dispute and not to keep it lingering, but your suggestion is fair enough, I have requested Whenaxis (or any one on this noticeboard for that matter, who reads this first) to read the points raised by me and JCAla on the top and write up a summary. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify if you two (TopGun and JCAla) are the only participants in this dispute. If that's so, I think a request for a third opinion will do the job. I'm awful busy right now and I'm off on vacation this Easter long weekend. I apologize. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) 23:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

There are atleast two more users involved in this discussion above and some who left the dispute as is. So 3O won't be possible. No issues with delay. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking of filing a formal mediation case to resolve all the issues at hand relating to India, Afghanistan and Pakistan issues. I don't know if this is the best option because at MedCab, Darkness Shines expressed that they are not interested in participating in mediation. In addition, I've talked with my colleagues and the Mediation Committee is busy at the moment. Would you like me to file a formal mediation case, regardless? Whenaxis (contribs) 22:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I think at this point an RFC would suffice for this issue, other disputes are some what being resolved or in discussion.. I'll request a mediation if it gets more complex, but the issue you've raised might run over those efforts. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems that there are disputes between several of the same editors that are almost perpetual. When one is being resolved, another starts. So it is quite complex already with all the disputes revolving around this subject area. I don't how much productivity there will be with an RFC because with the Indians in Afghanistan dispute, only some editors outside of the disptute commented. I'd like to see it resolved but I'm split between an RFC and formal mediation. I'll talk to MedCom and present the dispute(s) and see what they think. If they're busy and turn it away, then it's an RFC. If they're available and accept it, then it's MedCom. Sound good? Whenaxis (contribs) 18:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The issue that remains is that we can not force editors to participate mediation and they might revert it later and the issues will still stand. Like Indians in Afghanistan this might put a stopper to it and coming up another time, a more productive approach can be hoped for. But you can still ask about the views of Medcom, it will still help. Another thing to add is, many of the disputes are petty and as much discussion as at the level of mediation should not be wasted on them. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Awaiting response from MedCom. Whenaxis (contribs) 20:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

They said yes. Whenaxis (contribs) 22:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for help editing disputed article

If any editors have any spare time, it would be much appreciated if Graduated driver licensing could be edited significantly, or preferably rewritten. I have added the POV tag and initiated a dispute on the talk page if you would like to see my reasoning. Regards, --Nztui12 (talk) 09:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Fringe theories noticeboard RfC: Should there be advice to notify an article if discussion is extended or invites action?

There is currently a debate at Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#RfC: Should there be advice to notify an article if discussion is extended or invites action? on whether the advice at the top should include as well some statement like "If a discussion on an article is extends over a day or invites action, please place a notice on the article's talk page, or an associated project page for multiple articles. This is not mandatory". Dmcq (talk) 11:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Latte

A couple of editors are insisting this edit is a neutral term, given the source. I tend to think this is a stretch, but to avoid reverting excessively, I am bringing it here. Input would be welcome. --TeaDrinker (talk) 13:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

This seems to have been deleted so maybe there is no longer anything to worry about.Coaster92 (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC) I would agree that the language was biased to the point of inflammatory, that and the sentence about coffee drinkers being the target of scorn, which I did not necessarily see in the cited references. But both were just now deleted.Coaster92 (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Not deleted, but expanded into its own section. The phrase "left-wing intellectual urban elitist liberal snob" was put into quotes to make it seem more neutral, but it is not a quote from the cited source. I have tagged the section as OR and NPOV, and started a discussion on talk. --TeaDrinker (talk) 23:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Pink slime

Appears to have a bit of "massive editing" by some who do not quite appear, IMO, to grasp NPOV. Eyes are hereby solicited to descry whether my opinion is apt or inapt. The issue involves pretty much the entire article. Collect (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

To me, the language seems to be appropriate to the topic in this case. At first, I wondered about the term "fraud" under History, but I checked the reference and "economic fraud" is the term the speaker (Zirnstein) used. So that seems all right. The article does mention both points of view. I am not sure how you could spin this into something positive. The presentation seems factual and the language seems neutral. Someone would need to check every reference sited for accurate representation. Personally, I am doubtful that would turn up much.Coaster92 (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Straight Pride

I was clicking on the random article link and ran into the page on Straight pride. I have no particular interest or POV other than the usual "racist hate groups are bad" opinion that most folks have.

Looking at the article, I saw the statement "White Aryan Resistance and the Ku Klux Klan, in the name of equality, seek to counter counter gay pride by stressing straight pride. They do this to appeal to anomic adolescents."

I deleted the last sentence with the comment "Removed blatant violation of WP:NPOV."

User:Dominus Vobisdu reverted me (1RR) with the comment "Directly from source and relevant here. Read the source."

I then reverted him (1RR) with the comment "Then rewrite it to say that source X said Y. Misplaced Pages NPOV policy forbids putting the statement in Misplaced Pages's voice."

I have three questions regarding NPOV.

Was I correct in my edits above?

The source cited (http://www.sagepub.com/martin3study/articles/Blazak.pdf) is from a legitimate peer-reviewed source (American Behavioral Scientist) but the paper itself appears to contain a fair amount of editorial opinion. Then again, I don't think I could write an article about racist hate groups without it sounding like an editorial, so maybe the paper isn't actually editorializing at all. Is the source unbiased?

The "They do this to appeal to anomic adolescents" claim, while undoubtedly true, is phrased with a certainty not present in the source. The body of the source consistently prefaces the claim with phrases such as "It has been argued that...", "data suggests that", "I theorize that...", "I hypothesize that..." and "future research will test the hypotheses that..." By the time it hits the summary paragraph in italics at the top, this has morphed into certainty. Was that lead paragraph written by the researcher, or is it a summary written by the editors? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

When covering an area where there are significant conflicting viewpoints being covered, it's not correct to explicitly or implicitly state the views of one side as fact in the voice of Misplaced Pages. Sourcing (or sourcability) is a requirement for inclusion, not a force for inclusions, and certainly not a valid reason to force inclusion of something which violates wp:npov. North8000 (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I reverted because of the blanket NPOV assertion. And haven't reverted again because the second edit summary was more informative. Before your second revert, Guy, you should have posted something on the talk page.

Curious that you picked out one sentence from the article, though, as the ENTIRE article violates NPOV, and a whole slew of other policies. That's why it's up for a merge, not that there's much that can be merged. ] Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Point well taken about putting a comment on the talk page and improving the edit summary. Good advice. Thanks!

I pretty much picked out that one sentence because I was just looking at random pages. When I do that I only edit things that I believe to be uncontroversial, such as spelling errors, vandalism, or in this case a violation of WP:NPOV that was so obvious that I did not imagine that anyone would object to my edit. I really have zero interest in the topic, and thus I am leaving any merging to others. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Ceremonial counties of England

I need some help to fix an article Ceremonial counties of England it is a term that is used for parts of the country where there are counties but it doesn't really apply to London. Basically point 3 below is their sole basis for the contents of the page although this information is already present on: Lord_Lieutenant#Present_day . The usage suggests that it is the nomenclature people use but this has lead to significant POV pushing look at Kingston-upon-Thames it says its ceremonial county is Greater London in the infobox and there is no mention of Surrey which is how many describe the region even today. This fact cannot be explained by simple oversight.

I think the Lede needs better definition help is much appreciated.

Legal sources 1 - 5

• 1. The first thing to realise is that on creation of the Greater London Council (abolished in 1986 without replacement until 2000) that Greater London was not made a county.

London Government Act 1963 Section 3 no part of Greater London shall form part of any administrative county, county district or parish

• 2. The Administration of Justice Act 1964 sections 18 & 19

This created a sheriff and lieutenant for Greater London excluding the city. It is difficult to tell when this took affect the supreme court website implies 1964 but all that really matters is that Greater London still was not regard as a county.

• 3. The Lieutenancies Act 1997 schedule 1 contains the phrase

"The counties in England for the purposes of this Act are—" - the enboldened phrase is the section which is causing confusion this is followed by "(a) Greater London (excluding the City of London);" - There is no reference to ceremonial county anywhere in the act.

• 4. There was a legal order which formally constituted some counties The Local Government changes for England (Lord-Lieutenants and Sherriffs) Order 1997

Greater London is still not constituted so still not made officially a county

• 5. The only time that these bodies are referred to again including Greater London is in 2001 CAP regulations is as Lordships Lieutenant

Other usage is very scarce if we extract sources that are directly lifted from wiki

• 6 is a minor report saying Ordnance Survey doesn't show ceremonial counties. P17 of

"A ceremonial county is an area that has an appointed Lord Lieutenant and High Sheriff. Ceremonial counties are not explicitly represented in Boundary-Line."

• 7 The encyclopaedia Britannica appears to have a definition which I can't see but the snippet is:

"Moreover, in England there is a unit known variously as a ceremonial county or a geographic county. These counties also form geographic and statistical units. In most cases they comprise an administrative county and one or more unitary..." London would not fulfil EB's definition

• 8 The official sources do not describe themselves as a county

Greater London Lieutenancy History city of London doesn't have a High sheriff although it does have 2 sheriffs. and the High Sheriff for Greater London leaves the history completely blank http://www.highsheriffs.com/Greater%20London/Greater%20LondonHistory.htm]

News Archives Use of London as a Ceremonial

• 9 There are two references that call City of London a ceremonial county

one is the China post which most likely took there information from wiki as it is not relevent to the story. The other is from the Letters page of the Telegraph.

• 10 Greater London matches none

• 11 The closest to a reliable source describing Greater London as a ceremonial county is this REal Ale Brewer's Directory

Tetron76 (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Abdullah Jalghoom research on Quran

This article seems to have serious notability problems, but I think the NPOV problems are even worse. I was hoping another editor could give it a look. Polyquest (talk) 01:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Brooklyn Salsa Company

Hey there,

I've been cleaning up after the Expewikiwriter paid group account. This is one of their articles.

While not as bad as some, there's been issues with abusing sources, advertising, and the like in other articles I felt a bit more capable of judging - can someone who knows food-y subjects check it over? Cheers, 86.** IP (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Current Misplaced Pages Article on Global Warming Policy Foundation

Could someone not previously involved perhaps have a look at the article on the Global Warming Policy Foundation? It seems very biased against its subject. Almost every section has negative comments about the Foundation's activities. There is no useful information concerning the content of the studies that the Foundation has published, which is hardly represented fairly by the statement that "The GWPF website carries an array of articles skeptical of environmental science, including demonstrably false statements made by Lawson about climate change and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.".

Also, attacks on the Foundation by a certain Bob Ward take up about a quarter of the text of the article, thus:

Bob Ward, the policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at London School of Economics to comment,“ These documents expose once again the double standards promoted by...the GWPF, who demand absolute transparency from everybody except themselves...The GWPF was the most strident critic during the 'Climategate' row of the standards of transparency practised by the University of East Anglia, yet it simply refuses to disclose basic information about its own secretive operations, including the identity of its funders. ” —Bob Ward 2011

Bob Ward of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change and the Environment said that the graph was contrary to the true measurements, and that by leaving out the temperature trend during the 20th century, the graph obscured the fact that 8 of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred this century.

In response to the accounts the policy and communications director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change Bob Ward commented ""We can now see that the campaign conducted by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which includes lobbying newspaper editors and MPs, is well-funded by money from secret donors. Its income suggests that it only has about 80 members, which means that it is a fringe group promoting the interests of a very small number of politically motivated campaigners."

The Guardian quoted Bob Ward, policy and communications director of the Grantham Research Institute, as saying "some of those names are straight from the Who's Who of current climate change sceptics...It's just going to be a way of pumping material into the debate that hasn't been through scrutiny". The article cast doubt on the idea that an upsurge in scepticism was underway, noting that "in (the US) Congress, even the most determined opponents of climate change legislation now frame their arguments in economic terms rather than on the science"'' — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonDScott (talk • contribs) 17:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Please read the notes at the top of this page, esp.: "Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Give a link here to that discussion...."

As the issue has not been raised there, it is inappropriate to raise it here. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Was George Washington a Deist?

Please see George Washington and religion for a POV dispute over whether George Washington was a deist. The debate centers on both WP:NPOV issues and WP:NOR issues. Third party opinions are needed. Blueboar (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Controversies relating to the Six-Day War

We've had a discussion on Talk:Controversies relating to the Six-Day War concerning this edit to this section of the article. The edit adds two viewpoints to the article body: 1) that the Six-Day War is often mentioned as an example of a pre-emptive strike, and 2) that senior Israelis have since acknowledged that Israel wasn't in fact expecting to be invaded when the war broke out.

The discussion has boiled down to whether the edit complies with WP:NPOV, in detail one editor feels that since the section of the article mentions only the "official" positions of Israel and the Arabs and (all) details are in a (somewhat disorganized) notes collection at the end, adding two viewpoints to the body would not be neutral. The editor says that in order to comply with NPOV, all viewpoints would have to be added in one go, not just one or two.

The edit has sourcing in it already, but there are additional sources in the discussion, e.g. "It has been observed that several official Israeli sources admitted after the war that Egypt did not have the intention of attacking Israel". The author is Tom Ruys, who according to Google Scholar has published in e.g. Journal of conflict and security law and Stanford Journal on International Law. I think that it's accepted that both viewpoints have sufficient sources and represent important views.

I'm one of the parties in this discussion and my opinion is that WP:NPOV nowhere requires that an edit must add all significant viewpoints into an article in one go, and if it did editing the project would be almost impossible. I also feel that adding significant viewpoints to the article body is what most normal editing in Misplaced Pages is all about, and an argument that it can't be done because the article has a notes-list isn't supported in WP:NPOV. Therefore I don't agree that the edit infringes WP:NPOV. In fact the edit adds one viewpoint that rather "supports" Israel and another that rather "supports" the Arabs specifically to remain neutral.

Comments from others? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

War of the Triple Alliance / Paraguayan War

The article War of the Triple Alliance (a XIX century war in South America, nvolving Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay) was moved to Paraguayan War the last september, according to Talk:Paraguayan War/Archive 1#Requested move 2011, citing google book results: 6.080 vs. 16.100. There was a new discussion a pair of months ago, at Talk:Paraguayan War#Requested move 2012. It raised concerns about the neutrality of the title and the accuracy of the results: the title may have a pro-Brazil bias (it's the name used in Brazil, the other is used at the other countries, and both usages were mirrored into books in English), and the google book results may actually be 175.000 for "War of the Triple Alliance" and 57.500 for "Paraguayan War". The discussion and full explanations are at the talk page. However, the closing admin User:Mike Cline kept the "Paraguayan war" name, albeit accepting that both names were widely used. Still, the closing was criticized at Talk:Paraguayan War#Result of the move discussion: majority supporting the move, triple page views for "War of the triple alliance", closing vote; again, it's all in that discussion.

And the new thing is that User:Lecen is now going around all articles that use the "War of the Triple Alliance" link and replace it with "Paraguayan war" in a bot-style way. I pointed it then, and then he reasoned that he was not changing any Argentine or Paraguayan articles (meaning, he just used the Brazilian standard in Brazil-related articles). In recent days he is making the change in all articles, of any nature, of any topic, using any bibliography. To point an example: "Los mitos de la historia argentina", an Argentine book of history, changing "it talks about the ]" to "it talks about the ], when it actually does not: the book talks about it from pages 237 to 265, and uses the first name. There are lots of other examples in his recent contributions, even beverages, hospitals, administrative divisions, tourism, ethnic groups, etc; even portal pages. (meaning, there's absolutely no rationale in which pages to change, he's changing them all).

I consider that Lecen is trying to universally impose a single usage of a name that is not universal (even the admin that closed the deletion request said that). I consider this goes against Misplaced Pages:Bot policy#Bot-like editing, Misplaced Pages:Redirect#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken and the spirit of Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style#Opportunities for commonality. I don't think talking with him more than I already did will solve anything, I have always seen him reacting harshly to any type of criticism. My question is: is this massive linking change an acceptable behavior, or should it be reverted? And, now that we are at this, was the closing of the move request an acceptable one in the first place, or should it be changed of discussed again in a wider RFC? Cambalachero (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll be direct and straightfoward here: most links were under titles such as "Lopez War", "Paraguay War", "Triple Alliance War" and also "War of the Triple Alliance". I changed them to "Paraguayan War", the article's actual name. I wasn't aware that that was a reason for an ANI. The article is known in Argentina and Paraguay as "Paraguayan War". However, I'd like to remember that this is not the Paraguayan or Argentine Misplaced Pages, even less the Brazilian Misplaced Pages. If he prefer his Argentine articles as "War of the Triple Alliance", he may feel free to revert, then. --Lecen (talk) 01:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Cambalachero. Lecen has been going around to several random articles (including Chincha Islands War) with the specific purpose of favoring his POV term "Paraguayan War". Initially, I thought that this was solely a "Brazilian POV" issue, but now I understand that Lecen's own POV is involved on this matter as well.

As I noted on User:Wee Curry Monster's talk page, , this whole "Paraguayan War" business seems to be a result of Lecen taking ownership over Brazilian Empire articles and trying to make things match his POV. While I have no complaints on the quality of the work done by Lecen, I truly believe he stepped over the line of reason by pushing for the name change in the former "War of the Triple Alliance" article (the original name of the current "Paraguayan War" article, and the most widely used name in the English language per Google Books search results in English; which nulls the original premise that led to the article's name being changed in the first place).

In any case, him going around different articles to keep promoting his perspective on things is not appropriate behavior. By deleting all other names of the war, he is deliberately imposing the name "Paraguayan War" on everything. This should be stopped.

Regarding his behavior, well, I think we can leave that aside. I'd like to think he has reformed. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | 02:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Again? The same two editors who opposed the move and made a second move which was defeated? I wonder how long it will take to the third one, Wee Curry Monster, to appear. Ow, not long, it seems. Let's canvass! --Lecen (talk) 02:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not a canvass as the user has been previously involved in this topic, added that I directly mention him in my prior post (per etiquette in general, it's not good to talk about someone without mentioning it to them). Sadly, your comment indicates to me that your behavior has not changed, thereby demonstrating that Cambalachero took the right decision by bringing this issue directly to this board. Regards.--MarshalN20 | 03:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

So we should call everyone who voted in the failed move, then? And I am wrong to point that it makes no sense to call people who will certainly support my/your/anyone else's point of view? Really? --Lecen (talk) 03:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Assuming that there is a WP:CONSPIRACY is not a good thing (Unless you actually have strong evidence to back it up). I provided a reasonable explanation as to why I mentioned this discussion directly on the talk page of Wee Curry Monster (albeit I am sure he must have previously seen it considering it popped up on my watchlist for the Talk:Paraguayan War; meaning that anyone else from the past discussions can also come by here to comment). And I think your side-tracking of the discussion is an obvious attempt at diverting the main purpose of this section. Regards.--MarshalN20 | 04:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Attacking editors because they made move proposals or critiqued your material (]) also serves to further validate the case of a WP:OWN and WP:POV problem, needless to say a WP:Wikiquette situation. Regards.--MarshalN20 | 04:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment: according to noticeboard rules, I informed Lecen (see his uncivil response) and Mike Cline directly, as I talked directly about them here. All the several other users that took part in the move request have been informed indirectly at the article talk page. Cambalachero (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

As I have noted previously, I don't see this as a NPOV per se, rather Lecen and a group of Brazilian editors have been changing[REDACTED] articles to reflect terms used principally in Brazil but they don't necessarily correspond to how they're known in the English language. The War of the Triple Alliance is almost universally known in English by that name (and in South America outside of Brazil), you will see a false positive in a Google search as many authors note it is known in Brazil as the Paraguayan War.

Rather the issue is one of editor behaviour and overt nationalism, in that Lecen defends these moves with a tenacity that is very much characteristic of WP:OWN. I note that Lecen is already resorting to the same personal attacks that we saw in the move discussion. Sadly it seems he has failed to heed the lesson from his civility block on that occasion. I would suggest an RFC/U is a better route to deal with an editor behaviour problem rather than a pointless discussion here, which will dissolve into some rather pointless bickering as a result of intemperate remarks. Lecen needs to learn to collaborate rather than confront. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

ZEPHYR (code word)

Just wondering if anyone could comment on any possible neutrality, or perhaps notability issues with this article? Not really with the content per se but more of it being the focus of its own separate article, as if making an overt anti-tobacco statement. Also considering there's no mention of "zephyr" in either the Tobacco industry, Tobacco politics, nor Lung cancer articles. -- œ 01:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution