Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:13, 31 January 2010

• WP:POVN
• WP:NPOV/N
• WP:NPOVN

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}}.

For general questions about the NPOV policy, please go to the Neutral Point of View talk page.

Guidance on how to make articles conform to Misplaced Pages's neutrality policy can be found on pages listed in Category:Misplaced Pages neutral point of view, primarily the policy pages Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view and Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/FAQ. For a list of articles that have been marked as potentially containing a NPOV problem, see Category:NPOV disputes

If your question is about whether material constitutes original research, please use the No original research noticeboard. For review of whether a source is reliable, go to the Reliable sources noticeboard.

See also Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Neutrality and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Countering systemic bias whether these would be better venues for the issues you're trying to address.

Click here to post a new topic or discussion. 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.

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 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Oldenburg Baby article

I'm having issues with the Oldenburg Baby article. Compared to the German version of the article it seems extremely biased towards a pro-life position. For example the article fails to mention the mother's preexisting condition of mental instability and her threat to kill herself should the abortion be denied. It also makes it seem as if the mother killed herself solely because of the events of the failed abortion. Also the time frame given ("the procedure took place less than four hours later") seems highly unlikely, isn't cited anywhere and gives the decision for abortion yet another negative spin. Could someone else look at this and tell me what they think?

I think that the article has a bit more fact than opinion to it. But this definatly needs to be sourced properly. This is one of those cases that could probally be cleared up with references. I will keep watching this & the page. --MWOAP (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

No further comments have been made. Closing. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 02:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalisation of Demonology and Demonologist

few months ago he/she already had waenings, now and again

Revision history of Demonology:

(cur) (prev) 04:05, 9 January 2010 Ian.thomson (talk | contribs) (21,632 bytes) (Getting rid of redirecting link.) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 03:07, 9 January 2010 Idot (talk | contribs) (21,706 bytes) (now it is not a redidirect!) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 16:31, 8 January 2010 Ian.thomson (talk | contribs) (21,632 bytes) (Removing a link that redirects here.) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 08:55, 8 January 2010 Idot (talk | contribs) m (21,706 bytes) (orpho) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 08:53, 8 January 2010 Idot (talk | contribs) (21,705 bytes) (agree) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 04:46, 7 January 2010 Ian.thomson (talk | contribs) (21,632 bytes) (This article isn't about the demonologist class in some games.) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 03:35, 7 January 2010 Idot (talk | contribs) (21,663 bytes) (Undid revision 336140734 by Gordon Ecker (talk)) (undo)

(cur) (prev) 04:28, 6 January 2010 Gordon Ecker (talk | contribs) m (21,632 bytes) (removing from the character classes category) (undo)

the sitation is following:
1. the Demonologist is a character class in D&D
2. Ian.thomson removes any info abot that fact from Demonology and Demonologist articles
which is a kind of vandalizm (Idot (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC))

Hi, might I suggest to use the {{about}} template to indicate that the articles are about real-world religion and to provide links to the D&D articles? Instructions here Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

There being a demonologist class in a number of games does not justify that the article about historical demonology be altered (as you have done in the past), nor justify that they have a separate article (which you have repeatedly tried to create with original research and some outright misinformation). Also, it is a lie and nothing more to say that I got any warnings from your actions in the demonologist and demonology articles. Adhering to notability guidelines and trying to ensure the quality of articles is not against POV. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Narayan Dutt Tiwari

In the introductory para the statement 'With his recent sex scandal whole nation is angry and burning like any thing', reflects a more personal point of view. The para on Sex Scandal again contains statements that are non-neutral. Requesting a check on this.

article on Human_rights_in_the_United_States

The article Human rights in the United States needs balancing to increase mention of direct and indirect human rights abuses within the country and decrease the "patriotic" feel of the introduction and other major sections. Please see the Talk page for my suggestionsKikodawgzzz (talk) 02:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

SOFIXIT. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 02:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the POV Messageboard, where people are permitted to bring POV issues on articles to the attention of others so that those issues may be dealt with collectively. If everyone was capable of doing everything themselves, and didn't need to do anything in a collectively-sanctioned way, we wouldn't need each other, but we do need each other, and that's how it is. Please butt out if you don't want to help in that regard. I have done plenty of my own work on Misplaced Pages. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 07:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I offer here an update on the behavior of User talk:72.39.210.23, who immediately engaged in threatening language when I so much as stepped a single toe on the talk page to even suggest that the article might need re-balancing to restore NPOV. When I listed those suggestions, his immediate response was:

No. You won't be doing that. I'm sorry, but you cannot get away with that per NPOV. Anti-capitalist information you want to add? There's very little, if any, anti-capitalist sentiment in the United States. There are no reliable sources (leftist fringe websites do not count) that state capitalism is linked to racism or forms of oppression. Anti-immigrant sentiment is not isolated to the U.S. it is an issue in many western countries, especially in the U.K. however in the U.S. it is generally only an issue of illegal immigration. Illegally entering the United States and staying beyond the legal time frame specified to remain in the country is a violation of federal U.S. law. Anyone who engages in such a violation is a criminal, therefore it is not racist or wrong for people to be opposed to criminal activity. You will not be editing this article to suit your biased views. I'll make sure of that. 72.39.210.23 (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This is gonna be a rough ride....! :) Any help please? Kikodawgzzz (talk) 06:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You really didn't help yourself when you brought WP:OSE into it and then proceeded to further shoot yourself in the foot by referencing the Black Book of Capitalism. That being said, your "additions" are both laughable and ridiculous. You might have had points with treatment of African Americans and indians in the past, but your penchant for hyperbole as you describe "mass arrests of left-wing dissidents," your insistence that the "current treatment" of African-Americans includes "widespread death and destruction" (last I checked we didn't have a genocide going), and the claim that reservations today are "oases of murder and horrendous poverty" (aren't a lot of them building casinos?) seriously discredit your arguments. What you say has a grain of truth to it to be sure, but you need tone down the rhetoric and actually try to hide your anti-US pov. Soxwon (talk) 07:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

While areas of the article can be improved, it should mention treatment of aboriginals and immigrants including attempts by the US to protect their human rights, the article does appear to show neutrality. The IP's comments are unfortunate because they do not reflect the tone in which the article is written. The Four Deuces (talk) 10:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

@Soxwon, actually, technically (and realistically) speaking, no, I don't need to do that. If I did need to do that, then the article on Human Rights in Cuba would have to tone down its "anti-Cuba rhetoric", which it certainly does not do, and no one actively goes up much against that article over there-- at least not actively. Your other points are textbook fundamentals of stuff spoken by pro-U.S.-system people (patriots or whatever it is you call yourselves; I have no respect for you and never will) and as such, I will ignore them and everything like them when talking about this topic. Separately, as far as The Four Deuces's comments, I would actually argue that it's entirely possible the article needs a simple rearrangement of paragraphs positioning to start, followed by sourcing and re-sourcing of proven accusations of the many horrendous negatives in the US's internal human rights record, which of course have nothing to do with their actions overseas and are thus much less in number than the latter, but do include things like MKULTRA. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 05:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Then instead of throwing out fantastic claims here and screaming bloody injustice, why not actually go to the article and (using reliable sources) actually add the material you claim is so readily available. However, I stand by the fact that we are A) Not jailing left-wing dissidents en masse, B) Actively killing off our Black population. As for the reservations, while what you say may be historically accurate, it is not necessarily true today. And again, the article about Human Rights in Cuba has nothing to do with Human rights in the United States so if continue to use that as a reason to insert material you will most likely be reverted. Soxwon (talk) 05:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You keep talking like I've already made changes to the article.

And I've been to the rezzes. Have you? No. So STFU. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 06:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm addressing the changes you've insisted need to be made. And actually, yes, I've visited Indian Reservations, please refrain from uncivil comments like STFU. Soxwon (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

They do need to be made. That's why I've posted the thing here as something to be worked on. Do you have a problem with the probability that the democratic process when applied to this article might result in quite a bit of the more unsavory aspects of internal US history coming out? Too bad. That's what happens when a country behaves as the US has. Gotta be able to tolerate that "freedom and democracy" shticks are gonna get balanced with other truths and perhaps even outweighed by those other truths. That's ultimately what the Soviet Union had to do, what Europe's imperial powers had to do, and the US is no different. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I await these so called truths that you have yet to produce. Soxwon (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

As do I. I've been following this thread and I've yet to see a reliably sourced claim to back up the hyperbole I've been reading. I don't mind debating issues & facts, but as this isn't a freshman Philosophy course I won't debate rhetoric. Rapier1 (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(←) I am curious to know why the Black Book of Communism is considered by many to be a WP:RS while the Black Book of Capitalism is not. Simonm223 (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Then I would suggest going to WP:RS and inquiring. Soxwon (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

USCCB Comment

"Quote:"

In 2007, Office director Harry Forbes was sharply criticized for giving a too favorable rating on the Golden Compass movie, which strongly attacks the Church's teaching and Magisterium.

"End Quote"

Is this a quote from a particular article or person? The way it is worded now states as a fact that The Golden Compass is anti-christian. From what I understand most people, including myself, believe that this statement is of an opinion, rather than fact - and that there are also many who would disagree. If this is a quote, it should be presented as such, with citations. Otherwise, it should be removed.

Also, I would recomend changing "the Golden Compass movie" to "the movie The Golden Compass," as it is a title and should be written and italicised properly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/United_States_Conference_of_Catholic_Bishops'_Office_for_Film_and_Broadcasting

NPOV in framing controversy

I'm having trouble at Climatic Research Unit hacking incident/E-mails. This is an introductory section that is supposed to frame the debate, yet all of the cites there are dismissive of the controversy, which of course, is one of the sides in the controversy (i.e. it's a tempest in a teapot). All attempts to frame both sides of the argument have resulted in reverts. Offers in compromise rejected (see here). Am I crazy or doesn't framing a controversy in a one side manor amount to WP taking the side that this is in fact a tempest in a teapot?Jpat34721 (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Alot of the article appears to be quite one sided. Particularly the section where specific emails are discussed. An email is quoted and then a quote in defence of or explaining the email immediately follows. The vast majority of the quotes in the article are from the 'tempest in a teapot' side of the argument.J Bird (talk) 11:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The article in question is a horrible example of "goal-tending" by a few POV editors and frankly serves as a caricature of the types of articles that give Misplaced Pages a bad name.--Textmatters (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Somaliland

There is currently a discussion ongoing at Template talk:Africa topic regarding Somaliland.

As background, following Somalia's descent into anarchy in the early nineties, part of the north of that country declared itself independent as Somaliland. This territory has a functioning government that considers itself to be de jure independent, and claims borders corresponding to those of the former British Somaliland. It is in de facto control of a majority of that territory, but is not recognised by any outside state. Sources are generally available on the talk page, but it has become rather long-winded. Note in particular, however, that it is not argued that Somaliland is a micronation. Either it is an independent state or a state of Somalia.

Mainstream media sources tend to call Somaliland a "self-declared republic", an "unrecognised state" or a "breakaway republic". A lot of the discussion has centred on the Montevideo Convention, but now that we have (non-neutral) sources arguing both sides, this has rather closed down.

User:Middayexpress argues that all sources that support Somaliland independence (and in particular Somaliland government sources) are inherently unreliable on the grounds that many of their authors have a POV and (he argues) have links to the Somaliland government. In the case of the Somaliland government itself, he argues that their view that Somaliland is independent is unreliable because: "f course they will say that it is; that is what their entire campaign for recognition is about." Having dismissed such view, he argues that the view that Somaliland is independent is a tiny minority view that should not be allowed for.

I argue that the fact that the Somaliland government considers itself independent, and that the rest of the world disagrees, is sufficient for WP:NPOV to require that we allow for the notion that the Somaliland government may be right. I argue that this should not mean that Somaliland be listed on a par with Somalia, but that Somaliland should be explicitly marked as is currently done with the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, or placed in a separate part of the template.

My questions. In the collective opinion of this noticeboard:

Is the view that Somaliland is independent a "tiny minority" view that need not be included per WP:V?

Should Somaliland be listed on the template, given that such listing would not put it on a par with Somalia and other states that are generally internationally recognised?

Thanks, Pfainuk talk 12:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I would say that it's not a tiny minority viewpoint, given that it's the official policy of the territory's government, but it shouldn't be included on the template given the complete lack of outside recognition. An appropriate comparison would be Transnistria, a breakaway territory of Moldova, which lacks any outside recognition and is not listed on Template:Countries of Europe. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd actually argue that Template:Countries of Europe is fairly seriously biased. It includes Kosovo as an independent state on a par with Serbia, but does not give equivalent status to Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Northern Cyprus, South Ossetia or Transnistria. The only ways in which Kosovo is distinct are the number of recognitions and the fact the United States and much of the rest of the Western World recognise it - indeed, the template accords exactly with the POV of the governments of most large English-speaking countries. Better to include all six in a separate section, below the list of those that are generally recognised, or to include them in italics with a note saying that entities in italics aren't generally recognised, or are disputed, or somesuch. Pfainuk talk 13:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you want to reopen that particular can of worms! The five territories you mention all have either minimal recognition (by one or two states) or none at all, in the case of Transnistria. There was a long debate about which to include in the template before it was agreed that a state should only be included if it has significant recognition. In fact, Kosovo has slightly more international recognition than the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic and it's recognised by all of its neighbours with the exception of Serbia. In the case of Somaliland the answer should be easy - it has zero international recognition and no state in the world recognises its territory as anything other than part of Somalia. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Abkhazia and South Ossetia each have four UN member states (Russia, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Nauru), plus Transnistria and one another. How many more do they need, exactly, to have "significant recognition"? Five? Ten? Why would you not say that recognition by a member of the P5 is significant? Why is it not significant that, like Kosovo, they are recognised by all of their neighbours except one?

Do you not think it's biased to definitively accept Kosovo as independent of Serbia, as that template does? Do you not think that appearing to take the US government's POV as fact and reject Serbia's POV out of hand - as we do on that template - is bad for Misplaced Pages? That it gives the impression of bias? Why should the Transnistrian and Nagorno-Karabkh POVs not be allowed for: why should we prejudge the disputes by declaring them definitively non-existent? No, I don't accept this as a sound reason to reject any of those five, nor as a sound reason to list Kosovo on level terms with Serbia. Pfainuk talk 22:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't shoot the messenger - I'm just telling you what the existing precedent is in this kind of dispute. The precedent suggests that Somaliland should be excluded from the template since it's not regarded by any UN state as independent, nor does it have any status in international law as an independent entity. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO, Transnistria is currently recognized by two non-UN members; Abkhazia and South Ossetia. It is not on equal par with Somaliland, in this case. Please see the List of states with limited recognition page to gain more knowledge on this subject. Outback the koala (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the subject, thank you. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I was a little confused I guess because above you stated that Transnistria lacks any outside recognition, when it in fact does. Sorry to bring up facts and all that. Cheers! Outback the koala (talk) 04:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I'll probably go template-fixing after this. We should definitely have a standard for all. I'd advocate sticking with the two Theories, like how its explained on the List of sovereign states page. Night w (talk) 11:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

There are articles on two competing definitions of statehood: The Declarative theory of statehood versus the Constitutive theory of statehood. Only the latter cares about counting votes to see how many other countries view it as a country. I think favoring one viewpoint of statehood is problematic. However, states with no/limited/disputed recognition should be footnoted or grouped separately so that readers have a clear understanding of their international recognition.RevelationDirect (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Harvey Whittemore

The neutrality of Harvey Whittemore (before deletions...compare with the current Harvey Whittemore) has been questioned. Wholesale deletion of amply-referenced sections of the article has also occurred. In crafting the biography, I used 27 of the most prominent and recent of over 300 reliable sources, every one of which covers the subject himself and/or his business or not-for-profit ventures. The sources include several articles from the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times and articles from Nevada's two major newspapers. Where opinions were stated in these sources, I was careful to attribute the opinions. When available, I included statements by the subject himself to give his perspective on controversial issues. I admit to having strong feelings on environmental issues, and the subject of the article has been criticised by environmental groups; however, I have made every attempt to avoid allowing my views to colour the language I used in the article.

I would appreciate an independent look at the biography as originally written. Thank you. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 13:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Can I just pick on one of the claims here. One of the other editors moved this "wholesale deletion" text into the discussion page WP:BLP and WP:Coatrack at 08:06 on 11 January 2010 and requested that the content be discussed and reviewed on these criteria before inclusion. Keepcalmandcarryon's response was to restore them at 16:00 on the same day without discussion.

The issue at hand here is not one of use of WP:RS, it's one of adopting a strong bias (instead of adopting an encyclopaedic and neutral stance) in selecting which sources to reference and the individual extracts from those sources that paint a quite different picture from the body of sources as a whole. Please review some of the discussion page as well as the history time line. I've given one example in the discussion, because you really need to read some of these references as whole to understand what I am talking about.

Also be aware that this article arose as a spin off of the Whittemore Peterson Institute (WPI) article (a medical research institute), which itself was a spin-off of the XMRV article.

A determined editor can pick a subject and get away with major distortion if willing to devote the time and effort, unless other editors are willing to fight and really understand how to prevent the Misplaced Pages processes being manipulated. I am a UK based IT professional, and I have absolutely no interest or opinion in this Nevada-based businessman (or common interests) other than the fact that he happened to help endow the WPI, the output of which does interest me. I certainly don't have the time or the desire to get into an edit war on this one. Yet I am defending Harvey Whittemore here because the reputation of Misplaced Pages is important to me and I don't think that the Misplaced Pages process is doing right by this individual. I've kind of run out of energy with Misplaced Pages for now, so I will take a editorial break pending a response. -- TerryE (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC).

Neutrality of company article

moved to Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Neutrality_of_company_article. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

BIAW

Appears on its face to have POV issues. For example:

The BIAW is Washington state's biggest lobby against climate change, open space, and other environmental legislation. The group's newsletter has gone so far to equate environmentalists with terrorists. The BIAW is unlike other business groups in Olympia according to environmental lobbyist Clifford Traisman. "They are to the far right of most business in Washington state," Traisman says. "They believe the free market should rule supreme."

In 2005, the southern resident orcas were designated an endangered species. In 2006, the BIAW along with the Washington Farm Bureau sued the government to remove orcas from the endangered list. The legal challenge was thrown out of U.S. District Court.

In 2007, the group challenged the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that protects threatened and endangered salmon across the West.

In 2008, the BIAW, in their newsletter Building Insight, equate environmentalists with “Nazis and terrorists."

In 2009, the BIAW has been fighting environmental legislation such as solar water heaters in new homes.

and

The BIAW is generally anti-tax, but in 2005 they lobbied for an excise tax to replace so-called "impact fees" that local governments assess on new construction.

I tried to clean up some of the worst offenses, but suggest other eyse would help a great deal here. Collect (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This is going to be a difficult article to get right. There seem currently to be two sets of sources: BIAW itself, and Seattle newspapers. Both these are in principle appropriate. Does BIAW really get as bad a press as this in Seattle? If it does, then all we can do is reflect it and make sure that BIAW's own view is also in there, from its website or statements. (Perhaps they should change their PR consultants, but that's not up to us to say.) If there are also more positive articles in the local press then they should be in there too. One basic thing to do is to reorganise the section on the positions taken up under more neutral headings, and fewer headings. "Anti-union" won't do - what about "Labor policy"? One NPOV tag at the top of the article is more helpful than one on each small section. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible USA-centrism at demographics

Concerning the article demographics. Some other editors from as far back as 2006 have expressed concern about US-Centrism on this article

• diff
• diff

The article covers in some detail some of the demographic groups that are found in the United States in this section. However these demographics are not universally applicable all over the world and thus possibly undue weight is given to experiences in the United states. Some of the material is interesting but I have suggested is more appropriate in an article such as Demographics of the United States than a general demographic article. Watergate is not relevant in many parts of the world and so is McCarthyism. There is currently a dispute on how to handle this material and some outside input would be helpful. Wapondaponda (talk) 04:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

hmmm.. something I know a little something about. I'll take a look. --Ludwigs2 05:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Platelet-rich plasma

According to this article treatment with platelet-rich plasma fixes just about anything. Somebody with some medical beackground probably can better judge about the article's bias than I can. Also comments on talk page. --VanBurenen (talk) 12:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ferdinand Nahimana

Ferdinand Nahimana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please review this article which looks to be written from the perspective of a supporter of Nahimana. A lot of good information, but should be rewritten for WP:NPOV. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Nazi Germany

Nazi Germany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An editor claims that the article is not neutral. At Talk:Nazi Germany#Neutrality, User:Professional Assassin says that "The sources which have been used in this article are mostly from allied countries which is obvious that are not neutral. The current form of article looks like a war time anti-German propaganda". The user has made these edits, some of which I have already reverted. Could other editors please assess the merits of this claim that the article is biased in favour of the Allies, and whether this editor's edits were themselves neutral? Fences&Windows 22:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles should be based on reliable sources. As it turns out most reliable sources for Nazi Germany are written by scholars in Allied countries. However that does not mean that they are biased. I notice though that the article does have a lot of references and external links that are not high quality reliable sources. Better references should be found or the references should be removed, avoid using newspapers and revisionist historians. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

well, looking at that one diff you posted, I'm not sure why it was reverted. the additions seem (superficially at least) to be properly sourced, and the statements made do not seem unreasonable (Hitler was an immensely popular and effective leader in Germany), and the other points seem merely to be requests for clarifications, which aren't particularly objectionable in and of themselves. why was it reverted? --Ludwigs2 23:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

"Adolf Hitler was the most popular leader of Europe if not the whole world, and unemployment was just a thing of the past and German industries were the best and strongest in the world." is certainly questionable statements. The statement makes it sound like Hitler was the most popular leader across the world, which was not true in any sense, unemployment may have been a thing of the past for the average German (though not for for example most Jews and other undesirables), but the methods used is controversial and needs clarification. Also even at this time the industrial sector of the US was already stronger than Germany's. Corruption may have been reduced but it was certainly rife within the Nazi party. As you can see it seems a bit of a stretch to only apply one superficial newspaper citation for this. He also removed this section in the same edit: ""Between 1933 and 1945 more than 3 million Germans had been in concentration camps or prison for political reasons"<ref> Henry Maitles , further referenced to G Almond, "The German Resistance Movement", Current History 10 (1946), pp409–527.</ref>".--Saddhiyama (talk) 23:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Saddhiyama. The Daily Mail is not an RS for qualitatiave historical analysis and the source is severely misrepresented (I imagine the author would be mortified). The removal of information about concentration camps has no apparent justification. The editor has what I would regard as a worrying (short) history. On the basis of this dif alone: , I believe that any NPOV concerns raised by the editor should be ignored. --FormerIP (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The edit inserted statements into the lead that favoured the Nazi government based on a Daily Mail article, an article that didn't even support much of what was inserted. 'Requests for clarification' are not always simple - the image that they want clarification of is annotated in the US government source as being the cremated bodies of anti-Nazi women, pray tell what they need clarified and why? In Gas chamber the same editor wants to state that it was "according to only the Allies and Jewish sources" that the Nazis used gas chambers; the edit serves no purpose other than to introduce doubt, and they are edit warring to keep it in. They also inserted a statement that called the law in Germany against Holocaust denial a 'thought crime', sourced to a Holocaust denier. There's a pattern here. Fences&Windows 01:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The reference to 3 million political prisoners, while probably correct, is poorly sourced. It's from a book review. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

ok, valid reasons all. Someone might encourage that editor to be a little less combative and a little better sourced, because I don't think he's wholly out in left field, just a bit exaggerated. what I've read on the subject (and it's not my specialty, no) leads me to believe that Hitler was popular in Germany and respected (with a degree of wariness) in the international community, at least prior to the invasion of Poland. And there's no doubt that Germany was technologically two steps ahead of the rest of the world (Allied arms were inferior for the entirety of the war, but the US had a significant advantage in output which negated the differences) This all should be very well sourced - WWII is a topic that a ton of scholars have worked on - so all he has to do is dig a bit and he can find better sourcing. --Ludwigs2 02:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

“there's no doubt that Germany was technologically two steps ahead of the rest of the world”

Que? And this is on a Neutrality noticeboard? Absolute rubbish!

The Germans had a technical advantage in some specific areas; in others they were markedly inferior. And the superiorities were not absolute, they mostly varied throughout WWII. Anything else just buys into the whole Wonder weapon myth.

Are you trolling?Xyl 54 (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Xyl - I understand this is a high-tension topic, but please don't jump on my ass for encouraging discussion and neutrality on the issue, particularly not when you yourself give a qualified restatement of what I said as an established truth. And no, I don't want to hear you justify why your statement was correct - we'll do that on the article talk page if the need arise. My only point was that the view might be extreme and improperly sourced, but it's not inherently a wrong opinion, and if it can be tempered and sourced better it should be considered for inclusion.

P.s. accusing me of trolling after two (2) posts on the topic is way off the deep end. I'd appreciate some acknowledgment that you erred. --Ludwigs2 19:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the technology claim was yours, so if you reckon you can justify it, you can always take it up here.

As for the substantive issue, I agree with Narson (below). Xyl 54 (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll thumbs-up to your first point, but I think your second point is counter-productive. content, not editors. --Ludwigs2 17:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Guys, it is rather obvious he is a Nazi apologist and Holocaust denier using Misplaced Pages to prove a point. We probably should not humour him. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

People lists in the decade articles

While trying to improve the decade articles I've noticed that some editors insist on having lists of the most notable people in each decade. My problem with those lists is that they are not NPOV - they are an ever growing place for the editors to pick their favorite person of each decade. Therefore I believe that the lists of notable persons should be removed from all the decade articles. Even though a discussion on this matter has been taking place lately in the 2000s discussion page, the other editors are only willing to rethink the people section in the 2000s article. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point. A start would be if it is agreed to use reliable sources listing such people as "people of the decade", and including on the basis of these sources. --Cyclopia 19:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Logic Pro

Crossposted to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Professional sound production

An anon has been adding some inflammatory ranty soapboxy language to Logic Pro (e.g., this and this). While perhaps there is an underlying content issue which could be developed, the tone and sourcing is abysmal (and that is putting it charitably). Some eyes would be welcome, even if to develop the content properly, as I do not wish to edit-war even over such an obvious disruption to the article. Thanks, Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I added a comment to the discussion on the Talk page and I've reverted the IP editor's changes twice, but he seems hell-bent on getting his unsourced rant in the article. He's long since exceeded 3RR. May be time to involve an admin? - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Uggh. They added a reasonable source (a webpage by the manufacturer describing the issue — in notably more objective terms) and a dubious one (an online forum thread whose originator coined the disparaging moniker used on the page but whose other responders where considerably more tempered in their assessment). Semiprotection might be a good idea. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 21:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Not seeing much detail in the apple site. As for the other "reference", it's inappropriate. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Update I requested semiprotection here. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 21:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Semiprotected for a fortnight, should give time to clean up the page & move the discussion appropriately to the talk page Skier Dude (talk) 08:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Gas chamber

Gas chamber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

At Talk:Gas_chamber#Presenting Allied and Jewish claims as facts!, User:Professional Assassin says "It is obvious that those who fought against Germany can not be neutral to present their claims as facts". He has tagged the article as not being neutral a couple of times, and made several edits, presumably intended to balance it. Could the article be checked for neutrality please? Hohum (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

This is clear-cut Nazi trolling and should be ignored. The article should be reverted to a previous good version. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The artciel says that the letter said evidence" presented at Nuremberg and elsewhere for extermination and gassings in those camps is bogus. The letter (from the source providede) does not says this.Slatersteven (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

sigh... maybe he just doesn't understand wikipedia. I'll leave a note on his talk page. --Ludwigs2 18:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I am once again querying why we are humouring someone who is clearly here to push his fringe theory in such a disruptive manner. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Assuming the same kind of good fatih assumption we would hope for?Slatersteven (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Slatersteven - well said. --Ludwigs2 19:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for reform of problem editors, but there are a few classes of editors are inherently ill-suited for the wiki short a major personal epiphany. Holocaust deniers are one of those. They are a huge drain on the productivity of our good editors here. Auntie E. (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

How can some one have epiphany if we turn round and say "RIGHT THATS IT YOU'VE SAID THE UNSAYABLE AND I'M NOW IGNORING YOU"? We have to give all edds the benifit of the doubt, otehrwise whats to stop a another user saying the same when he disagress with you? We have to assume good faith from everyone, untill their actions become so disruptive that sactions become neccersary, if not then qwhy should any one else assume good faith based on a bad or iill consoderd edit?Slatersteven (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Auntie E.: I understand what you're saying: some people will just never get the wiki-thing. however, I think it's important to let people dig their own graves in that regard. I've personally had way too many editors label me as a this or a that (pugnaciously and unreasonably) to fully trust any argument based is labeling others. If s/he's a pro-Nazi troll, s/he'll prove it without any help from us; if not, then s/he just needs guidance so to look less like one. A reasonable and neutral editor could obviously add a Nazi perspective to an article, so long as that perspective is based in reliable sources and properly balanced with other sourced material - doing so would not make him/her a Nazi-POV-pusher. I'm just not convinced yet which way that cookie crumbles. --Ludwigs2 20:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Deepak Chopra

The article has severe POV issue as it is written from pro-Ayurveda POV and I noticed there is no criticism of a controversial fringe theorist like Chopra. There is a Deepak_Chopra#Reception section which deals mainly with praise and only one paragraph on criticism. Some more criticism should be included in the article in accordance with RS and BLP to present a balanced view. The career section reads like an advertisement by Chopra. And there were severe problem in this version of the lead. I think the lead should mention why Chopra is famous. Everyone knows him as an Ayurvedic thinker, whether he has certificate in endocrinology has nothing to do with his widespread media coverage. And surely he made no contribution in the field of endocrinology, but in the field of Ayurveda for which he is notable. --Defender of torch (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

To the extent that criticism of Chopra has been published by WP:RS I don't see why it shouldn't be included in the article. I just did a quick scan but didn't come up with anything substantive, however judging by the nature of his work and the length of his career there probably is something to be found. --Dailycare (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

José Piñera

The article on José Piñera, the brother of the Chilean president-elect, appears to be heavily biased in my view. I do not know enough of Chilean history to falsify the claims or complement them with compromising information. However, it seems highly inappropriate that someone who served on Pinochet's cabinet can present themselves as a guardian of human rights and democracy. Besides, most of the claims concerning Piñera's human-rights record come from his own personal website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.63.185.132 (talk) 07:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Dimitrije Tucović

Dimitrije Tucović was a Serbian social democrat, widely know for writing about the war crimes against Albanians. There is one user who constantly removing his quote from the article as "propagandistic". I didn't put this quote into the article but I think it should stay, because it represent Tucović's views.

Please, see page history and Talk:Dimitrije Tucović.

Thanks.--Mladifilozof (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Roblox

The article Roblox does not have a very neutral point of view, lots of citations are from the website itself. There are numerous criticisms around, there is no such section for this. There is also a "Premium Offers" section which simply lists what members could receive by paying the staff (it is not encylopedic and does not deserve its own section; a simple mention such as "Roblox has offered premium offers in the form of a 'Builders Club' subscription." would do the job fine).
~xantiss (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Philippeville

The only source cited in the article is the book Aussaresses, Paul . The Battle of the Casbah." Enigma Books, 2006, p.1. ISBN 1929631308.

The author of the book was one of the principals in the battle, and therefore cannot be considered neutral. Unfortunately, I know of no neutral source, but it seems to me that Aussaresses' claim that the fellagha were under the influence of narcotics sounds suspiciously like propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donprius (talk • contribs) 05:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC) --Donprius (talk) 05:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

NPOV in David

There has been considerable controversy recently over a pottery sherd *being spelled shard in the article, a minor issue) found at Khirbet Qeiyafa which is probably but not necessarily 10th century (at the time King David is supposed to have reigned) and may or may not be in Ancient Hebrew. It was found in a fortified city which is also part of the controversy as some see this as proof of a Kingdom of Israel at that time. My view is: 1.The real detail should be in Khirbet Qeiyafa, ie quotes, etc.

2.The section heading should not call it a Hebrew sherd as that is in dispute.

3.There should be no quotes in the David article or if there are they need to be balanced - as I've said, I think they belong elsewhere anyway. Reargun's edits keep putting Galil's quotes in without balancing quotes.

4.Statements such as "many see", which are not backed up in the cited sources, should not be continually inserted in the section.

5.Reargun keeps inserting " an earlier date for the first biblical writing than some believe" although the sources actually say "earlier than many modern scholars believe." and " written hundreds of years before the dates presented in current research" - using 'some believe' seems pretty clearly trying to put this as a minority viewpoint.

6.Although the fortified city is mentioned in the sources, my reading is that they generally emphasise the sherd and Reargun's opinion that the fortified city is more important is just that, his opinion.

I'd appreciate it also if people would look at the edit summaries to see my reasoning (and I guess confirm that I'm not a vandal as accused). I also tried to discuss this on the talk page of the article (although my initial point was clearly incorrect, I was reading the wrong sources it seems). Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I can confirm you are not a vandal, and your version in the diff looks preferable to me. The use of the word "Herbrew" in the title is inappropriate, since there appear to be scholarly differences of opinion about this, as acknowledged in both versions. The Galil quote looks as if it should not be used without anything to balance it, and it also doesn't appear to draw conclusions about the histoticity of David from the shard/sherd but, rather, to assert the historicity of David (as has been said, the passing mention of David's reign should not be in the article) and then draw conclusions about how advanced the society was in terms of writing. A trimmed-down version of the quote could be used to make that specific point, perhaps.

The thing I'm not sure about is the emphasis on the fort. But it would seem logical that this can only be seen as evidence for the existence of the Kingdom of Israel if taken in conjunction with a certain interpretation of the sherd. This makes the sherd seem more important IMO, since that is the crucial bit of evidence which, it is said, may establish the existence of a Hebrew society at the site. --FormerIP (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe that my views are being misrepresented. Dougweller originally tried to suppress the information, now I think he is misrepresenting the facts. I did not jump in, I asked everyone, they agreed and we changed it. The facts as I see them are that this inscription was dated in the period we believe of King David in the 10th century BCE. It was found in a strata in a fort making it an extremely reliable dating. Such a fort would require a considerable state to construct it. Clearly the context of the fort is as important as the inscription. Linguistically, the debate is primarily on the dialect is it Hebrew or not? Most of the experts do feel, I think overwhelmingly agree that it is Hebrew. The wording itself is considered close to the Bible.

I think most experts would agree that we probably have a large fort requiring a sizable state, probably Hebrew, with writing close to the Bible all at the time of King David. Reargun (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Apologies if it seemed like I was questioning your conduct in any way, Reargun. I've looked at the actual content, but only skimmed over the talkpage discussions, and I don't mean to suggest that you have not gone about things properly. However, in my view, Dougweller's edit seems preferable. You say that you feel that experts overwhelmingly agree that it is Hebrew, but that doesn't seem at all clear from the sources. If you were able to find sources that clear demonstrated this, then that would change the picture quite significantly. But your feeling about the matter is not an RS. --FormerIP (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Whatever my feelings, I do believe and hope that I am objective. I am very keen on the wikipedia.

Okay let us start, I am not so sure that written Hebrew issue is so important. In the 10th century it was not as distinct as a language as today, that is why I said *dialect*. As far as experts, I think all these can be accepted as such by the wikipedia.

This one has some very good links for people to examine who are interested in this topic.

http://robertcargill.com/2010/01/07/earliest-hebrew-inscription-reported-found/

http://asorblog.org/?p=18

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-01/uoh-mah010710.php

http://digs.bib-arch.org/digs/khirbet-qeiyafa.asp

They are saying it is Hebrew.

I feel that if these experts say that it is Hebrew and shows something about King David, we should put it in and if others such a Dougweller who feel that other experts disagree he can put in those experts. It is not our job in the[REDACTED] to decide this question.

What I told Dougweller and what I believe is this find does not prove the existence of King David but what it does disprove are claims that a strong central monarchy in Israel in the 10th century did not and could not have existed.

I would go further now and say because of the similarity in language to the Bible we would have evidence of a culture similar to references of the claimed King David's culture in the OT. Reargun (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Your first source says "(if it is determined to be, in fact, hebrew and not some canaanite dialect)" and that it doesn't prove the existence of King David or argue against his existence.. The second source is dated 2008, before a lot of the other commentaries and trnaslations. The 3rd source is the press release from the University of Haifa and not surprisingly only mentions Galil's opinions. The 4th is BAR advertising a dig, and does make the assumption the language is Hebrew but doesn't actually discuss it. None of these justify Misplaced Pages deciding it is Hebrew, which is what we would be doing if we called it that at any point.

As for your last point your first source speaks to that when Cargill says " what we can say is that the themes of social justice and care of the poor and marginalized that would later be echoed in the torah and by the prophetic books were already in the consciousness of the peoples that would later comE to identify themselves as jews." Dougweller (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Check the heading on the first reference it calls it "earliest-hebrew-inscription". If you are happy with that, then I have no objection to changing it to that. Also the article "King David" we have now states that there is some dispute over the language too. Also never in the article did it state that it proves King David, the closest is in the section is a quote by a notable expert Gershon Galil. I might add too that putting his quote in was agreed in an earlier discussion here http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:David#10th_Century_Hebrew_pottery_shard

For the second reference it was because of the dispute by several experts that Gershon Galil was called in.

The 3rd source the University of Haifa and Galil's are both notable. They were selected because of their reputation for this find which was seen as highly signification.

BAR is certainly a notable source, it is made for the public but is highly regarded in Biblical archeology. If they say it is Hebrew, then that alone would be grounds to put it into the article.

The 4th is BAR advertising a dig, and does make the assumption the language is Hebrew but doesn't actually discuss it

Finally Cargill comment " what we can say is that the themes of social justice and care of the poor and marginalized that would later be echoed in the torah and by the prophetic books were already in the consciousness of the peoples that would later comE to identify themselves as jews." I have no objections of putting that into the article too. Reargun (talk) 06:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The basic point is that while the experts disagree on what language this is then the section heading should not be taking sides. And the first reference does not say 'earliest Hebrew inscription', it says 'Earliest Hebrew inscription reported found, but the section heading should be completely neutral. Where does it say that Galil was called in because of the dispute? Can you give me the url? Dougweller (talk) 06:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I did a google search on the name you suggest "10th Century Khirbet Qeiyafa pottery shard" and got No results found for "10th Century Khirbet Qeiyafa pottery shard".

People do not know it by that name, Dougweller I think you are making up a name for possibly political positioning.

About Galil, I know because I have been following the dig for a number of years now. Once the importance of the inscription was realized he was called in. Many others have also worked on it even before him too. No doubt the arguments are just starting. Reargun (talk) 10:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You know, I'm getting a bit tired of what I perceive as insults and attacks by you. Why in the world are you searching for that name? I did have it as an article heading because at one point there was an article by that name, but the section heading isn't meant to be the same as the name you would use to search, although without the quotation makes you get almost 3000 hits. In fact I see there is a dispute over the date, we shouldn't have 10th century in the section heading, probably just Khirbet Qeifyafa, nothing else, as the secion would cover the sherd and the fortification. I did ask for a reliable source about him being called in, preferably saying who called him in, if that is something you think should be in the article. I note that you haven't replied to my point that we should have a statement or section heading that takes sides in the dispute over the language. Dougweller (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no objections to just Khirbet Qeifyafa. I already explained the rest Reargun (talk) 10:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Summers memo

Somebody might want to deal with this. I think the problems with it (e.g, stating that the memo was written by Summers when this is in doubt) are pretty clear if you read it and read some sources about the subject, but convincing the people who maintain it of that would take more time than I have.Prezbo (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sexual abuse scandal in Selwyn House School - appropriately named?

Is this article's title appropriate NPOV? How do you define "scandal"? If it is not, can a user move it to an appropriately titled article space? Thanks! (As a non-registered user, I could not start a talk page to bring my concerns there.)207.69.137.27 (talk) 01:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not think it is appropriately named and that it would be more appropriate to include the information in the main Selwyn House article. I had set up a discussion thread at the article's talk page. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the title fits perfectly with the existing category about school sex abuse scandals. Many of these types of events involve a large number of people over an extended period of time, with multiple arrests, inquiries and trials, therefore it is more than appropriate to refer to it as an abuse scandal of sexual nature. Besides, there are very similar article titles like this that were written for Catholic sex abuse cases, such as the sexual abuse scandal in Boston archdiocese for example. ADM (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated the article for deletion. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures

Edits are being made to advocate or hide a position here and removing relevant material. And actually seems to have engaged in retributive edits on other pages I have touched.

--Outsider10 (talk) 12:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Outsider10 has accused me of non-neutral editing at this article. It is not entirely clear what their point is, however the user's initial edits of the article in question involved removal of statements from the article that were supportive of the article's subject. Please see Talk:New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures#Kingdom Interlinear.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes I did remove those. Anyone who works with linguistics will know that one language doesn't translate precisely to another language. When arguments that language can be translated precisely are made they should be taken with a grain of salt. Regardless that tidbit has very little to do with your removal of cited information and is not much more than a red herring which I did not attempt to propagate. They were afterall cited sources. I was certainly in error to remove them. As have you been to remove other cited sources and to attempt to redefine things for sake of your own concept of relevancy.

--Outsider10 (talk) 13:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You've demonstrated that there is little point in direct discussion with you. I will await comment from third parties both at the NWT request for comment, and at this noticeboard.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

PoV problem at “Austrian School”

Over at “Austrian School”, we have a couple of editors trying to have a criticism presented in non-neutral language:

• diff by Lawrence Khoo
• diff by BigK HeX

I carefully explained the problem after the edit by Lawrence Khoo and before the edit by BigK HeX, using three sorts of statements:

There is, of course, a difference between identifying an actual feature and asserting that the feature is bad, and merely claiming that a bad feature is had. Consider these three claims:

• One criticism was that Gerald Ford had pardoned Richard Nixon.
• One criticism was that Pete Seeger was a communist agent.
• One criticism was that Pete Seeger was ostensibly a communist agent.

The first is of course a plain fact; whether one agreed with Ford or not, he was criticized for something that he clearly did. The third is also a plain fact; whether Seeger was a communist stooge or not, he was criticized as if he were one. It's the second that's problematic. It looks like the a criticism of the first form, implying that Seeger were a stooge and were criticized for it.

There was no response other than the reversion by BigK HeX. —SlamDiego_←T 17:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Since the Austrian school criticizes the "scientific" approach used by other schools it is not biased to say they are criticized for their lack of scientific rigor. (The Austrian position is that economics is too complex for acientific analysis to be appropriate.) Incidentally your choice of examples to explain your position does not give me confidence that you are interested in neutrality. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The Austrian School does not claim that economics is too complex for scientific analysis. Some of them do claim that the methods applicable to some sciences are not applicable to economics, but that's a different claim (and not an extraordinary claim about differing sciences); and v. Mises claimed that other sciences were making inadequate use of his method, which shows that he considered his method scientific. In cases where they use the term “scientistic” or put scare quotes around “science”, they are not demonstrably rejecting science, but rejecting what they believe to be a misrepresentation of unscientific method as science.

As to my choice of examples, it was chosen exactly to illustrate how the same practices can gore the ox of the other side. Instead of inferring bias, you should have seen the exhibition of symmetry. —SlamDiego_←T 18:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge Pete Seeger was never accused of being a "communist agent" and the term "stooge" is pejorative. Pete Seeger was a Communist at one time so it is the same category as Ford pardoning Nixon, a fact about someone that may attract criticism rather than an accusation that may be untrue. However you now add to the the problem by grouping your opponents with Communism. In fact none of them are supporters of Communist economic theory.

The lead states:

Austrian School economists argue that the only means of arriving at a valid economic theory is to derive it logically from basic principles of human action, a method called praxeology. Additionally, whereas mainstream economists often utilize natural experiments, Austrian economists contend that testability in economics is virtually impossible since it relies on human actors who cannot be placed in a lab setting without altering their would-be actions.

Do you disagree with this description?

The Four Deuces (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Pete Seeger was accused of being a communist at a time when all communists were widely regarded as agents of the Soviet Union (which belief was a large part of why there were attempts to identify communists); and indeed the term “stooge” is pejorative, but it means subordinate or puppet. I didn't group my opponents with communists; I grouped them with people who don't like reading people such as Seeger being treated as communist stooges. It seems apparent that you're amongst such people, so look at what is wrong in principle with statements of the second form (“One criticism was that Pete Seeger was a communist agent.”) when the underlying purported fact is not verifiable. And then recognize that we don't want to use that form in other cases unless the purported underlying fact is verifiable.

The statement in the lede is over-broad. But, even if it weren't, the fact remains that even the v. Mises branch within the Austrian School regards its methods as scientific; and, if you'll attend to, say, Beyond Positivism: Economic Methodology in the Twentieth Century (a book on scientific method in economics by Bruce Caldwell), you'll find that the Austrian School cannot properly be summarily dismissed as unscientific or as lacking scientific rigor. —SlamDiego_←T 18:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could point out where the book says Austrian economists consider their methods scientific. The scientific method goes from hypothesis to experiment to theory, while Austrians argue from first principles. This puts their theories outside science as it is normally understood. That does not mean their theories should be dismissed. Their response would be that the scientific method is not applicable to economics, which is a rational (excuse the pun) position. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Read, for example, Chapter 7, on the controversy between Machlup and Hutchinson, though I was actually citing that book in support of the claim that “the Austrian School cannot properly be summarily dismissed as unscientific or as lacking scientific rigor”. For the claim that even the v. Mises branch of the Austrian School regards its method as scientific, I would first have cited v. Mises's The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science (underscore mine), and then perhaps turned to the opening sentence of Human Action, “Economics is the youngest of all sciences.” (underscore again mine), his explicit reference to “the scientific methods of praxeology and economics” in Chapter IX $2, and so forth. I would again direct you to Caldwell with respect to your claim about the nature of the scientific method; amongst philosophers of science there seems an unending controversy about the fundamental nature of the scientific method, and Caldwell provides a summary that is especially useful as it is produced with economic ever in mind.

The point is not to assert that the Austrian School is scientifically rigorous; it is that Misplaced Pages neutrality precludes endorsement or insinuation of a claim that it is not. —SlamDiego_←T 19:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

On the talk page I see two related phenomena obstructing consensual editing. One is that everyone is continually yielding to the temptation to discuss the theories themselves rather than how they should be presented in the article. The other is that editors are getting too close to original research and relying on sources that might be considered primary. I think you need to find two or three popular university economics textbooks and ensure that the article is broadly in line with what they say. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Popular economics textbooks tend not to have more than short infoboxes on the Austrian School, in part reflecting a lack of familiarity (which also leads to these not being the most “reliable” sources). Caldwell's book, which I've been citing above, is a relatively popular work on method, often used in the classroom. —SlamDiego_←T 19:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

At this point BigK HeX has taken to editing the article to baldly insist that the Austrian School simply does not rely upon empirical underpinnings. and to remove material with citation of a reliable source that contradicts this assertion. —SlamDiego_←T 23:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

And now Lawrence Khoo has removed the reference to contradictory assertions. Unlike BigK HeX, Khoo has not presented the assertion as bald fact, which is an improvement. But he has removed, rather than relocated, reference to conflicting views, on the excuse of flow. —SlamDiego_←T 04:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The term "science" can be used in different ways, but the critics of Austrian economics are obviously referring to the scientific method which Austrian economics specifically rejects: "This essay proposes to stress the fact that there is in the universe something for the description and analysis of which the natural sciences cannot contribute anything." "Individualism as a principle of the philosophical, praxeological, and historical analysis of human action means the establishment of the facts that all actions can be traced back to individuals and that no scientific method can succeed in determining how definite external events, liable to a description by the methods of the natural sciences, produce within the human mind definite ideas, value judgments, and volitions." (The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science: An Essay on Method, pp. v, 82) The Four Deuces (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said, the nature of the scientific method is hardly settled amongst philosophers of science (including scientists who philosophize). The interpretations of scientific method given by Paul A. Samuelson, Milton Friedman, and so forth have been markedly different one from another. It would be perfectly fair to note that Milton Friedman's interpretation has been claimed to be unscientific, especially if the counter-interpretation of the accuser is provided; but a violation of WP:NPoV to simply assert that any of these lacks scientific rigor. Including the Austrian School.

At this stage, Lawrence Khoo and BigK HeX are more baldly claiming that the Austrian School rejects empirical underpinnings (a more radical claim than that its methods lack scientific rigor). I noted that the cited passage in Caldwell says

Murray Rothbard comes closest to being a true Misesian, though he differs in his interpretation of the logical status of the categories of human action: for him they are broadly empirical.

and on the talk page quoted Menger (founder of the school) as asserting

For along with the historical, surely very valuable empirical basis for theoretical research, the experience of everyday life is indispensable. Or, what is the same thing, the observation of the singular phenomena of human economy, indeed, as must be added here, the most comprehensive possible orientation of that economy, is indispensable. It is so indispensable that we cannot imagine a highly developed theory of economic phenomena without the study of the history of economy

but Khoo responds that “It is irrelevant what was said or done in the past.” unless, apparently, it was said and done by Mises (d 1973) or by Rothbard (d 1995), and BigK HeX asserts that I'm engaged in original synthesis. It evidently doesn't matter that reliable sources plainly contradict their favored claims. —SlamDiego_←T 07:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Waterboarding

Regarding the first sentence of the article: It says "Waterboarding is a method of torture..." There has been much debate as to whether or not this is neutral. The current sentence is sourced by a "political dictionary" that was found from a google books search for "waterboarding torture and death" (it can still be seen in the link for the reference). I propose to change this to the Merriam-Webster's dictionary definition, in the interest of neutrality, but this is seeing resistance on the talk page for god knows what reason. The Merriam-Webster definition says that it is an "Interrogation technique" instead of "method of torture". The first sentence essentially defines the word in a way that has proved to be very controversial (as can be seen on the talk page), without even using a neutral dictionary definition. Is it in the best interest of neutrality to define waterboarding as "torture", or is it better to define it as an "interrogation technique", as is in the dictionary, and discuss the different viewpoints of whether or not it is torture in the rest of the article? Swarm 04:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This has been raise previously in this noticeboard here and here. Most editors were of the opinion then that the lead as it stand now is in keeping with the NPOV policy. There is no controversy among the reliable sources. The majority view among RS is that waterboarding is a form of torture and the minority/fringe view is that it is not. Notwithstanding the proportionality clause of the NPOV, the minority view is discussed in over 2/3 of the article. Sadly the Merriam-Webster's dictionary definition is incomplete by omitting the term torture. The other 188 RS explicitly define it as torture. So to summarise as I last counted 188 RS state categorically that it is torture. 6 RS that is is not and the Merriam-Webster's dictionary definition is neutral but omits the term torture. Given this facts I still believe that the lead as "Waterboarding is a form/method of torture" is in keeping with the NPOV policy.--LexCorp (talk) 04:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, but:

1. I'm not disputing the fact that waterboarding is widely considered torture, nor am I disputing the reliability of any of the sources
2. Neither of the previous discussions are helpful in this manner
3. You can't dispute a dictionary definition
4. You are heavily involved in this debate and have a clear opinion. That is unhelpful to the purpose of this noticeboard. If you want to debate this, please keep it on the talk page of the article. I'm looking for outside advice from uninvolved users. Swarm 05:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I contributed to this noticeboard long before involving myself with the waterboarding article. In fact I came to known of the waterboarding issue because a previous post here on this board. I hold no involvement in the waterboarding article other that on NPOV matters. So in that sense I am an outside advice from this very noticeboard no less. Anyway lets see what other editors have to say on the matter.--LexCorp (talk) 06:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe the phrasing is neutral: it's taking a side on a hotly contested issue. NPR and the US government are not "fringe" sources. While I view waterboarding as torture, that I view it as such does not make my point of view neutral. Go with the dictionary, state that it's widely viewed to be torture, and note the controversy over that classification. THF (talk) 06:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments and questions:

• WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPoV aren't about making minority positions incorrect ex definitione. The fact that only a small minority dispute something isn't sufficient basis to define it as fact (though matters for which there is sufficient basis may be disputed by minorities).
• Much of the debate over whether waterboarding is “torture” is one where the legal definition of “torture” is in dispute.
• The relevant lay definition is “the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure”. Do “reliable” sources report that the sensation of drowning includes intense pain? Does any “reliable” source dispute this?

—SlamDiego_←T 20:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

IRCT Senior Medical Consultant and former member of the UN Committee Against Torture is one of the most relevant RS at stating:

“It’s a clear-cut case: Waterboarding can without any reservation be labelled as torture”, says Prof. Sørensen. “It fulfils all of the four central criteria that according to the United Nations Convention against Torture (UNCAT) defines an act of torture.” He explains:

“First, when water is forced into your lungs in this fashion, in addition to the pain you are likely to experience an immediate and extreme fear of death. You may even suffer a heart attack from the stress or damage to the lungs and brain from inhalation of water and oxygen deprivation. In other words there is no doubt that waterboarding causes severe physical and/or mental suffering – one central element in the UNCAT’s definition of torture”.

There are a few more RS that state that the method causes pain. Also totally unrelated you can read many accounts online of near-drowning experiences where the common factor is intense chest pain. Many people state this to be the worst pain they had felt in their lives.--LexCorp (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

One comment here, namely that dictionaries aren't in my opinion WP:RS. WP:RS are preferably secondary sources, whereas dictionaries are, at best, tertiary ones. If there are almost 200 WP:RS (I haven't checked them) saying it's torture and only a handful saying it's not, then the case appears to me very clead indeed: as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned, it's torture. Wording in the body of the article saying it is torture, but this is disputed by some would be OK. The "not torture" view should not be given much space in the article based on that breakdown of sources. --Dailycare (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This page maintains (no sure how uptodate it is) a list of RS with comments by editors as to their merits. If you go to the Waterboarding article you will find that about 2/3 is dedicated to the controversy.--LexCorp (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The UN source here is a good one. But please keep in mind that we're not arguing the Truth of waterboarding being torture, so your reference to “Many people” gets us a bit off track.

Now, do we have any “reliable” sources that dispute the claim that waterboarding causes intense pain? —SlamDiego_←T 23:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Mu. You're asking the wrong question and attempting original research and synthesis. "Torture" is a term of legal art whose parameters are the subject of controversy, and it's inappropriate to try to gerrymander the lay version of the term to provide a definitive encyclopedic answer to the controversy of whether waterboarding fits within that term. Misplaced Pages is supposed to report, rather than decide. If your reliably-sourced arguments are as strong as you believe, and the other side's arguments are as weak as you believe, then no harm will be done to any intelligent reader who reads an article on the subject that complies with NPOV and fairly represents the controversy. Again, the USA government and NPR are not "fringe" sources, so there is a real debate here. THF (talk) 02:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The US government has a huge conflict of interest in denying that it's torture. Its reliability is suspect in this case. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I dispute that the US government has a conflict of interest (the actual waterboarding took place after the internal determination that it was not torture, and stopped when that internal determination changed), but even if it did, you prove my point. There is a dispute, and the neutral point of view acknowledges all of the major positions without taking sides. THF (talk) 08:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

THF, The issue of the legal definition is here entirely a red herring. The word “torture” lives mostly outside of legal discourse. (And the present status of the article “Torture” is most unfortunate.) The article on waterboarding should discuss the legal status, and can address the issue of whether it meets the legal definition, but the article is not principally on matters of law, and the relevant definition is not draw from law books. —SlamDiego_←T 04:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not a red herring in the slightest. It's the entire crux of the controversy. THF (talk) 08:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It's the entire crux of the legal controversy. But most people are more immediately concerned over whether waterboarding is torture than whether the law would use the word “torture” to describe it. If waterboarding causes intense pain, but the language of the law would not identify with the word “torture”, this would mean that it were legally permitted torture. (One of the consequences of confusing matters of law described in the language of law with matters of fact described with ordinary English is that lawyers who answered questions of law are condemned as if they'd said something very different from what they had.) —SlamDiego_←T 08:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The claim that the dictionary is not a reliable source is absolutely absurd. When defining a word, the definition should not be inferred based on the number of sources that support the statement, but actually taken from a dictionary. The dictionary, of course, shouldn't be used to cite entire sections, but it is absolutely valid when simply defining a term in a single purpose sentence. Not using the dictionary definition, instead favoring a definition based only on the sources for the body of the article is nothing short of synthesis. Swarm 02:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Swarm, as I read your remarks, you are trying for nothing more than wording that doesn't guide the reader towards a value judgment; and I for one appreciate the predisposition that would drive your effort. But consider the article “Torture” itself. How could we equivalently neutralize it? I think that the difficulty in answering that question may speak to an underlying problem with the sort of neutralization that you're seeking here. I quite agree that dictionaries are “reliable” sources for aspects of this article. I think that, if we look at the definition of “torture”, then what remains is simply whether there is sufficient, unchallenged support in “reliable” sources for the notion that waterboarding causes extreme pain, that it may be treated as something like a plain fact that waterboarding is torture. I believe that, if you wish to argue against declaring waterboarding to be torture in the lede (or elsewhere), then you should present reliable sources that argue that it is not intensely painful. —SlamDiego_←T 04:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

How could we equivalently neutralize torture? You start with the dictionary definition, and then you have sections going through various legal definitions: how it's defined by the Geneva Conventions (discussing disputes over the scope of the definition there), how it's defined by US law (discussing changes in US law over time), other major sources of law, etc. The torture article shouldn't imply there's a single agreed-upon definition, and if it does, it violates WP:NPOV. THF (talk) 08:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you propose to remove the word “torture” from the article “Torture”? The article on waterboarding can explain legal language, but its meta-language is English, and in English “torture” includes the infliction of intense pain to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure. Regardless of what the language of the law may say, if the “reliable” sources somehow all agree that waterboarding causes intense pain, then en.wikipedia.org can baldly call it “torture” except when discussing legalese. —SlamDiego_←T 08:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't propose to remove the word “torture” from the article “Torture”, and no reasonable reading of my comment could suggest that I did. It's been explained to you multiple times why your proposed approach violates WP:SYN and WP:NPOV, but you seem not to want to address those arguments and instead just repeat the argument you've already made that's been refuted. That's not fruitful discussion. You can have the WP:LASTWORD since it seems to mean so much to you. THF (talk) 09:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Your comment implied that you proposed to remove the word “torture” from the article “Torture”, or that you'd missed the fact that repulsive things cannot be clearly described and discussed without causing repulsion, or that you were entangled in a confusion of legal language with the language of en.wikipedia.org. What I propose doesn't involve violating any part of WP:OR. What I propose is that legal language not be confused with the language in which Misplaced Pages itself is written, and that “reliable” sources be consulted as to whether waterboarding causes intense pain. If they are in remarkable agreement that it does, then those who would use the word “torture” are on solid ground; if they are not in agreement, then Swarm or some other editor should cite the dissenting “reliable” sources, and then the article should not declare it to be torture. Evidently, you believe that those who are not simply for your position are simply against it, as you've not discerned that I haven't said that the word “torture” should be used (nor that it should not be used). —SlamDiego_←T 09:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

SlamDiego, you've made your point. Please stop repeating it, and let others contribute. THF (talk) 08:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that there's a class of editors who are to comment once, and then depart, which includes me, and then another class who are more free to continue, which includes you. —SlamDiego_←T 08:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You have me completely wrong, by the way. I’m not proposing we remove the word “torture” from the article. I’m not proposing that based on the dictionary definition, it shouldn’t ever be called torture. I’m not proposing to use the dictionary definition to dispute the many reliable sources that call it torture. The only thing I suggested was that in one sentence, the sentence that defines the word, we should use the dictionary definition. The lead goes into great detail that it is widely considered torture. The body of the article goes into even more detail. I don’t have a personal belief that it isn’t torture. I don’t want to promote the opinion that it is not torture. Using the dictionary definition of the word is not going to mislead anyone. The dictionary does not take the viewpoint that it is not torture. It’s completely neutral. It is widely considered to be torture by many sources, but this is also disputed by a large number of people. You can't define a word based on legal opinions from reliable sources. You can't come to the conclusion that the opinion of many reliable sources is neutral to define it as such in an encyclopedia. It's clear to me -- the most neutral way to define a word is to use the freaking dictionary! Swarm 17:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that you would have us remove the word “torture” altogether from either article, and I certainly wasn't taking you as seeking to deny that it were torture; I was taking you to want it removed from the opening sentence of “Waterboarding”, and to want references to it couched always as opinion, regardless of what your opinion might be. (Again, I simply read you as “trying for nothing more than wording that doesn't guide the reader towards a value judgment”.) And my points are: (1) that the desire to avoid repulsive description can be taken too far; (2) if you want the matter presented as opinion, then you need to present alternate opinion; (3) that legal definitions are not principally relevant; and (4) that, given the relevant meaning of “torture”, if no “reliable” source denies that waterboarding causes intense pain, then the lede can fairly refer to it as torture. I am not suggesting that you want or must prove that it does not cause intense pain; I am suggesting that you either identify “reliable” sources which claim that it does not, or accept the wording of prior local consensus. —SlamDiego_←T 23:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:You_are_probably_not_a_lexicologist_or_a_lexicographer expressly recommends against using Websters in this case:Dictionaries are extremely conservative in what they recognize, and are descriptive of an existing definition, not creators of it. More immediate sources, like books, academic writings, or others are often more direct and accurate, especially when they are responsible for the definition in the first place. Stephen Colbert is a much better source for a definition of truthiness than Webster's. That pretty plainly says not to use Websters in cases where better sources for the definition are readily available, such as from the UNCAT or the like. RTRimmel (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I can imagine few things more ill-advised than letting states or super-states entities such as the UN determine our use of terms drawn from natural language. —SlamDiego_←T 23:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Above is an example of a constructive edit, the scarcasm is designed to improve the overall tone of the debate. More seriously, per lexicologist, are any of the 188 sources better than the dictionary? If so Swarm may have a case, but I doubt it, further the Webster's definition was missing more than a bit of critical information concerning waterboarding last time I checked. If we use a definition from a dictionary, could we at least use one that actually describes waterboarding as it is commonly performed? 74.219.88.102 (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I was not engaged in any sarcasm whatsoever; I am perfectly sincere. Most of us are aware of the pitfalls of allowing the government of any given nation to redefine a word such as “torture”, and the UN is entirely the creature of such entities. Before you again infer sarcasm, please assume good faith unless there is no other explanation. —SlamDiego_←T 04:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd argue that having a common treaty that clearly spells out a very broad definition of torture that was well supported by a majority of world governments would be a good object to reference against, but YMMV. What would you prefer in this instance? The side debating that its not torture or an interrogation technique are arguing using 'natural language' so given the ability to interpret that definition for your own ends, broadly accepted international definitions should be satisfactory. RTRimmel (talk) 12:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I've repeatedly cited what I think is the appropriate definition: “the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure”. It is from an authoritative attempt to define words in the language in which this encyclopedia is purportedly written. And the question of whether waterboarding is torture turns entirely around whether it causes intense pain (as there is no reasonable doubt that it is used to punish, to coerce, or to afford sadistic pleasure), which is a medical question. While there may be some people using natural language to argue that it is not torture, what I have seen is only argument by reference to legal definition. The UN is not a gathering of Wise Men; it is a congress of states; and its definitions are to settle questions of international law, which is not the proper primary concern of the article or of discussion of torture more generally. —SlamDiego_←T 19:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, as a newcomer coming into this debate, it looks like everyone is trying to solve the issue here, rather than determine how the issue should be explained in the article. Let me attempt to save everyone a lot of time with the following conclusion (admittedly, it is an opinion, so feel free to accuse me of original research if you want...): We will not answer the question as to whether or not waterboarding is torture on Misplaced Pages, nor should we attempt to do so. The Misplaced Pages project is designed to catalogue and preserve knowledge and make it accessable to all. We are not here to solve the problems of the world. Simply state that there is a heated debate as to whether or not waterboarding is considered torture, cite the opposing sources, and leave it at that. My 2 1/2 cents... Rapier1 (talk) 03:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That strategy is prone to a number of pitfalls. For example, outside the scientific community Evolution is a hotly debated topic, inside of the scientific community there is no serious debate at all. Do we reflect that in the lead? 9/11 has a significant number of theories involving governmental plots and the like, do we lead off with that, do we remove it based on not solving the debate here? There are, unfortunately, many cases where despite all expert sources saying one thing, we have another group saying another and therefor we must follow policy to figure out what to do. In such cases, WP:NPOV states pretty clearly to go what the, in this case, overwhelming majority of WP:RS state. That is unfortunately the kicker, something like 3% of the waterboarding sources debated if its always torture and the rest all say it always is. Given WP:Undue it makes little sense to bow to the 3%, especially when those 3% are locked into a specific subset of one specific nationality and the 97% reflects a broad world wide consensus. The problem ultimately is that there really isn't much of a debate about water boarding status, so inflating that status of it to some sort of heated debate is against wikipedia's mission statement. RTRimmel (talk) 12:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not my intention to debate numbers with you. Simply allow me to state that if the numbers were as conclusive as you believe there would be no debate on the issue, so you may want to dig a little deeper. Again, you are attempting to solve the issue of defining waterboarding as torture one way or the other. I repeat: That is not our purpose here. Yes, Misplaced Pages does not put forth fringe arguments, but in cases where there is massive and heated debate such as; abortion being murder, man-made climate change, evolution v. creationism, and defining waterboarding as torture (along with many others) it is not the purpose of the Project to put forth one opinion or the other. Define the debate, and leave it for the reader to draw their own conclusion. Rapier1 (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem with debating the numbers is that there are hundreds of sources in the article and they say at a ratio of 188 to 6 that waterboarding is torture. Perhaps you'd like to provide some new sources to bolster the concept that there is a debate. Misplaced Pages policy is pretty clear here, we have WP:GEVAL and WP:Weight. Neither support 'defining the debate' when it is this lopsided. RTRimmel (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you're not familiar with the debate, but this isn't what this thread is about. There are many notable people with the opinion that waterboarding is not torture. WP:WEIGHT and WP:GEVAL are not "broken" by using the dictionary definition. We also have WP:NPOV, by the way, and I'm pretty sure it says something about being neutral. Defining a word just because it's a majority view is absolutely not neutral. You define a word based on what it is called in the dictionary. Someone above completely missed the point of the essay, but Misplaced Pages:You are probably not a lexicologist or a lexicographer puts it nicely: "The dictionary is a better source than you are." Swarm 01:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Strange, I'm sorry that you are trying to place WP:Undue on the limited number of sources available on the Waterboarding article to support your viewpoint when they rank at 3% of available sources. Are we to understand that your argument is that since 3% of sources and websters say otherwise, we are to ignore the 97% of sources that say that waterboarding is torture? The Webster's definition is, unfortunatly, not as accurate as many of the definitions of waterboarding on the page and as such, its use is certainly a WP:GEVAL violation. It doesn't even match up with the description of the act very well. If you want to use a definition, you may want to find one that accuratly repersents what the process is. Waterboarding is an interrogation technique in which water is forced into a detainee's mouth and nose so as to induce the sensation of drowning does not mention the requirement that the head be inclined or that the person needs to be restrained, nor that its a form of torture. Given, that Misplaced Pages:You are probably not a lexicologist or a lexicographer states not to use a dictionary definition in this case, I don't see your argument here. WP:GEVAL and WP:Weight are both part of WP:NPOV policy. You may want to read the entire thing rather than summing it down to 'its all about neutrality', much like summing your argument about the lexicon essay down to 'use the dictionary definition,' which is an essay and not policy anyway.

RTRimmel (talk) 13:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you trying to say waterboarding isn't an interrogation method? Are you trying to say the dictionary definition is incorrect because it doesn't use the word "torture"?

Taking the word "torture" out of one sentence, to match the actual definition is certainly not undue weight. Writing multiple paragraphs about the flat earth theory in the earth article is undue weight. Using a dictionary definition is not overly-emphasizing one side of a viewpoint, nor is it asserting the claim that "waterboarding is not torture". It doesn't say it is, it doesn't say it isn't. It's a neutral definition.

You seem not to understand why it's defined as torture in this article in the first place. It's doesn't say "Waterboarding is a method of torture" because the majority of the reliable sources say it is. It's defined that way because someone did a google search for "waterboarding torture and death", and came up with a political dictionary that matched the search. Is that your idea of neutrality? Misplaced Pages isn't here to say "waterboarding is torture", just like it's not here to say "waterboarding is not torture". Put it this way: Earth does not begin with "Earth (or the Earth) is a round planet" just because the majority of reliable sources (of course) accept the fact that the earth is round. It just says Earth (or the Earth) is the third planet from the Sun. The sentence in question is only there to DEFINE the word. What don't you get? Swarm 20:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I now fear that an attempt will be made to change “Earth” to begin “Earth is a non-flat planet…”. —SlamDiego_←T 21:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

However, I would point-out to Swarm that if a planet were found between Sol and that which we now call “Mercury”, we wouldn't start calling Venus “the Earth”. We really define Earth in terms of what we inhabit. The reason that it is appropriate for the lede to claim “Earth is the third planet from the Sun” is because the propositions that it is third planet is sufficiently well sourced (though I don't know that sources are cited in the article for that point). The question for waterboarding is whether it is sufficiently well sourced that it causes intense pain. Again, if you wish to establish reasonable doubt that waterboarding is torture, then present some “reliable” sources that argue that it does not cause intense pain. —SlamDiego_←T 23:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

SlamDiego, I don't know how many times you're going to make me say it. I don't wish to establish "doubt" that waterboarding is torture. I don't wish to give the impression that it isn't torture in the article. You act as if I'm proposing the word "torture" not be used in the article. As if I'm trying to remove all the reliable sources that claim it is torture. I'm simply proposing we use the dictionary definition (damn, did you really skip over this part the 10 times I said it already?) in the sentence that defines the word. Swarm 03:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how many times that you are going to say it either, but the only reason that you are saying it is because you aren't attending to what I am actually saying. I am not suggesting that you want to endorse or defend or even in the least way mitigate waterboarding. But if there is no doubt that waterboarding is torture, then calling it torture in the opening sentence is no different from calling the Earth the third planet from Sol. You literally need to deal with that, one way or another. Stop telling me that you don't have the motive that I've never thought or said you to have. Attend to the logic. If you can produce the relevant “reliable” source, then I'm all for you here. Otherwise, your clearly well-intentioned efforts are mistaken. —SlamDiego_←T 04:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the definition that is currently used on the page was chosen because it matched 97% of the reliable sources on the page and was deemed an acceptable definition. You see, different dictionaries define different words differently, especially controvertial ones. Websters, as seen in the archive, was debated and ultimatly shot down under the same criteria by a concensus of editors. Its unfortunate that you disagree with the critically aclaimed dictionary that was chosen, but as you've freqently mentioned Misplaced Pages:You are probably not a lexicologist or a lexicographer and the respected author of that book, William Safire, actually is. And Safire's Political Dictionary from the Oxford press had waterboarding in it for longer than Webster's recent addition of the word. So your argument has changed from use the definition to use the definition that you like? I prefer look to the definitions and take the one that most closly resembles the majority of reliable sources, especially when 97% of them support the definition. RTRimmel (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Question: What are we debating here? Seriously. Waterboarding is an interrogation technique that causes the sensation of drowning in people. Can that be defined as torture? Of course it can! However, is waterboarding defined under US Law as torture according to USC Section 2340A? There has not been a legal decision made on this point. Are we debating that because waterboarding makes you feel like you are going to drown it's torture, or are we trying to assert that anybody who does it is violating the law? This is a very important point, and is one of the reasons I suggest simply defining the debate. If Misplaced Pages is to assert that waterboarding is in violation of USC Section 2340A, then we are accusing people of a crime in a public forum. That is NOT cool people. You have the right to speak your opinion, but if a group tries to claim that because several third-party sources that are protected by the First Amendment have printed similar opinions, they can use those printed opinions to accuse others of violating the law in a public forum (when there is in fact no LEGAL evidence of this), then it is entirely possible that the source could be held liable for that. Define the debate, don't get involved in the legalities! Rapier1 (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I reïterate that whether it is torture under law is not the proper principal issue. The language of law defines things differently. Identifying something as torture in the lede is not the same thing as saying that waterboarding meets any legal test. —SlamDiego_←T 00:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually, we are following the 97% of the sources that indicate that Waterboarding is torture. As one of torture's primary uses is interrogation, waterboardings use as an interrogation technique is obvious. Its use for coersion, blackmail, punishment etc are also common uses of torture. The debate is over waterboarding's classification as a form of torture in the United States of America only and from a certain political group only. And in every recorded case of waterboarding brought to the US legal system, Waterboarding has always been declared torture. The last case resolved in Texas quite plainly called it torture and Governer of Texas elected not to pardon those torturers. RTRimmel (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
      • By your previous account, it was 97% of the sources cited in the article. Unfortunately, with a hot-button issue, this is especially unlikely to be 97% of a representative sample of the literature. I suggest that the “97%” figure not be invoked. —SlamDiego_←T 22:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Whether or not waterboarding is torture is not the question. Please stay on topic. If you've gotten off track, the question is whether it's in the best interest of neutrality to use the dictionary wording in the sentence that defines waterboarding (nothing more). The current sentence was inserted awhile back after someone searched waterboarding torture and death on google books and came up with a political dictionary that matched the source. I hold that it would be more neutral to use the Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition. Swarm 05:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPoV certainly doesn't require or advocate daintiness, evasion, or euphemism, amd Misplaced Pages seeks to be an encyclopædia rather than a dictionary. If there is no doubt amongst “reliable” sources that waterboarding is torture (as defined for natural language) then, given the fact that most concern is focussed on it as an alleged form of torture in recent use, the article may as well tell the reader right off that waterboarding is torture. Absenting some editor citing a “reliable” source that asserts that waterboarding does not cause extreme pain, it is time to close this discussion. —SlamDiego_←T 06:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Horus and Jesus comparisons

There is an ongoing content dispute at the article of the Egyptian God Horus, which dates back to 2005 . It involves comparisons to the Egyptian god Horus, and Jesus. This comparison has been around since the late 19th century, and was most recently made in the 2008 Bill Maher documentary Religulous. Several attempts have been made to include this comparison in the Horus article, but the sources have been questioned as "unreliable," and reverted. Unfortunately, there are no reliable responses to this comparison, either from Egyptologists, or Theologists. I recently attempted to address the issue with this edit , which was reverted by User:Farsight001 . I agree that the basis for this comparison is profoundly flawed, but at the same time, I also believe that it needs to be addressed and debunked in the Horus article, because Misplaced Pages is exactly the place where individuals will go to confirm or reject the logic behind the argument. I need advice on how to strike the balance between giving a significant minority view undue weight, while maintaining a neutral point of view on a topic that's been largely ignored by the scholastic community without synthesizing rebuttal data from verified, reliable sources. Any suggestions? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This article ] makes it clear that twenty leading Egyptologists — in Canada, USA, UK, Australia, Germany, and Austria were asked about Mr Harpurs book. The responding scholars were unanimous in dismissing the suggested etymologies for Jesus and Christ. The Bill Maher Comedy/documentary is not a serious piece of reseach, nor was it carried out be someone with expertise in the field. Indead (and to take up one theme in the above post), no reliable Egyptologists has backed up this claim. Unlike the Osiris claim which was (and maybe still is) supported by a number of reputable scholers.Slatersteven (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Aesthetic Realism

Aesthetic Realism is a philosophy advocated by a very small group in New York City. It is barely notable, and there are few independent sources about it. The only editors interested in it, besides myself, seem to be either current members, or former, disaffected members. They and others call the group a cult while current members say it's a just a philosophical association. The topic is highly polarized by folks using it as a battleground. After a lot of editing years ago the article had been quiet, but it's gotten active again. During the first round of the recent fighting I threatened to stub the article, which is surprisingly long considering how few sources there are. A current member, and long-time editors here, has just re-written the intro in a highly POV fashion, which makes me inclined to carry out the promised stubbing. Any other thoughts or suggestions?   Will Beback  talk  21:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Just that the article is indeed too long and I endorse your stubbing of the lede. There are some sources though. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I tried to work on that page impartially a long time ago; as I recall it was an ungodly headache. maybe I should check in again. but yeah; that lead is awful. chop away. --Ludwigs2 20:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Medco Health Solutions

I stumbled on the article about Medco Health Solutions while researching about lobbying. Apart from the section I added it reads like ad and i suspect it was written by an employee of said company. Could someone please have a look at it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.0.83.119 (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The article was radically changed on 7th Jan , removing all referenced info which incidentally included details about a lawsuit. The two IP's167.211.190.11 & 167.211.190.10 responsible for these edits are registered to Medco itself. Rather than stay with this version created by company PR flacks, I'm going to rv back to before their edits.I do think the info you found about lobbying expenses very interesting ( jeez, nearly 1 billion USD for 3 months lobbying expenses?!?) and would like to incorporate into the article, but I'm not sure if this counts as a primary source? Perhaps someone else can weigh in on this matter. thanks --Rootless Juice (talk) 01:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

CEPR

Recently added to Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) was this, of which the key sources (10 and 11 respectively) are National Review and a primary source (letter to an organisation in response to a report).

According to a 2004 National Review article, the Venezuela Information Office (VIO)—a lobbying agency whose goal is to improve the perception of Venezuela in the US—"coordinates a media response team" that includes "representatives from the Center for Economic Policy and Research". CEPR representatives signed a letter to the editor of the Center for Public Integrity, saying that their statements about the VIO were "highly misleading"

Is the sourcing OK? Is it due weight? I'm a bit on the fence (leaning to OK), but I'd like someone not involved with the topic to say so. Rd232 11:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Coming from an editor who believes venezuelanalysis is perfectly reliable and ok, but National Review is undue. Sigh. NR is a highly influential, highly significant, notable and mainstream magazine and is a reliable source. --Defender of torch (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

National Review is mainstream and reliable... Huh. And the debate about VA being reliable or not is ongoing at WP:RSN#Venezuelanalysis. Rd232 16:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It is because National Review is a notable and really significant magazine. Although it is a partisan source, expressing conservative viewpoint (being a fan of Nina Hartley, I find their view on cultural issues like LGBT rights or pornography extremely irritating). But hey, on economic issue we can certainly use this homophobic and pornophobic magazine as a reliable source because it is not promoting any fringe economic theory as VA does. Center for Economic and Policy Research is to economics what Discovery Institute is to science, IMHO. Tell me why NA is unreliable on economic issue? --Defender of torch (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

National Review is very notable, but due to it's "US-establishment" perspective it may not be 100% objective when dealing with topics such as Venezuela's current government. I don't quite follow the quote however, does the letter refer to statements in the NR article? --Dailycare (talk) 20:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't - it's a response to this report. Rd232 16:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Scientific opinion on climate change

Following on from the discussion about the article Scientific opinion on climate change and it being a possible content fork, I am seeking some input from other editors about the unsourced content in the hatnote and lead of the article that define this topic. The current version of the hatnote and lead read as follows:

This page is about scientific opinion on climate change. For recent climate change generally, see Global warming. For debate on scientific consensus, see Climate change consensus. For opinions of dissenting individual climate scientists, see List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.

Scientific opinion on climate change is given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. This does not include the views of individual scientists, individual universities, or laboratories, nor self-selected lists of individuals such as petitions. National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming.

The problem I have with this lead are as follows:

1. Original research has been employed to provide a defintion for what is the "Scientific opinion on climate change", rather than reliable sources that are directly related to the title of this article, and that directly support the information presented in the article itself. There have been many alterations to the hatnote and the lead, but the issue that the starting point is original research, no matter how many times it has been altered to "make the lead fit the article", has not been resolved by citing sources to support it.
2. None of the sources cited in the article define what is ""Scientific opinion on climate change", nor do any of them use or address the title of this article directly or in detail.
3. The effect of the lead is artifically segregate Scientific opinion from other sources of opinion.

My view is that no matter how innocuous the lead is, it is wholly unsatisfactory to segerage one source of opinion by creating a seperate article whose subject matter is defined by analytic or evaluative claims that that are based on original research. In short, this is a type of intellectual apartheid. My conclusions are that:

1. The lack of a recognised definition, one that is defined in terms of reliable source which would provide context to the reader, is absent. As it stands, this article can only be understood within the context of the over arching article topics (e.g. Climate Change, Global Warming etc.), and cannot be read as a seperate topic on its own. Its content, while in the most part, is referenced and ordered, address topics which are dealt with in other articles, and has expanded with no logical rationale other than to fit all of the content that has been added to it.
2. To establish the notability of this topic, and to refute the criticism that this article is a content fork, requires significant coverage from reliable secondary sources that address the article title directly and in detail, which are absent from the lead or the body of this article. For instance, the articles Climate Change, Global Warming and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are addressed directly and in detail, usually by sources which are expressing some form of opinion, whether it is scientific, economic, political or otherwise.
3. If this article topic can only be defined in terms of original research, then what purpose does it serve? One answer might be that it is simply an unintentional content fork, whose subject matter(s) are dealt with directly and in detail elsewhere by articles topics that are recognised by the world at large. Another is that this article, is in effect, a POV fork, designed to segrate scientific opinion from other forms of opinion that provide commentary, criticism or analysis about Climate Change, Global Warming etc., perhaps to avoid criticism or commentary that are the hallmarks of balanced coverage.

In short, the basis for inclusion of this topic as a standalone article is based on original research. Clearly there are several editors that disagree with the assertion that this article is a content fork (fair enough), but if the main issue is disputed, then at least consider the symptoms that are the badge of a content fork. The hatnote and lead to this article are original research, and do not define the article's subject matter in any meaningful way. Has any editor a view on this matter? Am I mistaken? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

This was originally posted at WP:OR/N. I replied there. Pcap ping 15:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

If people here disagree with you would you stop pursuing this dispute even if you are not convinced? Dmcq (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wey Valley School

I am Deputy Head at The Wey Valley School and have a "Conflict of interest" in the article. There has been some ping pong editing with an editor who is posting inaccurate and misleading information with the intent of impacting on the school's reputation. We believe it to be an ex-member of staff. I have acknowledged that I am not neutral but would like the accuracy and POV issues addressed. Following administrator advice I have started to post evidence led points with citations, on the talk page. Please would neutral editors help return this page to a fair balance and encyclopedic content.

Paulsnorman (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

1. http://catholicexchange.com/2008/02/05/80901/

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages neutral point of view
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution