Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:56, 24 November 2011

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

Archives

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

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

Subtle anti-Israeli sentiment in the lede of the Palestinian people article

What can I say, I really don't know what else to do so I'm here. This is the discussion, but really, apart from "it's relevant" no one has a convincing argument. The problem is best described below the aforementioned paragraph, under the RfC heading that yielded virtually no response. Here is how I presented the question – hopefully, this will be settled in an encyclopedic manner:

• Basically, the question is whether or not it is appropriate for the lead section of an article about Palestinian people to:
  1. Precede the wikilink Palestinian territories by the expression "Israeli-occupied";
  2. List, in detail, the number of Jewish residents in what is disputed as Palestinian territories in and around Israel, with a separate sub-sentence in parentheses that pertains to East Jerusalem, the wikilink of which is also preceded by the expression "Israeli-annexed". Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Under international law it is occupied.Slatersteven (talk) 23:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't there be an argument that excluding this information would be much more anti-Israeli? That would be to suppress the hard information that the area is controlled by the Israeli military and has a large Israeli population. Surely?

Plus, I think "it's relevant" is actually a pretty killer argument. --FormerIP (talk) 00:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the international law, but how relevant is any of it to the lede? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 00:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Another interesting point: Palestinians have always lived in an occupied territory, first in the Ottoman Empire, then in the British Empire, then in Jordan and only then (since 1967) under partial Israeli control. Isn't this just a little undue weight towards the Israeli issue? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you should consider that the issue may be that you haven't verified whether you can reliably detect bias in the Israel-Palestine conflict topic area. You wrote an RfC statement that says "List, in detail, the number of Jewish residents in what is disputed as Palestinian territories in and around Israel, with a separate sub-sentence in parentheses that pertains to East Jerusalem, the wikilink of which is also preceded by the expression "Israeli-annexed"". You repeated it here on a neutrality noticeboard. It's the kind of sentence you might find in an article by CAMERA where standard perfectly neutral terms are transformed. Settlers become residents, occupied becomes disputed, areas outside the green line such as East Jerusalem are in Israel. It's out of touch with reality according to RS-world. I think it demonstrates an inability to see bias. You should be concerned about that if you plan to continue editing in the topic area. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your personal attacks and address the issue in question. And just for the record, CAMERA is no less a reliable source as the leftist propaganda clumsily masked as mass media you so eagerly advocate for. And lastly – before you judge me, think how many aspects you ignore in your edits and comments to fortify an agenda. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack and I'm not judging you in a negative sense. It's sound advice offered free of charge that will help you avoid conflict and making mistakes in the topic area. I'm not interested in the issue at hand because I don't believe there is one. I wasn't aware that I had advocated the use of leftist propaganda unless you are referring to the use of China Daily and Xinhua in various articles about Chinese topics and elsewhere. They qualify as leftist propaganda in some sense I guess. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

One more thing, Sean. Let's deal with your accusations one at a time.

1. Residents – please read the definition of the word, do they not reside in the area? If anything, settlers is a far more biased word.
2. Disputed – is there not at least one side that disputes the issue? Suppressing the dispute's existence is more biased than at least balancing it with neutral wording.
3. If according to Israel, Jerusalem is the undivided capital, does it not exist in your world? Or is Israel and its supporters (such as CAMERA) nothing but a sack of lies that should always be seen as such? Surely you cannot admit to such belief, but your comments strongly suggest it. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

@Hearfourmewesique

1/ Think about Nazi personnel living in France 1940 – 1945. They where certainly residents - but would you say the term occupiers was less relevant?

2/ I dare say Hitler and his chums would have "disputed" claims made against them. Dose that automatically validate the term disputed?

3/ Surly scepticism about some of the claims Israel makes re. the status of Jerusalem, does not amount to "Israel and its supporters (such as CAMERA) nothing but a sack of lies"? Prunesqualor billets_doux 01:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

<- Hearfourmewesique, since Malik has separated out a section below I'll respond here. With respect, it's not a good use of your time to try to explain your position to me because I think your approach is fundamentally flawed. We just reflect what reliable sources say in a way that is consistent with the policies and guidelines of the project. To me this is just cold, heartless information processing. Assuming for the sake of argument that I had some personal views on the issues that mattered to anyone, they still wouldn't be part of the decision procedures. I honestly don't care in the slightest about the words themselves; resident, settler, colonist, disputed, occupied, Israeli village, Israeli settlement, Israeli colony, West Bank, Judea and Samaria etc etc even though these words have great symbolic significance for many people for reasons that are a bit puzzling but are always irrelevant to content decisions. The objective is simply to maximise policy compliance by ensuring that the language we use is consistent with the plurality of reliable sources (noting important discrepencies and disagreements over language of course) in a demonstrable evidence based way by actually properly sampling RS-world and faithfully reflecting what we find.

Years have been wasted in the I-P conflict topic area with people arguing and edit warring over which string of words properly describes something according to policy when sampling a large set of RS usually makes the optimal solution quite obvious. My point is that an editor may think something is biased or neutral but we have to actually know whether something is biased or neutral according to policy and be able to demonstrate that using evidence sampled from RS-world. When it comes to words like resident vs settler, occupied vs disputed, what is in Israel and what over the green line, the results from sampling of RS and the constraints imposed by policy are clear. There's no need to waste time on arguing about wording issues like these or to use words that are inconsistent with RS. That's not to say that your concerns about detailed wording tweaks in the article's lead in question here are necessarily invalid (although I personally think they are). That's up to others to decide, I won't be participating.

My point was simply that I don't think you can reliably see bias, you shouldn't assume that you can and that you should be concerned about that in the topic area as it will bring you into conflict with both policy and editors. I'm not sure which sources you meant by "leftist propaganda" but if they are mainstream sources that other RS and the community regards as reliable, dismissing them as leftist propaganda is probably another thing you should be concerned about as it will compromise your ability to make proper evidence based assessments of policy compliance. This isn't meant as criticism. There are a number of topics about various places and issues, mostly technical but also political that I'm probably too close to to reliably see bias or properly stick to policy without messing up. I don't edit them. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

This is fallacious in more than one sense, but unfortunately I don't have too much time at the moment, so I'll make it short. As I wrote on the article talk page, Palestinians were never a sovereign nation, they have always lived under someone else governing them. To this day, Israel is the first – and only – governing body that gave them control over Gaza and parts of the West Bank following the Oslo Accords. The article lede, which is supposed to give a concise summary of the entire article, does not say any of that – it only tells the reader that the territories are occupied by Israel/got annexed by Israel and that a relatively high number of Jews live on their land. It doesn't give the slightest idea as for why the territories were annexed to begin with, and what part the Palestinian (and other Arab) leaders played in the entire process. This is why I believe the article is initially presented with a strong bias and the lede should be changed to tell the whole story, rather than hand-picked parts of it. I have more to say, but I must go now. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The main point of this post, reiterated since it's already been buried under irrelevant stuff

• Basically, the question is whether or not it is appropriate for the lead section of an article about Palestinian people to:
  1. Precede the wikilink Palestinian territories by the expression "Israeli-occupied";
  2. List, in detail, the number of Jewish residents in what is disputed as Palestinian territories in and around Israel, with a separate sub-sentence in parentheses that pertains to East Jerusalem, the wikilink of which is also preceded by the expression "Israeli-annexed".
• Food for thought:
  1. Palestinians have always lived in an occupied territory, first in the Ottoman Empire, then in the British Empire, then in Jordan and only then (since 1967) under partial Israeli control. Even if anyone thinks it is relevant to the lede, isn't this just a little undue weight towards the Israeli issue?
  2. Out of all the governing bodies in the area, Israel is the first – and only – one that gave Palestinians control over Gaza and parts of the West Bank following the Oslo Accords.
  3. The main reason for annexing territories was boosting security in the area, following constant threats and attacks by Palestinian and other Arab militant groups. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Hearfourmewesique, you already started an RfC on this subject. Please stop WP:FORUMSHOPPING. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 21:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Malik, this is the irrelevant stuff. I'm trying to get the point across and get honest opinions based on all the facts. Please stop. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Not only is it forum shopping, it is clearly and demonstrably based on false pretenses. To begin with, Palestine was not "occupied territory" under the Ottomans. And the annexation of East Jerusalem had nothing, and I mean nothing, about boosting security in the area, following constant threats and attacks by Palestinian and other Arab militant groups. There is an open RFC about this on the talk page. So far Hearfourmewesique has not gotten the answer he or she has hoped for and has sought to run to the other parent for a different one. Though when getting an answer not to his or her liking even here, the user chooses a creative way of responding. Disruptive and tendentious, pure and simple. nableezy - 19:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments that are purely there to spew hate (i.e. comparing Israelis to Nazis and their leaders to Hitler) are unwelcome on Misplaced Pages, since – as I already wrote in the edit summary – this is not a hate forum. And you have the audacity to call me disruptive and tendentious??? Especially after "sweeping" my honest answer to your "Excuse me?" on your talk page, so that you can continue your smear campaign under the pretense of free speech just because it's your own user/talk page. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Do not remove others comments. The end. nableezy - 12:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

To quote the policy: "Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowedRemoving prohibited material such as libelRemoving harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalismPosts that may be considered disruptive in various ways areborderline case". Comparing Israel to the Nazis is libelous, disruptive, racist, hateful and any other adjective that comes to mind, in other words – unacceptable. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

No, no, and no, but as you insist on edit-warring to remove others comments that are neither personally attacking anyone, trolling, vandalism, or in any other way disruptive Ill just let somebody else deal with you. nableezy - 19:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Christian Michelides

A report regarding this article recently appeared at WP:COIN. The article is about an Austrian psychotherapist whose article on De WP has reportedly been somewhat contentious. Several users have come to En WP from De WP and feel that other editors' aims conflict with WP and have cited the German article being locked several times. Some editors there feel that there's a never-ending fight between editors creating an encyclopedic article and members of a fan club who have resorted to socking to push their point of view.

As there's no evidence of a close connection besides claims of fanclub membership, I bring this report here and have asked the involved editors to discuss the issue here and ask for the help of the members/watchers of this noticeboard. OlYeller21 19:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC) @Robertsan - stop vandalism because of bad emotions, like on the other page is told by OlYeller21"it sounds like the article is good in its current shape " and by the way - in the German version wie have "und wirkte maßgeblich an der Organisation der ersten Regenbogenparade 1996 auf der Wiener Ringstrasse mit" and its more the correct version than Yours - by the way an version preferred by Elisabeht (see German discussion) - because it is the truth - again - without Mihcelides no CSD at this time -read the source and like all your unreading, ignorierin and inaccuracies - McWien without an a. So stop vandalism because of envy and hate - article was good in the beforerobertsan-shape - you are the man on a mission i guess.--Das-Geheimnis-der-Sphinx (talk) 08:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I did some edits in the article, correcting the hardest POVs according to the German sources. And I deleted the unsourced parts. For CM never got any academic degree in all the studies he mentioned in the beginning, I took them out. There is only one paper he wrote as a student in Vienna to be found in the national library. Every catalogue is published by himself and only one book is in the national library, the only book he (or his fanclub) did not mention in the article. It was a catalogue for an exhibition in the rooms the company he was working for. The dog is not part of the job and so we decides to change to a more neutral photo in German WP. So I will change it in this article, too. You can see how the two two accounts talk about how to work here. McWien is blocked forever in German WP because of being a man on only one mission, to use WP for glorifying Christian Michelides (there are articles in es and francais based on the POV article in English). I hope there will be help from the watchers/members of this board here. Thank you for your attention. --Robertsan (talk) 08:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess all this needs discussion - we are 3 people who thinks article was in a good shape and only YOU - ONE guy, says other things - dog is part, he as studied - and where i can read here in en wikipedia, that a catalogue puplished in his own publishing house can not be a source - show me and don't regulate by yourself. and by the way again - you change without discussion when discussion is needed!--Das-Geheimnis-der-Sphinx (talk) 08:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Servie:block--Robertsan (talk) 08:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Warning user Robertsan because of his vandalism, see McWien (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

NPOV is no vandalism, dear McWien. My Answer you can find there. --Robertsan (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Medical Torture

Big problems at Medical_torture#Asserted_medical_or_professional_complicity but I don't have time to clean it up right now. Also includes at least one severe BLP violation. causa sui (talk) 00:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Astrology

Some editors at Astrology are intent on adding the following criticism of a peer-reveiwed study in Nature into the article (see here for full context: ]):

"Criticisms of Carlson's study have been published in numerous astrological and other fringe journals. These arguments range from faulty design and conclusion by Professor Hans Eysenck (1986) and Professor Joseph Vidmar (2008) to the claim that the Carlson data provides statistically significant evidence favoring the astrologers by Professor Suitbert Ertel (2009)".

The sources used are: Astrological Journal, Correlation, and Journal of Scientific Exploration, all of which are non-peer-reviewed fringe sources. Nevertheless, they are being used to challenge a genuine peer-reviewed scientific study, using WP:PARITY and the fact they they are identified as fringe journals as a justification.

The noteworthiness the criticisms is questionable as none of these criticisms have been discussed in reliable sources. There is no evidence that they are part of mainstream scientific discourse.

Your input would be appreciated at the article's talk page: ]. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

This conversation also took place on Jimbo's talk. Nformation 02:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

IMO, this issue is more relevant to the WP:RSN, because the three journals you mention Astrological Journal, Correlation, and Journal of Scientific Exploration are not scientific journals at all. For example, none of them is included into the ISI database. They have no impact factor, they are not considered as scientific by scientific community. Therefore, to include them into Misplaced Pages (as a source, not as a subject of discussion), means discredit Misplaced Pages. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

That's essentially been the point that many editors have been trying to make. Would you be interested in swinging by and joining the discussion? Nformation 03:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Nicholas Roerich

He seems to have been a genuinely notable guy; but this article, apparently poorly translated from one or more other languages, is absolutely worshipful (as well as being poorly formatted and ungrammatical). I've taken a very shallow pass at it, but would really appreciate some help here, ideally from a Russian-speaking editor. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Sailor Moon (English adaptation)

I'm posting this here as an effort for a dispute resolution, so some help here would be greatly appreciated. The discussion at WT:WikiProject Sailor Moon#Is this correct?WP:Sailor Moon (The beginning starts with a different issue so if you're reading it, it may be best to skip the first few paragraphs). The question with whether that article is aWP:POVFORK or a legitimate WP:SPINOUT article. The POV contention is that it places undue emphasis on the importance (ie the overall impact and not the quantity of sources) of the English localization of Sailor Moon vs. the Japanese when sources do not support this. The counter-argument is that more sources cover the English version and its a natural spinout article.∞陣内Jinnai 23:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Jinnai. I have a slight correction to offer - it's not that more sources cover the English version, it's that it is a natural spinout article which meets the GNG. --Malkinann (talk) 23:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

it makes no sense to separate english localization and distribution. A more logical choice as jinnai has said (and so have I) is to make an anime article. Not to mention has information that can easily merge to the other daughter articles such as list of sailor moon chapters and list of sailor moon episodes. Plus it gives undue weight to each individual alteration instead of actually summarizing it.Bread Ninja (talk) 03:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

also not too long ago, you were defending the article status by saying how much influenced the series had in the west. Its not a very good spinout. Its definitely POVFORK just by looking at the title sailor moon (english adaptation). Suggesting there's a different work with the same name when its just distribution and localization. Also gives undue weight and a lot of original research. Later you've admitted an anime and/or manga article could exist and meet the GNG but denied because this article meets the GNG. This article splits into two distinct medias that can easily help make more concrete article(s).Lucia Black (talk) 06:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you think I've been inconsistent - I have been having difficulty working out what you want to do with the article, and may not have understood what you were getting at at all times. I do not feel that the current name of the article implies there is a different Sailor Moon work (although the dub was radically different, people "became" fans by arguing on the internet about dub vs sub, as discussed by Neo and Patrick Drazen). I do not feel that the English adaptations article should be merged because it is a valid SPINOUT article, supported by multiple reliable sources, which meets the GNGs. --Malkinann (talk) 11:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Meeting the GNG does not mean something deserves an article though. If you read WP:N it clearly says its just the bare mininimum for showing notability and other factors could way in for deciding whether an article should exist. In this case its my contention this is a POVFORK even if it meets the GNG and therefore shouldn't exist as an NPOV violation.∞陣内Jinnai 17:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I proposed a clarrification at WP:N#change to GNG which addresses this.∞陣内Jinnai 01:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Malkinann, is your point that because the article passes WP:GNG as you argue, then WP:POVFORK and WP:SPLIT do not have to be considered? patsw (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand how it is a POVFORK, as the "point of view" that the English adaptations are important comes from the sources. The daughter article was apparently spun off due to size concerns with the main Sailor Moon article. (Talk:Sailor_Moon/Archive_1#American_Sailor_Moon) At the AFD, it was argued that it had the ability to be a discrete topic. I am concerned that arguments from style guidelines such as the WP:MOS-AM are being allowed to override notability. --Malkinann (talk) 17:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

But that's the problem. The sources don't establish that the English adaptation is more important than the Japanese one which doesn't have an article and does have sources to back it up its importance nor is the localization shown to have enough unique attributes to it. What is currently in the article appears to be a glorified list of English works which completely goes against the way we split media lists. As I mentioned on the other page, we don't have Dragon Ball (English localizaton) or Dragon Ball Z (English localization) even though we have far more sources for that. That is because it would be a POVFORK to say somehow the localization is more important and unrelated to the original Japanese production that it deserves its own article. We have also suggested a more appropriate split - splitting the anime from the manga and making an inclusive list of all the types of media - that wouldn't be a POVFORK and would satisfy your concerns that there's too much info.∞陣内Jinnai 18:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Why do the English adaptations have to be more important than the Japanese Sailor Moon to get an article? We don't have any articles on Dragon Ball Z because the anime-manga manual of style was used as a bludgeon, without regard to notability. A hypothetical List of Sailor Moon media is not a good idea because of WP:SIZE, and I don't know what you'd have in mind with splitting the anime from the manga. --Malkinann (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

notability isn't everything. a list of sailor moon media would not go against size if the article is what it states it is: a list of media. Examples such as list of kingdom hearts media and. List of final fantasy videogames are good examples. Why the need to have a separate article for localization? Again Malkinann you admit to ignore MOS.Lucia Black (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I tend to give preference to content over the precise form of said content - it's a valid style of editing, and one which helps to grow the encyclopedia. I don't know what the proposed list of media would contain at present, but it would be more sensible, I feel, to make a List of Sailor Moon albums or List of Pretty Guardian Sailor Moon albums, etc, splitting it up by type, to aid in navigation and readability. The anime-manga manual of style is all too often used as a bludgeon. I generally find that it impedes me from improving the encyclopedia, so I tend to ignore it. Ignoring a rule which impedes one from improving the encyclopedia is one of the founding principles of Misplaced Pages, and is not in itself "bad". --Malkinann (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

That shows a big sign of bad faith on your part. Because it's not just 1 rule, but an entire guide. To ignore the guide is to accept exceptions as a norm when it can easily be avoided (in this case especially). And you use the same logic we are using to make a List of Sailor Moon albums but when it comes to proposed anime article you are against it because it would mean merging it back? If the anime article was made first, would you have proposed a separate article for english adaptations knowing it would mean merging the anime article back? You accept English localization as a separate entity because it meets GNG and only GNG. Even if you ignore the one guide we have for anime and manga related articles, you don't even seem to use a different general guide either. You only worried about if it passes one rule, you forget about the others. SO how are we going to move on from here? If consensus favors our proposition over yours, would that evn change anything for you?Lucia Black (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

These guidelines get applied independently of each other: If you create a WP:POVFORK then passing WP:GNG is irrelevant. If the consensus opposes a WP:SPLIT, passing GNG is irrelevant. If fact, asserting a article passes GNG is only relevant when it is challenged that it does not pass GNG. patsw (talk) 01:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Independently but they're all meant for all articles. Still...malkinann says its a WP:SPINOUT but its more like an attempt of WP:CONTENTFORK but focused on one specific POV which jinnai said is againt NPOV.Lucia Black (talk) 01:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

the article is rather inconsistent. Its all about english releases and distribution along with alterations made. There is heavy undue weight made specifically for the emphasis of the english localization. Not onlyis it all based off undue weight but the content can easily merge to other more relevant articles. Which for some reason seems to be ignored whenever mentioned.Lucia Black (talk) 21:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Lucia Black, I have had considerable trouble understanding your proposals for the articles - even understanding which articles you were talking about at any given point. Perhaps I overlooked the proposal you're thinking of. Could you please restate it concisely?

The reliable sources in the (English adaptations) article and the main Sailor Moon article state that the English adaptations of Sailor Moon (chiefly the anime, but also the manga) are important, moreso than other English adaptations, as they provided an influx of girls and women into the anime and manga fandom, took manga out of the 'comic book store ghetto', and along with Pokemon and Dragon Ball Z, were one of the major series of the 90s in the English-language fandom. It is a valid SPINOUT because there is more information on the English adaptations than can comfortably exist in the main Sailor Moon article. The argument from 'there is no article for DBZ' is an 'other stuff doesn't exist' argument, and ignores the sources about Sailor Moon. The Manuals of Style should serve articles, not the other way around. What is being proposed here is an erosion of notability for the sake of an outdated and generalised idea of style. Malkinann (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Read the article and you'll also note that the influence of the Japanese manga and anime had equal (but different) impacts and greater for the manga as it redefined the magical girl subgenre and yet inspite this there no spinout for that. Why? Because there's no need. Similarly, there is no need for a spinout of the English influence of SM which is arguably on the same level for the anime. A spinout of the anime, dealing with both, may be warranted or a spinout on the worldwide impact of SM may be warranted, but not a spinout of English SM. That's a POVFORK.

If its about the impact of DBZ, Pokemon, SM and a few others, then that should be covered all in one article.∞陣内Jinnai 19:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no spinout for that because there are not the amount of sources available for that topic as there are for the English adaptations. Perhaps one day we will have the sources, but not yet. There is the need for a spinout of the English adaptations for issues of size, weight, and notability. I still don't understand why you feel it's a POVFORK. DBZ, Pokemon and SM are covered in 'one big article', which the English adaptations is a notable spinout of - Editing of anime in American distribution. --Malkinann (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Just because there are more sources on something does not mean we must bow our heads and submit to the publisher-or-perish nature of Western media.∞陣内Jinnai 22:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I am deeply concerned that the reliable sources are being ignored in favour of style. I sincerely doubt that the sources about the adaptations were produced in a publish or perish environment, as I've had trouble finding academic sources on Sailor Moon. Perhaps you could post at WT:VERIFIABILITY and seek a clarification there regarding publish or perish, as you did with the GNGs? --Malkinann (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I am deeply concerned in your flawed perspective. The article is again separated in two convenient medias, release information being merged to their independent articles such as list of sailor moon chapters/episodes. All is left is english development and alterations which seems to have specific changes of undue weight so then trimming to general. The only way this can be justified is adding reception over it. The problem isn't that the article can't be merged its whether you willing to accept it. And its not over style. The information is best suited in the main article and the other two daughter articles I already mention. An anime article would be more reasonable than this article.Lucia Black (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Lucia Black, everyone has a different idea of common sense. My perspective is based on paying attention to the sources and the GNG. Yours appears to be based solely on style. Is your proposal to split the (English adaptations) article three ways between Sailor Moon, List of Sailor Moon episodes and List of Sailor Moon chapters? I would like to point out that the disadvantage with this organisational scheme is that it has the effect of erasing English adaptations as being a valid, notable topic. What are the advantages of your proposed organisational scheme? --Malkinann (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Not true, they are part of others that are more notable. The topic itself notable because its made uup of several pieces that are best suited for other articles. And again, not organization issue, its the fact that the article acts as a main article. If it were a valid topic, then it would have to have some sort of reception. Separating english information from the main article because of original research. Yes, it is original research by implying it a general topic but. Its not. Article is made up of several pieces.Lucia Black (talk) 01:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The English adaptations article is also part of other articles that are more notable - it is a valid SPINOUT article of Sailor Moon and the Editing of anime in American distribution articles. I have already explained to you, both here and in the original discussion, that the (English adaptations) article has reception throughout the article. An article is made valid by the existence of reception itself, not by the format that the reception takes inside the article, as you are suggesting. Your proposed reorganisation has the clear disadvantage of obscuring a notable topic, as defined by the GNGs and the reliable sources about the topic. What are the benefits of your proposed reorganisation? --Malkinann (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

No its not, the structure and title of the article suggest it to be equal to Sailor Moon as a seperate entity. Its not a spinout of Editing of anime in american distribution, if it were that would be the smallest spinout build up of undue weight. There's no reason to separate english information from the main article. This is english wikipedia, so most of our information is going to be about english sources about english adaptations. So nearly impossible to prove sailor moon as a special case to separate english release and distribution of it away from the main article if you're going to base the reception the main article has from the current unless you looked specific reception about the original versions of sailor moon. Its bias per english, the idea is not only localization information but releases and distribution that can easily merge to list of sailor moon chapters and list of sailor moon episodes, which then distribution history and alterations is all that the article is left with, which has heavy unndue weight and original research. The article attempts english versions as a completely separate entity from the main article, but it also made up of individual pieces that are part of something much more relevant. The topic itself isn't notable as a separate entity from the main article because its information that readers look for IN the main article. We shouldn't separate them by languages even if significantly altered from the original.

This isn't WP:SPINOUT, this is WP:CONTENTFORK and shows strong signs of WP:POVFORK.Lucia Black (talk) 05:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The structure and title of the article do not suggest it is equal to Sailor Moon as a seperate entity. It is a spinout of Editing of anime in American distribution, as a specific, reliably-sourced case study on Sailor Moon's English adaptations. The reason why it was spun out was to give appropriate weight to the English adaptation in the main article - there are too many sources on the english adaptations to comfortably exist within the Sailor Moon article. The information is summarised inside the Sailor Moon article, and the rest has been spun out into the English adaptations article. I have been giving you specific examples of reliable sources throughout this merge discussion, which you have persistently ignored. It is too notable to be merged as you suggest - to do so obscures this notable topic. This is a notable SPINOUT based on the reliable sources available, not a POVFORK. Malkinann (talk) 08:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, even if it was spun out of editing of anime in american distribution, that still doesn't justify the article for current use, being not just about the editing, but also release information and distribution which you are miraculously ignoring a lot more. You justify the article for what you think its about, you don't see what it actually is. A dumping ground for all information of english distribution which happens to include alterations. Not just editing, but release information and broadcast history aswell. The article mirrors itself as a main article whether it is or not, that's what it does. Though it came from a page that is meant merely on localization of anime, the article does not appear to be just a spun out.

but let's take this back a step, the article it was spun out from is editing of anime in english distribution. The article current state is made up of mostly specific changes per individual series along with some general information, the article structure-wise if filled original research along with again tidbits of specific anime series. Spinning out the article into its own article wasn't good idea. There was no clean up for undue weight, original research, etc. An article made mostly of those specific series, the best course of action would've been to merge that information regardless of size (because let's be honest out of the many problems, undue weight is clearly there). If it couldn't fit, make it and let me tell you, the editing and censorship is the easiest thing to summarize to something more general than to be going to each specific change they have made.

overall, splitting it to its own article wasn't the best choice given that the article itself is still to this day not properly structured nor supported. The article also isn't just a mere spin out, as it covers more than localization of sailor moon, but english distribution which the editing of anime in american distribution was not about despite being a factor in the title. the information is best suited in its respected articles even if it started out as a very very weak spin out to another article that barely makes itself out to be a main article. But it can't be a spin out of both. Its either one or the other, and you can't make reasons as if they were spinned out from both articles. The article treats itself separately whether considered a part of it or not. I personally don't think you've read the article...because everyting you've said about it didn't apply. The topic being english versions of sailor moon, not just alterations, not just distribution, but its all english versions of sailor moon. A topic like that challenges the main article sailor moon.Lucia Black (talk) 09:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Lucia Black, your unfounded and patently false assumption that I have not read the article is grossly uncivil and unhelpful. Please retract this. --Malkinann (talk) 10:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Please reread it...you say what the article is, but its not that...my questioning has been because you have said false things about the article. The article isn't solely about what you say it is. The article isn't just about localization, but broadcast history and release information of english releases exclusively, information much more vital to the main article or at least to the anime aspect. This is not a valid spin out considering the situation both this article and the article it was spun out are in. The article may have started out as a weak pin out but clearly its not relevant anymore, new information has made it bias to english information (what should be accepted universally and intergrated into the main article).Lucia Black (talk) 10:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I re-read the article when the discussion was started, and have been keeping an eye on it during this discussion. You, on the other hand, have apparently never even edited the article to try to fix the grievous problems in it that have lead to your proposal of this split-merge. I find your repeated attempts to discredit me by implying I have not read the article deeply upsetting, as I find your accusation that I have said false things about the article deeply upsetting. I may have become confused, as you have been both incredibly unclear and incredibly uncivil to me throughout this discussion. Could you please provide diffs where I have said false things about the article? --Malkinann (talk) 10:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

the topic itself is what leads me to merge it. If you want mee to do this the slow nd painful way and slowly clean it up and merging small information to their respected articles until there's only localization information which the article would then be small enough to merge.

regardless your statements and reasoning are only based off singular things. You refuse to see it at a grander scale. For one you're reasoning as a good daughter article being too big for the main sailor moon article in a summary while having the rest in that article, but refuse to see the other information, the title, the article divided into two specific medias only hint a more proper split could be in order. But then it gets switched around by being split from editing of anime in english distribution when clearly there was not the sensible thing to do and don't use commonsense on me, commonsense within the guidelines and policies is what I'm trying to say.

so let's forget about everything else...let's get to the main point on why its not nuetral pov. I'm just going to bring one topic at a time out of the many in this situation. So here goes: the article is bias per all english versions of sailor moon, why make a separate article separating the english versions info (which is not just localization information) when information like that is still vitally relevant to the main article? And not accepting GNG reason. Saying english versions are notable is saying the main article is notabl (because its vital to be in the main article), not the specific topic. Why distinguish them separately?

I do not see any point in attempting to follow your convoluted reasoning if you cannot accept that I have read the article, and if you cannot retract your uncivil statements insinuating that I have not, and that I have said false things about the article. --Malkinann (talk) 11:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

you make it really hard to because you switch you reasoning around and around...I just don't think you actually understand what the entire article is trully about....it deeply fustrates me that you say this but when reading the article is more than just that. Uncivility comes along way and assuming bad faith isn't what I'm intending to do. Regardless, you acuse me of ignoring points you mentioned, I accuse you of ignoring things I said. Your pointing a gun at someone who's also pointing a gun back at you and claiming there is no gun pointinng at you but are offended.

the article is all about and only about english versions of sailor moon which include but not limited to localization in which you continuously implied that it is through spinout of editing of anime in american distribution. you only see the localization part, you don't see the rest that changes the topic into something more broad. which is why you mentined how it was summarized in the main article of sailor moon and in (excessive) detail in that article.

you have switched your argument several times. First by saying it was a split mainly from sailor moon, suddenly both sailor moon and editing of anime, then it resulted from editing of anime being a specific case.

so...all in all....jinnais second comment says it all. I'm just wondering, to you what is POVFORK?Lucia Black (talk) 11:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I have consistently said from the beginning that the article meets the GNG and therefore should not be merged. It is completely unacceptable that you should accuse me of not having read the article - it's completely false, grossly uncivil, and I don't see the point in responding to your argument until you can accept I have read the article, if you cannot retract your uncivil statements insinuating that I have not, and that I have said false things about the article. It is a notable daughter article of both Sailor Moon and the editing of anime article - SPINOUT is a synonym for daughter article. It should not be merged because to merge is to obscure this notable topic. --Malkinann (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

That's the only thing that has been consistent, regardless. I take back that you have not read the article. Instead, I say you don't understand what the article is trully about. Spin out leads to daughter articles however not every daughter article isn't notable (that saying spin out is just a way of avoiding the word split). For one, the article relates to english versions of sailor moon, violating NPOV. Spinning out a Pov of the main topic. For example, character articles don't get often split unless it has specific reception to that character to prove it being more important than the rest of the characters in the list article. This article does not justify why it should exist. Regardless if considered a spin out of editing of anime in english distribution, the article uses summary style mainly on sailor moon. Its not really a daughter article of editing of anime in english distribution because the article isn't dependent on the editing of anime in english distribution, although it is related to it. That article is also filled with bias and unverifiable claims, so in the end, a spin out of that article isn't justified.

Saying english versions of sailor moon is notable, is saying the basic building blocks of the main article being split into a daughter article, without clarification of why it needed to be spun out to be an independent. Spinning out media is one thing because its not a pov, its media. However, this is pov of sailor moon media. This clearly fails NPOV......there's no two ways about it. Calling it a spin out doesn't justify because the article isn't merely about just localization.Lucia Black (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Please also retract your assertion that I have said false things about the article - you simply misunderstood me. The spinout simply takes the notable topic of English adaptations of Sailor Moon and treats it in a more in-depth way than the main article can, and in a manner which does not take the notable topic and split it amongst three articles, as you are proposing. The article was spun out, as I have already explained, in order to give the appropriate level of detail in Sailor Moon, treating it in more detail on its own page. There was too much information on the main Sailor Moon page, so it was spuyn out. How does the English adaptations article fail NPOV when the alleged POV comes directly from the sources - that the English adaptations of Sailor Moon are important? How is your proposed reorganisation beneficial? Your proposed reorganisation has the effect of obscuring a notable topic. --Malkinann (talk) 13:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

First off, the topic may meet the notability guideline, but guess what: Every notable English adaptation of an anime does. We don't have School Rumble (English adaptation, Serial Experiments Lain (English adaptation), Revolutionary Girl Utena (English adaptation), Fruits Basket (English adaptation), Ranma 1/2 (English adaptation), Black Butler (English adaptation), One Piece (English adaptation) (redirects to One Piece), Naruto (English adaptation), Pokemon (English adaptation), Dragon Ball (English adaptation), Bleach (English adaptation), Hetallia (English adaptation), Tenchi Muyo! (English adaptation), Tokyo Mew Mew (English adaptation)... All of them and hundreds more meet the GNG because they all have more easily accessible English reliable sources.

Second, when there is too much info, we summarize per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, specifically what should have been done instread of and before any spinout article. From what I've seen, that step appears to have been skipped.

Finally, it fails the NPOV specifically because it gives undue weight to indivisual and often minor changes (especially when compared to titles like One Piece where episodes were cut & pasted, merged and rearranged to form wholely new episodes with different storylines). In addition, it gives undue weight to English sources. Just because you can find more sources, especially English vs. non-English, doesn't mean you need to cover everything. There comes a point where sources don't add anything new or only minor things and we summarize content. Finally, it gives undue weight to the English version over the Japanese inspite evidence that the Japanese version had as much, if not more, impact solely because there happens to be more English sources talking about it. That's WP:Systemic bias.∞陣内Jinnai 16:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The reason we don't have such articles on these notable topics is because of the biases of the manual of style. The organisational system that you and Lucia Black are proposing has the effect of obscuring the topic of how Sailor Moon was adapted into English, making it harder for people to find information about that topic. All of these changes were noted by reliable sources, so how is it NPOV to include them? How does the existence of the English adaptations article give undue weight to the English versions "over" the Japanese? If anything, it allows the English versions to be discussed in-depth in their own daughter article, freeing up space in the main article to discuss the Japanese versions. --Malkinann (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not the reason why we have such articles. Organization has nothing to do with why this fails NPOV, regardless our proposal does relate to a better organization. The article is splits english versions from the original version because there is significant ammount of localization information.

I don't see how it doesn't fail npov. Noting its existence isn't enough to split it into a separate topic. Its definitely povfork to split individually...splitting per media to cover both japanese (original) and english sources. The mainn reason why we cover japanese in general is because it was originally released there but most of the time the main articles are dependent on english. its taking english pov over japanese as if they need to be separated but they don't.Lucia Black (talk) 22:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Malkinann, do you really think the average Wikipedian reader is so dense that they cannot follow section links inside the article Sailor Moon to #English adaptations? In addition, do you honestly think the average reader won't think to look at #Reception and #Legacy where further info would likely be found?∞陣内Jinnai 23:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

My thought is that a reader might come to the "English editing of anime" article, and try to find information on the adaptations of Sailor Moon from there. I don't see how this has anything to do with the topic at hand, and I don't see how the article fails NPOV. --Malkinann (talk) 23:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

the main article also splits the information wrong. Why split media individually but then compile all english media aswell? This has nothing to do with understanding issues for the readers part. The only reason why there's a daughter page of this is because the main article is set up oddly.Lucia Black (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Its POVFORK, and the only reason why it looks like SPINOUT is because all english related info was forked into its own separate section when it can go to its respected sections.Lucia Black (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Why is it a povfork? How is it a povfork? Please stop muddying the issue with reference to the MOS-AM. --Malkinann (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

how is it NOT a povfork? The main article didn't properly organized the info and was already aiming for bias. It splits the localization and distribution of the same media separately from the main media section. Stop bringing up MOS-AM.Lucia Black (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

As you are asserting that it is a POVFORK even though it has been accepted as a SPINOUT for many years, the onus is on you to explain why and how it is a POVFORK. As I have already explained, the "point of view" that the English adaptations are important comes directly from the reliable sources that discuss the subject, making it a SPINOUT and not a POVFORK. Why do you still think it's a POVFORK? How do you feel the article is a POVFORK? The article has NEVER "aimed for bias", and I would appreciate it if you did not repeat such an inflammatory assertion. --Malkinann (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

At this point your reasoning has shifted again, now to the incredibly useless reason that consensus years ago is still valid. Consensus can change. The article does aim toward bias just by separating english localization of all sailor moon media simply for the reason of existing. I suggest you cool your jets. The article is accused of povfork sticks. POVFORK isn't about not having enough sources.Lucia Black (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I am simply pointing out that there is a prior consensus, which you are trying to change. The onus is on you to explain why and how it is a POVFORK. I have explained how it is not a POVFORK but a SPINOUT, I would appreciate it if you could do the same - without appeal to the anime-manga manual of style, or the general incivility I have heard from you throughout this discussion. If you cannot even be bothered to explain your position in a clear and civil manner, I don't see how I can understand your position. Your accusation that the article is a POVFORK does NOT "stick" without a clear and civil explanation of how it is a POVFORK and a clear and civil explanation how your proposed reorganisation is better. --Malkinann (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Stop it. Your the one getting uncivil at this point and yes accusation of povfork does stick. You seem to assume if its spinout, it can't be povfork. So I'm going to ask you what povfork means to you.Lucia Black (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The onus is on you to explain why and how it is a POVFORK, as you are attempting to change prior consensus. Your accusation that the article is a POVFORK cannot "stick" without a clear and civil explanation of how it is a POVFORK and a clear and civil explanation how your proposed reorganisation is better - I need to understand where you're coming from before I can even begin to think about changing my mind. I cannot see any advantages to your proposed reorganisation - only the clear disadvantage that it obscures a notable topic. --Malkinann (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The article is about distribution and localization of sailor moon. Those are two aspects of the main article, yet it presents itself separately.

let's look at it like this, if one article is for japanese version and the other is english version, why leave the english reception of the english version of the series in the main article?Lucia Black (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

let me put it in simpler terms....distribution and localization are ascpects of media, therefore POV, and forked separately from the article, hence POVFORK.Lucia Black (talk) 02:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The English adaptations article does not "present itself seperately" - it is summarised in Sailor Moon and repeated reference to issues in Sailor Moon are made in the "Editing of anime..." article. The specific issues with the English adaptations were split off in order to allow the article to focus on the general reception of Sailor Moon - for example, the aborted "Saban Moon" pilot is discussed in the English adaptations article, but isn't mentioned in the main Sailor Moon article. "distribution and localization are ascpects of media, therefore POV, and forked separately from the article, hence POVFORK" makes no sense to me. Could you please elaborate on your thinking here? --Malkinann (talk) 04:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The main article also isn't properly organized. It appears like a proper spinout because the main article separates overall media from the english versions which is unacceptable.Lucia Black (talk)

Anti-Muslim organizations

I brought this here both because the user in question claimed it was a POV issue. I think it's a simple question of sources, but it would be very, very silly to bring these sources to RSN...

CNN, Radio Netherlands (link is dead but article is available elsewhere), and Agence France-Presse call the Party for Freedom (Partij voor de Vrijheid) anti-Muslim (as do the New York Times, the Telegraph (link is dead but the article is available elsewhere), the Economist, etc.). Given this, are we justified in placing the article in Category:Anti-Muslim organizations from the Netherlands?

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure. Wilders has repeatedly and stridently declared that he is anti-Islam, but not anti-Muslim. Andries (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

yes, almost all right-wing extremists claim they're not anti-muslim. however, what matters in the end is the assessments of reliable secondary sources.-- mustihussain  19:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

And now we've got the same issue at Danish People's Party, where the sources include the Guardian, the Seattle Times, and the Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and Racism, and at Stop Islamization of America, where the sources include the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Mondoweiss, and the Huffington Post. This isn't about whether Wilders has denied being anti-Muslim; this is about two editors' campaign to deny that anyone is anti-Muslim. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

exactly! roscelese is absolutely right.-- mustihussain  20:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• I think some scholarly, political science sources would be preferable.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Why should we hold this designation to a higher standard than we hold any other? Why is it perfectly acceptable to source other elements of PVV's ideology to newspapers, to a paper by a graduate student (anything under a dissertation is not considered reliable, IIRC), or to a "living abroad country facts" webpage, but it's so very important to ignore otherwise reliable sources to avoid calling anyone anti-Muslim? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall ever having argued in favor of any of those viewpoints. What is the PVV? It sounds like an WP:OTHERSTUFF type argument to me.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

PVV = Partij voor de Vrijheid. Which article were you referring to? As for the OTHERSTUFF argument, the reason that's considered a flawed argument is because it's often comparing apples to oranges. Here, we have elements of the same class, viz. parts of the group's ideology, but you're arguing that we need scholarly sources to call it anti-Muslim, while lower-quality sources calling it anti-Islam (because they aren't against the people! just ignore their inciting of hatred) are just fine. Why should we use different standards for exactly the same sort of material? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Noone has argued that those two cases should be treated differently. (I came from the Danish People's Party article). I think we generally should use better sources to support claims about political ideologies.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I think before we state as a fact that a party is anti-Muslim, we need a source that says that is how they are normally viewed, rather than an example of where they have been called that. TFD (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, why should we hold this designation to a higher standard than any other? Piles of reliable sources describing the organization as anti-Muslim aren't enough, we have to go meta? Whereas propagating their claim that they're just anti-Islam, without any similar meta source, is completely fine. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Any reader with a bit of capacity of independent thinking can see that the quesiton of anti-islam or anti-muslim is pure sophistry. But yes - we need good sources - preferably scholarly sources summarizing different views on their political stances. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the distinction is pure sophistry, but in the interest of compromising with these other editors (one of whom has since been blocked for edit-warring), I tried to find sources that used terminology they would find acceptable. It hasn't helped, clearly. I'll look round for scholarly sources in a bit, I'm sure it won't be difficult to find some. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Added! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

there is an abundance of reliable secondary sources demonstrating clearly the anti-muslim nature of these parties. in addition, there is a campaign going on where the anti-muslim category is deliberately being removed from a wide range of pages without any discussion i.e. in violation of wp:brd. these pov-pushing spa-accounts need to be stopped.-- mustihussain  20:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think any of the sources presented are particularly weighty - it is easy to find exaggerated claims about the ideologies of most any political group if using only news sources and websites.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly why I've reverted those changes: all the sources have been cherrypicked by one user just because they contain the exaggerated 'anti-Muslim' claim in it. None of the sources explain the question in any depth. According to Roscelese's logic, just because a sensationalist claim has been posted between the lines by CNN we should immediately make the encyclopedia article reflect this usage. Estlandia (dialogue) 09:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

"Categorization must maintain a neutral point of view: categorizations appear on pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial" - WP:CAT. I've been told adding something about terrorism in a category is not acceptable based on that argument. If members of the group deny the assertion that they are anti-muslim then it is controversial. Time getting bent out of shape over the removal of a cat would be better spent making the prose clear. This would be of the most use to the reader.Cptnono (talk) 20:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

you missed the point. "anti-muslim"-category tags are suddenly being deleted by two editors, unilaterally from several pages. they don't have any consensus.-- mustihussain  21:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

No, you missed the point. I don;t care if editors are being lame or if the party in question really do hate Muslims. I care about what CAT says. Pay more attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptnono (talk • contribs) 05:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

NPOV requires reflecting the views of reliable sources, rather than suppressing them. The category is justified in the article text; unfortunately, the users who are removing the category are also removing the article text, so maybe this is why you are confused. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

"Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial". A group or person denying something doesn't make it controversial. Terrorism related categories are widely used as are criminal convictions (with no dependency on the opinions of the convicted), holocaust denial, pseudoscience, and categories related to all sorts of things that represent facts and overwhelming consensus positions. I don't know about this case because there would need to be enough samples to establish whether it really is the case that there is a consensus view that justifies the categorization. But my point was that a denial means little by itself and manufacturing controversies that don't actually exist in RS-world is a popular sport in Misplaced Pages so sampling a lot of RS wouldn't hurt. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

What we should base our conclusions on are not a few newspaper articles cherrypicked by one user where the label 'anti-Muslim' has just been used passing by (probably synonymously with 'anti-Islam'). There are equally reliable sources that tell e.g. that PVV is a centre-right party (and conversely, there are sources out there labelling it far right). We shouldn't attach all those labels to the articles, but as Maunus has rightly said find “scholarly sources summarizing different views on their political stances.” That is, articles that really substantiate the opinion, not just use sensationalist labels without giving a reason how is, say, PVV 'anti-Muslim' (as opposed to 'critical of Islam').Estlandia (dialogue) 09:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Your source describes the PVV as "conservative", not "centre-right". I suspect you mixed it up with the VDD. Of course, neither description is strictly incompatible with "anti-Muslim" or "anti-Islam" (a purely rhetorical distinction without practical substance). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, I agree that there is no distinction. However, to make Filippuson (currently blocked) and Estlandia (not currently blocked) happy, I found sources that use the terminology they preferred; obviously treating the two terms as equivalent, since they are, would find even more sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Colleague, the page clearly reads PVV /Conservative (Centre-right). I'm not mixing up anything.Estlandia (dialogue) 14:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I see. I look at the text for the party ("A Dutch conservative political party which combines..."). You look at the table. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

With 119,000 hits for anti-Islam and 189,000 for anti-muslim this is not about "cherry-picking" but about terminology. The dichotomy of "anti-Islam" and "anti-muslim" is about the same as with "anti-gay" and "homophob" - nonexisting. BTW both lemmata link to Islamophobia. --78.53.37.169 (talk) 12:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages only cares about RS, Google search doesn't know how to identify those, so results like these have limited value. I don't think there's any way to avoid manually sampling RS in cases like this. Even if Google hits mattered you have only sampled part of the space. You've excluded the cases where neither term appears. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• The key here is to distinguish fact from opinion. In order to maintain a neutral point of view, we should not apply labels to a person or group ourselves. Instead, we should report on the labels others (reliable sources) apply to the person or group. This means we should attribute any labels to those who apply them: "Radio Netherlands has labeled the party as being 'anti-Muslim'" etc. If the person or group disagrees with that label, we would mention that as well. Blueboar (talk) 15:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• So at what point does that become unnecessary? I've cited/linked ten (IIRC) reliable sources which call it anti-Muslim. Should we name each of them? Would we also, do you think, write "The New York Times, the Washington Post, the BBC, describe Michelle Bachmann as conservative"? There is a point at which consensus in reliable sources relieves us of the need to attribute, and that point has long been passed. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

What I was saying is, with 100,000+ hits it's not about opinion but about phrasing. If PVV wouldn't be considered "anti-Muslim", it wouldn't get that many hits or vice versa. Neutrality in this case is not about creating a Polish Parliament, but about reflecting informed judgement. --78.53.37.169 (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Mylo Xyloto

Edit req, Talk:Mylo Xyloto#Edit request from , 2 November 2011. Thx.  Chzz  ►  06:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:PARITY

The Parity section of the WP:FRINGE guidelines is a favorite of fringe apologists, who interpret it as carte blanche to use just about any sourcing they please to support OR and SYNTH in articles on fringe topics. It is also misused to present a fringe topic from the in-universe persepective fringe topic in articles on the topic.

I've started a discussion of the talk page of the WP:FRINGE guidelines. This isn't a formal RfC, but a request for open-ended input on the question whether the Parity section needs to be re-worded for clarity. To keep the discussion centralized, please comment on the talk page of the article, here: ]. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Criticism section on Occupy Wall Street

I wrote a summary of some criticisms of the movement, using the same words as the sources. The sources were were themselves describing those criticisms. It was challenged and removed apparently because it sounds POV. I would like outside observers to take a look at it. Description here. Thanks all! B——C_ritical 00:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we clearly need more input over this. The 'criticisms' seem to be insults, and the sourcing is questionable, in that it isn't sourced to critics... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I provide quotes from the sources on the talk page. Aren't we supposed to use secondary sources, not primary sources? The sources are: The Chronicle of Higher Education which is the major news service in the United States academic world, CBS news site, and The New York Times, an article by Kate Zernike who was a member of the New York Times team which shared the 2002 Pulitzer Prize for Explanatory Reporting. B——C_ritical 04:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

There has been little outside input, and there have been no arguments offered which invalidate the sources or indicate that my summary of them was unrepresentative. All arguments seem to boil down to dislike of what's being said, not arguments that it is somehow out of Misplaced Pages process or rules. This isn't how it's supposed to go. You're supposed to be able to summarize good sources, and if you do it properly but people still object you're supposed to be able to call in outside help to build consensus. Anybody out there? B——C_ritical 00:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

This is simply untrue: "All arguments seem to boil down to dislike of what's being said" .. At least two of us are saying that the tone is not impartial, as required by NPOV. Becritical has just made the astounding claim (on the talk page) that NPOV is determined by the sources. Furthermore, he is dominating discussion there by replying to every single post. It seems that he is eager to frame the criticism as only he sees fit. Someone else please advise him to let up and let others weigh in too, as I've already tried twice. As we say, there is no deadline to get it right. -A98 98.92.187.126 (talk) 02:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

There's no requirement of an impartial tone. There's requirement that the sources be described in an impartial tone. One does that by impartially summarizing the reliable sources. If we have highly reliable sources to back it up, we can say "Conservatives and Tea Party activists say OWS is a shiftless, indolent, messy, anti-Semitic and drug-addled mob engaged in class warfare, and that the protester's grievances are far removed from the political mainstream." That's reporting what the sources tell us in an entirely impartial tone. See comparison on the talk page B——C_ritical 03:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

That is not correct, not at all! At WP:NPOV there are multiple references to writing with an impartial tone. Rather than introducing strong and angry language, rewrite the information with a neutral tone, dropping the inflammatory quotes. Binksternet (talk) 03:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, let's see you rewrite the sources "impartially." See if you can convey how our RS secondary sources portray the conservative view of OWS without leaving out information or whitewashing our reliable sources. You will find that you are merely doing a whitewash job. B——C_ritical 04:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure I could do it if I worked very hard at it. The difficulty we both know that the task entails should be a signal that the material is not suited to the encyclopedia. We are not here to inflame the reader. Binksternet (talk) 04:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you really say that? Because that's what I've been saying, that people just don't think what our RS have to say is fit for Misplaced Pages. But that's not our choice to make. B——C_ritical 04:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It's quite possible that this particular material run by the reliable sources is inappropriate because it's not relevant, given undue weight, is reporting on punditry and controversy rather than the subject of the article, etc. On the other hand, it's clear that there is a lot of criticism, antagonism, cultural clash, etc., over the OWS protests. I don't think you could tell the story of those protests without mentioning the response they've gotten, positive, negative, indifferent, and antagonistic. Political and cultural responses to what's essentially a political and cultural event are noteworthy encyclopedic information. So I think the problem if any is the tone, and selecting sources that are encyclopedic in scope. The proposed language seems more news-ish and essay-like than encyclopedic. Newspapers may be reliable sources, but we don't construct news articles out of them. Just my opinion, I haven't looked at this in a whole lot of depth. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Love to see you over there even if you end up disagreeing with me. B——C_ritical 05:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Ugg boots - is "It's a generic term" the mainstream view?

If you are involved in contributing to this article and you wish to share your opinion, please note your involvement and nationality. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

This is about the Ugg boots article. The hatnote states that it's about the boot style, and the hatnote does not limit the discussion to the countries of origin, Australia and New Zealand. Therefore this is about the boot style in the entire world. The article has naturally attracted a severely disproportionate group of editors from Australia and New Zealand, with only a few editors from other countries. The WP:CSB project is designed to counter the kind of systemic bias that arises when one demographic group is dominant.

Ugg boots are a fashion phenomenon, with worldwide sales growing 5000% in the past 16 years. Deckers Outdoor Corporation is almost entirely responsible for this growth, and has trademarked the word "ugg" (or terms like it) in 145 countries, including all of the 29 most heavily populated countries, as the brand name for its line of sheepskin boots. Opinion polling has been introduced as evidence in the courts of several countries, that proves an overwhelming majority of the people in these countries perceive "UGG" as a brand name; Deckers has also introduced declarations from professionals in the footwear industry who stated that "UGG" is widely recognized in the industry as a brand name, not a generic term. (Walter, John F., February 25, 2003, UGG Holdings, Inc. -v- Clifford Severen et al, United States District Court.)

The term "Ugg" originated in the slang of two tiny countries, Australia and New Zealand, and is in common usage there to describe a boot style. There are also 110 other countries in the world where Deckers did not trademark the term, but they are not part of Australian or New Zealand culture. So what we have here are 145 countries (including the 29 most populated ones) saying "It's a brand name," two tiny countries saying "It's a boot style," and 110 countries undecided. WP:WEIGHT, a section of WP:NPOV, clearly defines "It's a brand name" as the mainstream view, and "It's a boot style" as the minority opinion. Deckers UGG brand dominates the worldwide market for this style of boots. Australian companies only retain a significant share of the market in Australia.

A group of editors from Australia and New Zealand are attempting to treat "It's a boot style" as the mainstream view in the Ugg boots article. They are planning to change the current version of the article, which is fairly well-balanced and close to compliance with WP:WEIGHT, to a version that more closely resembles this one: The entire "Concerns about quality" section will be removed. Four key words, "a protected trademark or," will be removed from the article lede. In addition to the changes shown, the Australian editors also want to remove the product counterfeiting cases won by Deckers worldwide. Essentially, they want to remove all the cases that Deckers won, and keep in the article all the cases that Deckers lost.

Aussie editors have repeatedly claimed that the word "ugg" has been removed from the Australian trademark registry, without any basis in fact: The fact of the matter is that only the trademark "UGH-BOOTS" was removed from the registry, and it was for non-use. The Australian government's intellectual properties office, IP Australia, released a fact sheet stating explicitly that IP Australia could not and would not declare "uggs" to be a generic term, and that only the courts had the authority to do so. So far, no court has ruled on the matter.

The fact sheet is posted on the Deckers corporate website. Deckers could be subjected to severe civil penalties, and its corporate officers extradited to Australia and prosecuted in criminal court, if they altered or forged this official government document. This PDF scan should be treated as a reliable source. Much of the content of the IP Australia fact sheet has been mirrored by other reliable sources. The IP Australia fact sheet was once posted on the official government agency website, but it was removed.

The "Concerns about quality" section is an expansion and correction of a single sentence that has existed in the article for several months. None of the Australian editors had any problem with it when the single sentence stated that quality testing showed an Australian company making the best ugg boots. But when the quality testing results were more accurately described as a pair of Australian "fake uggs" being the most difficult to tear apart, followed by Deckers Ugg boots as the toughest brand made of genuine sheepskin, and all the other Australian brands "fared poorly for quality," suddenly the Australian editors wanted to delete the new section, "Concerns about quality."

This encapsulates the approach of the Australian editors to this article. If material supports the idea that "UGG" is a brand name, or if it makes Deckers look good, they want it out of the article. If material supports the idea that "UGG" is a generic term, or if it makes Deckers look bad, they want it in the article and they want to expand upon it. The history of this article, aside from the usual vandalism that a fairly high profile subject attracts, has been low scale edit warring between a large group of Australian editors who believe "It's a generic term" should be presented as the mainstream view, and a small number of other editors who realize that "It's a brand name" should be and is the worldwide mainstream view.

The article's talk page and its archives are loaded with enormous efforts to resolve this dispute, covering a span of over one year. At the start of your response, please indicate whether "It's a generic term" should be treated as the mainstream view or the minority view per WP:WEIGHT. Also indicate whether the current version of the article should be retained, or reverted to the earlier version preferred by Australian editors that does not contain the "Concerns about quality" section, and removes all the counterfeiting cases that Deckers won. Thank you.

• Minority view. It's 145-2, with 110 undecided. I believe the current version of the article should be retained, with the "Concerns about quality" section, the counterfeiting cases Deckers won, and the four words, "a protected trademark or" in the article lede. Phoenix and Winslow (talk)
• I am involved. The efforts to use Misplaced Pages to promote the UGG trademark and UGG brand are exasperating, and have nothing to do with NPOV. We know Deckers owns the trademark "in 145 countries worldwide" (as the short lead says), and there is no reason to use an article about boots (see title Ugg boots) to hammer the reader with primary sources showing that Deckers has or has not won this or that legal battle. If it is notable, write an article on the UGG trademark legal issues, but please stop trying to use an article on boots to defend a company against counterfeiters and convicts down under (as I've asked on the talk page, please identify any text in the article that unduly promotes some interest and we can consider removing or rewording it). The Ugg boots#Concerns about quality section is a joke as it uses a pathetic puff piece from a space-filling entertainment show with zero reliability—the "review" consisted of pulling a few boots apart, and to no one's surprise, the significantly more expensive genuine boot was harder to pull apart! The source fails WP:RS, and the information is not encyclopedic. Johnuniq (talk) 07:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

"... please identify any text in the article that unduly promotes some interest and we can consider removing or rewording it." Unfairly attacking the leading company in an industry "unduly promotes" all its competitors, both lawful and unlawful. By creating an article that undermines and dilutes the worldwide legal rights of a company that is obeying the law, you are (intentionally or not) enabling those who victimize that company by breaking the law. The requirements of WP:WEIGHT are clear. There are 145 countries (including the 29 most populated countries) where "It's a brand name," and only two tiny countries where "It's a boot style." Misplaced Pages policy forbids us from presenting "It's a boot style" as the mainstream view. The "pathetic puff piece" was sufficiently reliable for all the Australian editors (including you) to accept it when the article said, "An Australian boot was highest quality." But now that the article more accurately says, "The American company's boot was the highest quality made of genuine sheepskin," suddenly you object to the reliability of the source. The testing was done by an independent consumer advocate; if necessary, we can identify the TV station that reported it as sensationalist in nature, but that doesn't make the testing itself unreliable. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'd have to agree with Phoenix and Winslow that the current version is best. I'm not sure that the Concerns about Quality section may need better referencing.MONGO 17:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I think Phoenix and Winslow is contending that the current version is not best. Can you clarify what you mean by 'current version'. Thanks. Donama (talk) 05:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• I am disturbed that a purely legal system influenced heavily by well-funded companies - trademark - is being used to identify what is fundamentally a social construct based on common usage. It's certainly one factor to consider but it definitely isn't the only one. ElKevbo (talk) 20:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. Public perception is constantly being manipulated, everywhere we look in mass media, including the Internet. Look at the advertising banner across the top of this page. Click on it. You're being asked for a donation. In the process, there is an effort to alter your perception so that you will believe your donation will go to a good cause. Sadly, that is the world we live in; and we must be neutral narrators describing the world we are observing, not pining away for a better world without commercialization and mass media manipulation. Deckers has successfully manipulated public perception throughout most of the world, to identify "UGG" as a brand name. Do we deny it? Do we pretend it hasn't happened? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Before making any comments, I want to be clear that P&W's request that we "state our nationality" is unreasonable. I am, however, involved in the discussions, and happy to acknowledge that.

Currently, there is an article on UGG Australia and another on Deckers Outdoor Corporation, both of which extensively discuss the UGG brand. There is a second part to the story, though: the style of boots, only identified as ugg boots, which originated in Australia and New Zealand. This isn't a case where a trademarked term became generic because of a failure to enforce the trademark, but where a previously-used term was trademarked after it had entered common usage. Thus it makes sense to acknowledge that there are two stories to tell: that of Deckers' and their UGG Australia brand, and the earlier and ongoing use of the term to describe a style of boots which originated in Australia, has particular cultural significance in Australian and New Zealand, and which is only properly identified under that name. To manage this we have used the multiple articles - in particular, one entirely about the brand, and a second article about the style, the latter of which acknowledges of the wider issues with the use of the term. Thus the Ugg boots article discusses the broader history, the trademark disputes where they are related to use of the term itself, and issues surrounding the boots in general, retaining balance by covering both Deckers' brand and the broader picture, and by using a hat note to link to the brand-specific article.

In regard to the two points raised by P&W above:

• With the court cases, the general consensus is that cases of counterfeiting UGG Australia boots belong in the UGG Australia article, as they are specific to one brand. However, cases which impinge on the use of the term itself belong in the Ugg boots article, as they refer to the broader style rather than a single example of that style. It is a difficult line to draw, but the approach has been to look for the use of "the generic term defence" in the court case.
• The problems raised with Concerns about Quality are the subject of an Talk:Ugg boots#RFC on Concerns about quality section, so raising them here while the RfC is ongoing feels a bit like forum shopping. However, the issue is that there is only one source being used, and that source is unreliable. Consensus looks to be to remove the section, with P&W as the main proponent to include it, but consensus is yet to be determined by a neutral party. - Bilby (talk) 01:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You haven't discussed mainstream view and minority view per WP:WEIGHT, Bilby. What's your opinion on that question? Is "It's a boot style" the mainstream view? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is a fringe issue, so no, I haven't discussed it. The question is how do we handle having a well known style, and a better known brand. The solution at the moment is to have an article solely devoted to the brand, an article devoted to the owner of the brand, and an article on the style which makes extensive mention of the brand. That seems to more than meet any weight concerns from the brand's perspective. - Bilby (talk) 03:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Who said anything about fringe? This is mainstream view and minority view per WP:WEIGHT. Minority is not fringe. Having one or two other articles related to this subject does not absolve us of our duty to deal with this specific subject in compliance with WP:WEIGHT. Does it? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

No "nationality" need be marginalized simply because they have a relatively smaller populace as compared to the U.S....just wanted to be clear on that issue. The WEIGHT of any article is based on what the reliable sources tell us...I'm thinking that Bilby is correct in his last comment but a simple clarification need be made in the independent articles so as to render single page views less confusing.--MONGO 05:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It isn't Australia vs. US. It's Australia and New Zealand vs. 145 countries, including China, India, Russia, the US, Brazil, Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Mexico, Philippines, Vietnam, Ethiopia, Germany, Egypt, Iran, Turkey, Thailand, the Congo, France, the UK, Italy, South Korea, South Africa, Myanmar, Colombia, Spain and the Ukraine. These are the 29 most heavily populated countries in the world. Tanzania (Number 30) is the most heavily populated country in the world where Deckers does not own an UGG-related trademark. Tanzania is an impoverished country near the equator, it isn't exposed to Australian culture, and I doubt that very many people there wear imported sheepskin boots of any sort.

Skipping past Tanzania on the list of countries by population, countries 31-35 (Argentina, Kenya, Poland, Canada and Algeria) all have Deckers-owned "UGG" trademarks registered. Country 36 (Uganda) doesn't but, like Tanzania, it is an impoverished equatorial country that is not exposed to Australian culture. This pattern repeats all the way down the list. All of this is confirmed by reliable sources. It doesn't marginalize any nationality either, Mongo. That's simply how mainstream views vs. minority views are determined. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I am neither Australian nor American, and I have been involved in trying to build consensus towards a neutral article in place of the mess of unsubstantiated corporate mythology that sits in its place at the moment.

There are many matters which P&W has not seen fit to disclose here, such as his/her low-frequency edit-warring in attempting to keep the article in its current poor state (and, as a result of such edit warring, the article has been protected for the last month), but the most important factor to consider is this: This is an article about ugg boots. It is not an article about the Ugg Australia brand (which has its own article), nor is it an article about Deckers. It is reliably sourced that ugg boots were invented in Australia in the mid 1960s. P&W's contention that ugg boots were invented by an Australian emigrant to America in the 1970s is not sourced to anything more reliable than corporate mythology. Even the notion that the phrase "ugg boots" is trademarked in any country of the world other than America has never had a reliable source presented to back it up (when requested, all P&W could find was a free hosting site and a blog entry).

So, therefore, in the article about the generic ugg boot style, it is wholly appropriate for the mainstream view to be the reliably sourced description of ugg boots as a generic style invented in Australia in the 1960s. The alternative suggestion, being that ugg boots were invented in America in the 1970s, is sufficiently fringe that one would not be surprised to find a surrey underneath it.

Lastly there seems to be an unlovely streak of anti-Australian sentiment running through some of the contributions to the debate, in matters such as the description above of Australia being a 'tiny' country (Australia is in fact ten times the size of Texas), the statement recently on the talk page that Australians "are obviously associated with the various factories etc, linked to the Australian Sheepskin Association and EXTREMELY BIAS!" (sic), and the attitude shown here towards an Australian editor against whom P&W seems to be pursuing an apparently unrelated feud. Daveosaurus (talk) 03:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It's true that Dave isn't from Australia. He's from New Zealand, which shares the same culture and slang, and predictably the same beliefs about the phrase "ugg boots." Three reliable sources agree that Shane Steadman invented ugg boots, but that small point is a distraction. Australia is geographically ten times the size of Texas, but we're talking about population; and as population goes, Australia is ranked 52nd among nations of the world, and New Zealand is ranked 123rd. The phrase "ugg boots" doesn't need to be trademarked since "UGG" is trademarked as a boot brand in so many countries. The Wall Street Journal is a supremely reliable source, and has reported that Deckers owns the trademark in over 100 countries. The "blog entry" Dave disparages is the website of a well-known law firm. An article about ugg boots, for over 98% of the countries of the world where the phrase is known, should be an article that is principally about the brand since in those countries, the phrase is understood to refer to the brand. We cannot allow the other 2% to determine content for the 98%. That's what WP:WEIGHT is about. Clearly, "it's a boot style" is the minority view and "it's a brand name" is the mainstream view worldwide, and the Ugg boots article should be structured accordingly. It isn't anti-Australian sentiment, Dave. It's pro-Misplaced Pages policy sentiment. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 05:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if "X is a Canadian so it is only natural he shares the exact same views as Y who is an American" would go down very well?Mandurahmike (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I am sure that was a rhetorical question but for those who are wondering.... um...not. At all. Even in the English-speaking parts of the country. Elinruby (talk) 03:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• I am not certain I follow all this, but for what it is worth, I have these thoughts: I do think it's a bit unreasonable to ask people their nationality. The fact that I am comfortable giving mine does not make this true of everyone, nor do I agree that this necessarily determines an editor's position. I will however say that I am a Canadian/British citizen who lives in the United States and that I have never touched any article about Ugg anything. Yes, I personally have heard of these boots as a brand. But there are many things I have not heard of. I think that weight may be the wrong argument to have about the situation though. If you already have three separate articles can you not handle the matter with a "for other uses see" notation? Or am I misunderstanding something? Seems like you have a) in Australia it's a boot b)a company has copyrighted the word outside of Australia and New Zealand, info on that discussion and c) a brand. An I correct in thinking that someone wants to edit a) to include bits of c)? I think there should be brief mention perhaps, with wiki links. It's not a matter of weight to my eyes so much as that if I understand the situation, there is already an article covering the material. And by the way, "Australians "are obviously associated with the various factories etc, linked to the Australian Sheepskin Association and EXTREMELY BIAS!" is not a productive comment ;) and to the best of my understanding a blog must, to be usable, have oversight by a news organization. Elinruby (talk) 11:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

"An I correct in thinking that someone wants to edit a) to include bits of c)?" No, what's happening here is the Australians and the New Zealander want to edit Article A to expel everything they find inconvenient to Article C. WP:WEIGHT is part of WP:NPOV, the most important policy at Misplaced Pages. It applies to all articles. Removing inconvenient material to Article C does not enable the editors of Article A to ignore this policy. And I repeat, it isn't a blog. It's the website of a respected law firm, and the material in question is independently confirmed by a separate source. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand how something in article a is inconvenient to article c. Elinruby (talk) 09:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Well that misunderstanding is the result of my unfortunate sentence structure. Here let me try it again. They want to remove from Article A any material they find inconvenient, and expel that inconvenient material to Article C. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I see. You may not like my answer then, as this is essentially what I propose, with modifications. I personally fail to understand the passion being expended here, but I am trying. What is the point of having extensive discussion of counterfeit and quality issues of a brand of boot on a page about a different topic? I think it should be mentioned with a link to another page for further information. See detailed proposal below. If it doesn't work for you, perhaps you could suggest another. Elinruby (talk) 07:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

If you go to the talk section for this article and note some of Phoenix & Winslow's comments about the importance of "protecting Deckers trademark rights" then the reasons for his zeal should become clear. I really don't think anyone looking to protect trademark rights needs to be editing Misplaced Pages.Mandurahmike (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

As far as weight goes, my point is that if the subject of an article is that "in these countries it's a style of boot" then this is the place to discuss the usage in those countries, not elaborate on all the other uses. Yes, there are a lot of other countries in the world. Other stuff exists. And if ugg is used differently in those countries and means a type of boat or banana or red-bottomed gorilla there, then that usage is also separate and if that usage is notable then it should get its own page. The other pages can be mentioned and linked to. This opinion supposes that there are in fact separate pages. (I keep saying that because I don't see why all this would cause a year-long argument if there are three pages.) As for the law firm, I dunno. I am being told that external links are generally not considered reliable. Respected they may be, but let me take a shot and ask if Deckers appears on their client list? Hmmm. Lawyers are advocates, by their nature. Not always objective. I am having my own struggles with this policy and disagree with the way it's gotten applied in the article I am working on, so possibly I am not the person to ask, but that is what I am hearing over in my corner on *that* topic. Elinruby (talk) 09:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Elinruby. User:Phoenix and Winslow wants to go much further than that. He wants Deckers financial details such as sales records etc mentioned and he wants almost every court case involving Deckers listed (see his first post above). He also wants the word generic removed from the article. Wayne (talk) 02:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

No, that is incorrect. I want one sentence, which already exists in the article mentioning how sales have increased 50-fold, to mention a dollar amount from the 1990s and a dollar amount from a few years ago to illustrate the growth. No further financial details, just total sales from two years. Wayne removed these dollar amounts just before the article was locked and I want them restored. I don't see the harm in that. Also, since "generic term" is trademark-related legal terminology (look at any government's IP website and you'll get confirmation of the fact very quickly), use of the phrase "generic term" should be limited to the trademarks discussion in this article. I'm not advocating removing it from the article entirely. I just want it limited to the trademark section to prevent confusion. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

ok, but is this in the page about the brand or about the style? If the style... well. I don't understand. But I made a proposal below and under it you would get a brief section for anything you think should be there as long as it doesn't enrage the other people, lol. Would that work for you? Elinruby (talk) 07:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Countering systemic bias

Elin, each article is required to obey Misplaced Pages policy. Whether we have two articles about ugg boots, or five articles, or 125 articles, each one must obey policy, including WP:NPOV and its subsection, WP:WEIGHT. "It's a generic term" cannot be made to appear to be the mainstream view. It is the minority view, just as the view that the Iraq War was just and good is a minority view worldwide. Each of the many articles exploring aspects of a single subject can explore nuances. Nuances about the origins of the term "ugg boot" and the boot style itself are thoroughly explored in this article, and I'm certainly not suggesting that coverage of such nuances should be diminished in any way. But each individual article, specifically this one, cannot make the minority view appear to be the mainstream view. WP:NPOV forbids it. Already, the entire first half of the article is dominated in an overwhelming manner by the minority view. Now the proponents of the minority view want to take over the second half of the article as well, removing evidence that "it's a brandname" is the mainstream view.

What we have here is the kind of systemic bias that the Wikiproject WP:CSB was intended to reduce: the subject matter has attracted a large group of editors from a particular demographic group, and they're all in agreement that the article should be edited in a manner that preserves and advances the culture of that demographic group at the expense of all others. If they were Americans rather than Australians, I suspect there would be a lot more Misplaced Pages editors taking my side in this dispute. See the Iraq War analogy below.

WP:WEIGHT states, "Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." In terms of quantity of text, the minority view roughly equals the mainstream view in this article; but in terms of prominence of placement, the minority view overwhelms the mainstream view in both the lede and the body of the article. In both the lede and the body, the minority view gets prominent placement; and if the Australian and New Zealand editors have their way, there will be a little bit about the mainstream view tacked on at the end, almost appearing to be an afterthought. The solution should be obvious to everyone. We must follow the policy here, which represents the consensus of the entire Misplaced Pages community. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 07:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken when you say you are applying policy. You do not, I notice, say where YOU are from, but apparently it is neither Australia nor New Zealand. And we seem to be talking about an article about what the word ugg means in New Zealand and Australia. Why should an article about usage in certain cultures present its own topic as a minority opinion? It just needs to say that in country x y and z (somebody said there were others besides NZ/AU but I don't know what they are) ugg is a type of boot and then go on to discuss that. Elinruby (talk) 07:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

No, Elin. We have been instructed repeatedly that this article isn't just about "what the word ugg means in New Zealand and Australia." It's about what the word ugg means IN THE ENTIRE WORLD. Attempts to add "in Australia and New Zealand" to the hatnote have been repeatedly and vigorously reverted by editors from Australia and New Zealand. Since it is about what the word ugg means in the entire world, the mainstram view is that it's a brand name.The minority view is that it's a boot style. And weight needs to be apportioned in this article accordingly. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

No Phoenix and Winslow. The lead specifically states that the term is only generic in Australia and New Zealand so there is no need to repeat it in a hatnote, other than to promote Deckers. This article is about the style of boot not what the word "ugg" means. You have been pushing the it's about the brand name wheelbarrow for two years now and have lost numerous RFCs yet you continue to filibuster and keep bringing it up for new RFCs despite only getting support from socks and SPAs. You deliberately? get the article locked by edit warring for your version despite those edits still being the subject of an ongoing RFC and despite opposing editors refraining from editing at all apart from reverting you. You only came to this noticeboard because you were losing the latest RFC. Please stop your POV pushing and stop your constant misrepresentation of sources to support your cause. Two years of failing to gain consensus for your version should give you a clue and two years of your disruptive editing to promote Deckers is enough already. Wayne (talk) 01:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Wayne, if it's really an article about the boot style in Australia and New Zealand, the hatnote is the one place where that needs to be said the most. But as we've been told repeatedly, it's about the boot style IN THE ENTIRE WORLD. With the sole exception of Elinruby, who eems to support me only on the question of including specific sales figures, each and every one of the previously uninvolved editors on this paged in the RFC has supported me completely. The last two times the article was protected, the final edit before the protection was yours, and both were reverts — so your accusal that I am edit warring is a little amusing. Look past the army of Australians and New Zealanders who have migrated here from Talk:Ugg boots, and who dominated the RFCs there, and take a look at the previously uninvolved editors. I count five of them, and four of them support me 100%. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Again your post is manipulative. You said and have always maintained: "It's about what the word ugg means IN THE ENTIRE WORLD" not "the boot style IN THE ENTIRE WORLD" as you now claim which is a major difference. I find your denial of edit warring amusing. I may have made the last revert but it was reverting you repeatedly adding material against consensus that was still going through a RFC which is a violation of the WP policies you frequently claim to be the champion of. And why is an "army of Australians and New Zealanders" migrating here? because you tried to not only exclude those editors from participation but didn't have the good faith to leave a notification on the article talk page that the issue had been taken to a noticeboard. As for your claim that "four of support 100%," I just re-read the entire discussion and we have one editor partially supporting you, one new WP editor who seems not to understand what the issue is and three largely opposing your edits. Add the "army of Australians and New Zealanders" and the current consensus is nine rejecting your edits/one supporting your edits and one who supports some of your edits. By including your own vote that makes it 9/3 against you. The only reason you get any support at all is because uninvolved editors are not aware of how far you want to push the article into being a puff piece promoting Deckers. Wayne (talk) 10:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

That is what articles do. They discuss their topic. Not other topics.

Other topics may get a mention if they are relevant, and perhaps a link. I mean. If I write an article on, shall we say, the Green Party in the United States would you expect me to devote a majority of the article to the platform of the Republican party? And the Democrats, let's not forget the Democrats, they outweigh the Green Party too... but wait! Which is more mainstream?? And what if we give the Republicans 55% and the Democrats 45% because that is where the polls are, but something changes that ratio? Or do you think we should use Congressional seats? Stock market results? What is "mainstream"? In American politics doesn't it usually mean "people who agree with me"?

I proposed a solution and you don't like it. I am very sorry, but I do not have another one. Nor do I really care whether you go on to negotiate a peace with the other people on that page, frankly. I am dealing with a different piece of silliness over in my own corner and have absolutely no feelings about ugg boot traditions, standards or litigation. At all.

You are the one who wanted uninvolved editors, remember. It seems to me that my proposal gives you plenty of places to edit up a storm and portray the matter as you see it, but you insist inserting your views into a page about a related but different topic. Even supposing you can come up with some way to decide who is mainstream that isn't ridiculous on the face of it, doesn't doing this your way result in multiple pages that say pretty much the same thing?? I must be misunderstanding your position. This is not an invitation to explain it further. I have invested all the time I am willing to invest on this topic and will now take it off my watchlist.

I did mean to mention earlier that if there is already a percentage growth number on the ugg is a type of boot page (as there apparently is, although I am not sure why) then I see no harm in adding the numbers giving the range.

I'll also mention that the other people here seem to be at least willing to listen to one another and you, hmm, not sure. No doubt you think I am wrong, but you don't need to explain that to me either. Ta Ta. Elinruby (talk) 07:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

In regards to specific points raised by Phoenix and Winslow here. Deckers wanted IP Australia to provide a fact sheet that omitted the use of the word generic that was used frequently in the case. This is posted on Deckers website. Editors would like to use the original case transcript as the reference rather than the fact sheet. This is strongly opposed by Phoenix and Winslow who disingeniously often notes "So far, no court has ruled on the matter (ie generic status)" when in fact, courts do not rule on generic status at all but base each case on current public perceptions.
Regarding the "Concerns about quality" section. The original paragraph was brief, merely mentioning that uggs were generally made in China due to cost and that Chinese made uggs were found to be superior to Deckers and Australian made. This never had consensus and several editors wanted it removed due to the unreliability of the source. Phoenix and Winslow later expanded the paragraph, added brand names and gave it it's own section. Wayne (talk) 02:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to see some mention of anyone from Australia or New Zealand complaining about the reliability of the source before last month, when Liangshan Yi (editing as an anon IP editor) expanded the description of the quality study. (I'm not the one who expanded it.) Provide a link or a diff please, to the pre-October discussion about the unreliability of Channel 7 as a source. The protests about the reliability of the source suddenly started after the section was expanded. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't do diffs on *my* account. I repeat, I'm just some other poor slob who wound up here with a dispute. Somebody may look at the diffs, but it won't be me :) Elinruby (talk) 07:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

While mention that the boots are counterfeited is relevant, details of each individual counterfeit case belong in the brand name article and/or the Deckers article not this one.
This is not a question of NPOV but forum shopping after the loss of an RFC. Apart from SPAs and socks, who have been a significant problem, Phoenix and Winslow has been the only editor supporting these changes and the constant edit warring to promote Deckers over the last 12 months has led to the article being locked. Wayne (talk) 02:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Just so we are clear, I have zero authority on this page; I am here checking on my own issue, which probably seems as convoluted to you as this one does to me. But. If you really care about the opinion of someone who really knows very little about fashion much less brands of boots, I'll make an attempt to understand this. I suppose there is something to be said for fresh eyes (?) Let me ask this: this discussion concerns the page about the Australian use of the word for a type of boot? A), to use my labels above? If so then it does seem to me that court cases about counterfeits belong with b)copyrighting a word in use or c) the brand, probably the latter. It seems to me that an "other uses" redirect should be in use if it is not. Of course if there are not in fact three different pages, then I understand nothing and should probably refrain from commenting in utter ignorance. But assuming this is true can't the page about the australian/NZ usage have a (very) brief section titled "Ugg boots outside Australia/NZ" with wikilinks? And the other pages have corresponding links back? Elinruby (talk) 09:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It is a good thought. I guess, though, that the problem is that there are three possible subjects. There is the particular brand, UGG Australia, which is owned by Deckers; the style of boots, of which Deckers is one of many manufacturers; and the cultural issues for the boots in Australia. At the moment, we have, as you identified, an article on Deckers, an article on UGG Australia, and an article on the boot style. The difficulty is that there is only one term which properly encompasses the style - "ugg boots" - which is the traditional term than was used prior to it being trademarked, and which is the only way of identifying the style. (There is a Sheepskin boots article now, but that encompasses a range of sheepskin footwear). Accordingly, the article on the style uses Ugg boots. Any discussion of Australian issues is included there at the moment, but even if we spun off that discussion, it would still seem reasonable to have an article on the style itself.

The problem we face is the push to have the Ugg boots article focus predominately on UGG Australia and issues around Deckers' defence of their trademark. Some coverage is important, as it would be seriously remiss for the article not to mention the best known brand. Where we are having difficulty is that a couple of editors, predominately Phoenix and Winslow, wish to focus more on the brand and less on the style in general, and seem to feel that the current tone of the article is more directed to the style and doesn't provide enough emphasis on Deckers. Others, myself included, wish to focus more on general issues, and less on those that face the particular brand. Hence the due weight concerns. The general consensus was to discuss UGG Australia in mostly general term while acknowledging their impact on the growth of the popularity of the brand and thus their historical role, and only cover court cases where they had a broad impact. This meant leaving specific counterfeiting cases of Deckers' shoes to the UGG Australia article unless they had a broader impact, and limiting the coverage of Deckers-specific information. - Bilby (talk) 11:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• I am involved in the ugg boots article. I respect that the purpose of this discussion is to obtain a NEUTRAL perspective on whether "ugg boots" is a style of boot or merely a brand of boot. As an editor of the page, I understand I'm not deemed neutral (much as Phoenix and Winslow is not neutral). Nevertheless, I'll still point out that ugg boots are definitely a style of boot which preceded the brand by many years, as demonstrated by references on the ugg boots page. To deny this is not propagating a minority view - it's just a fact, for which abundant evidence exists. I would contend that to view ugg boots as merely a brand constitutes a strong commercial bias that's well out of line with the aims and principles of Wikipeda. Donama (talk) 05:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

right, I think the AU/NZ usage deserves mention. If I understand this discussion, there are three different pages and the one we are talking about is the one about the style of boot, ie the AU/NZ usage. Please confirm that this is the case. If not my answers would be different (and might include a suggestion that you consider separate pages....) Elinruby (talk) 09:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Then have Ugg boot as a diambig and link it to the three articles. One re-titled “Ugg boot style in the antipodes.” With that article only discussing the boot in Australia and New Zeeland. Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem being that the style doesn't only exist in Australia and New Zealand. The style of boots are available internationally from manufacturers based in multiple countries, including China, the UK and the US. The current article isn't about the style in Australia - it is about the style itself, and mentions the Australian origins, but isn't limited to that. - Bilby (talk) 13:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

ok. Remember, I know nothing at all about any of this. That was shorthand. The "boot style" page maybe?

Yes, but if it was resticted to only the fact that then it would avoid this issue. At the end of the day we seem to have a number of articels that discuse (at length) the same material.Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this is a problem, and it has been raised before. The difficulty is that the push has been to make every article that mentions ugg boots into something primarily about Deckers. I'm not sure how dropping the article about the style is going to be a fix to that. Ideally, I'd like to see the trademark dispute as either something on ugg boots or a separate article, with counterfeiting cases on UGG Australia, and UGG Australia having a brief summary and a link to that trademark dispute. The current repetition of content doesn't seem viable to me, either. Maybe I should be bold and see how it pans out. - Bilby (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion:

• Page one, titled Ugg(boot style). I personally find this interesting and if it's something about which two whole countries can have cultural controversies then it's notable. Covers ugg style boots in whatever country, any cultural issues(?) etc. Uses a creation story for the boot that is acceptable to the boot style people. Must mention alternate version, briefly. Final word to the people who feel that boot style is the proper usage. P&W gets to write say three sentences/sixty words max about the brand *in Australia and New Zeland and anywhere else it's been a boot styel* which must be acceptable to the editors working here. Disambiguation at the top.
• Page two, titled Ugg(copyright issues) This is the one I'd like to read one day. About problems caused by copyright of word in daily use. Litigation about that. Distinguish from Kleenex for example. Compare to anything comparable, like one-click shopping cart, maybe, or Blackboard (?) This is where the fights will be. If necessary go to paragraphs of two sentences ie "so and so says this (ref).On the other hand, so and so says this (ref)." Writing would probably be smoother if you can allocate out sections instead ;P I have no idea whether the word is or is not copyrighted in Australia, you'll have to duke that one out or get another opinion on that. If it it's an issue and there have been lawsuits the boot style page should mention it in as dispassionate a manner as possible.Disambiguation at the top.
• Page three, Ugg Australia(company), covers history of the company, gets to give its own genealogy of the branded boot but must mention the existence of the boot style. This probably best done in a separate section written by boot style people with the same constraints as P&W has on the boot style page. P&W and/or other brand people must agree with it however reluctantly. Disambiguation at the top.

• Page four(?) Decker page, or is this on Ugg Australia? Final word to Decker advocates, but must contain brief mentions of other versions of events, histories, lawsuits, etc. Must be acceptable to all parties.

Or, if I am full of it, just tell me to go away and I will. No, I do not think you need to have three pages that all cover all of that in some proportionate amount of coverage to population or land mass or anything else if that is what you have :) if you all have equally time and energy wouldn't you wind up with three identical pages? I'm from a small culture myself more or less (a couple really) and think (in my utter ignorance of all things Ugg) that if something is about culture and tradition then it is separate from whatever aspect of that culture got copyrighted (or not) and the people who copyrighted it (or not), and whether this did or did not happen, or should have. The *size* of the culture doesn't matter. Notability of the cultural icon is what matters. I think.

But maybe the above or some modification of it can be agreed upon by at least some of you from each of the various warring factions? You could have your own mosaic, your own easter accord, lol. (obscure cultural references, no worries..) And of course it won't be enforceable because really, any of you can write anything you want on any page at all. But that doesn't mean you should... Elinruby (talk) 04:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of WP:NPOVN

For the benefit of Johnuniq, Bilby, Daveosaurus and any other Australians and New Zealanders who choose to join them: the purpose of NPOVN is to get outside opinions on the POV question, not to carry the endless debate from Talk:Ugg boots to yet another forum. I'm seeking editors who are previously uninvolved. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you get to tell them not to comment. At least, in the discussion on my post below, the other editor comments and comments and comments ;P Elinruby (talk)

I concour. Nor is it valid to debar anyone based upon nationality.Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

of course, that doesn't mean that you *should* comment or that you won't look like an ass if you do... not that I am saying that any of you fine people do. Just saying, remembering other arguments in other places. But no, I think the nationality thing was a bit silly and rather rude as well. I actually think I am somewhat less qualified to propound on the subject than what the bunch of you would probably get if everyone concerned got together and picked straws for someone to just decide this. But eh, in programming they have this thing they call fresh eyes. If any of the above helped, then great. I have participated mainly out of amused fascination with the concept that people have beliefs about boots and alternate timelines concerning them, and argue for a year over this. But then, green chile would no doubt baffle you, let alone arguments about signage on Chinese restaurants, giggle. Seriously, hope that helps a bit. Bye bye now. I am not going to look at the pages lest I get sucked into this, but I'll look one day and see what you did. Elinruby (talk) 04:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't tell them not to comment. I simply want to make it clear that I am seeking previously uninvolved editors for a fresh perspective. The fact that all AU/NZ editors seem to be going one way, and all other editors seem to be going the other way is significant. Let me draw an analogy. How would all of you feel if a large group of American editors who voted for George W. Bush started editing Iraq War and made it into a jingoistic, "Stars and Stripes Forever" article? The American Bush voters, by sheer virtue of their numbers, have consensus and throw their weight around, removing anything negative about the war (such as evidence of war crimes by American troops, and any mention of criticism or the anti-war movement) to other articles such as Criticism of the Iraq War and Opposition to the Iraq War. In effect, they make it appear in the Iraq War article as though the war proceeded without a hitch and without controversy, and that the pro-war position was the dominant one throughout the world. Would that be a good result for Misplaced Pages? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

well if the page is about "ugg is a traditional style of boot" and Australia and New Zealand is where this statement is true, isn't that kind of natural? If I were working on the page for Quebec I'd expect to find people who think it's a country, joke about tuques and skidoos and do their shopping in Plattsburg. And they would be annoyed if you insisted on inserting PePe LePew into the article, if that helps you see the way I am understanding this. As for your Iraq war analogy, ok. But what if there was a page about the theory that Iraq was the tipping point for the arab spring, another that dealt strictly with military events, a third that dealt with Guantanamo and a fourth that talked about the peace movement? Taken together, four perspectives that give more nuanced coverage than one article that's been edit warred to death, and nobody has to argue which perspective is more right or important. Heck, you could make it a portal, and I am sure somebody has.....Elinruby (talk) 07:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Since Phoenix and Winslow got to post a wall of text about his views on the issue I think it's only fair that his opposition from that entry clear up their own positions so the neutral editors are privy to all the information in reaching conclusions of their own, surely? (I know you aren't saying it isn't - I am merely contributing my view at this juncture) -- To wish to prevent us from commenting here reeks of an attempt to gain "consensus" on his own terms where he has previously and repeatedly failed (not that that prevented him from editing, regardless).Mandurahmike (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no authority to tell anyone to do anything. But coming here with a dispute has been instructive in that it allows an insight into Other People's Problems, is what I was referring to. And mostly they are incomprehensible ;) Just saying that this sort of brawl mainly just leaves other people wide-eyed. The above discussion has been responded to point by point so many times that *I* can't really follow the flow, and I was in it. If there is no consensus still then a fresh entry might increase your chances of further intelligent comment, tho I am not sure whether the rules allow this. But it seems as though this is a place to voluntarily work toward consensus and you can't do that if someone just says no you are wrong. I am not sure what your next best step might be. The dispute resolution board maybe? Good luck. Elinruby (talk) 03:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so I am from the United States. I know the Ugg name as a Brand Name... and I have bought two pair based on that premise. If it's just a "style" of boot, then there is something "AMUCK!" It's being sold here as a brand name, currently. I think it's being sold as a brand all around the world, actually. No, it's not considered a generic term at all. Otherwise they would be called ugg-style boots (note the lower-case "u"). I do like reading about the history that a woman called them UGLY and that's how they got their name! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristieSwitz88001 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC) Signed ChristieSwitz88001 until I get a formal "signature!" ChristieSwitz88001 (talk) 05:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I really disagree with Bilby's assertion that term was previously used. There are a myriad of safeguards to prevent common words from being trademarked. Moreover, no one has provided any evidence that the word was in common use across Australia when the mark was registered in 1971. Quoting the government fact sheet, "Based on information available at the time, the UGH marks were found to be suitable for registration and in the absence of any successful opposition actions were subsequently registered." Furthermore, both the actual decision of the register in 2006 and Fact Sheet clearly state that the mark registered in 1971 was removed for non-use. So objectively speaking, this is an issue of a mark that was legitimately registered and then was removed for failure to use that mark in a 5 year period.

Even the Macquarie dictionary recognized the "ugg boot" to be a proprietary term. Given these facts, there is no way to assert that the term has always been common.

On a broader level, I find it very telling that no one in Australia objected or raised concerns until 2003 when Deckers began to see great increases in profits. Overnight, the sheepskin boot was transformed from an embarrassment to an icon. The subsequent trademark dispute, in my opinion has become a large part of this story and it has been treated as such since the inception of the Misplaced Pages entry.

As for what to do going forward, we must confront the question of scope. Is this international or is this nation-specific? Even if the term was considered generic (which the facts do not even support), that perception certainly only exists within Australia and New Zealand. There is no dispute that the term is a registered trademark outside of these countries, and therefore by definition, it is not generic Further, there have been countless cases outside of these two countries where challengers have formally asserted that the term was generic and in every case, the court has found that the term was not generic. I'm not sure how any reasonable mind could argue that the term is generic outside of these two countries given these facts.

The "ugg boots" article should be renamed "ugg boots in Australia and New Zealand." This is what the article is about, and the title should reflect that.--Factchk (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Factchk who obviously doesn't.

• There are NO "myriad" safeguards to prevent common words from being trademarked. The process is as follows: IP Australia accepts the word of the applicant (ie:Deckers) that they own the trademark (sub-section 27 of the Trade Marks Act I995 - quote: "the person claims to be the owner of the trade mark") and accepts the mark (sub-section 44 of the Trade Marks Act I995). IP Australia then announces the application in their trade journal and if no one objects in the next three months the mark is officially registered. How many people would purchase the trade mark trade journal?

• A generic term can be registered if the trade mark in it's entirety (term + logo) is designed so that the product can be distinguished from marks used for similar goods (sub-section 41 of the Trade Marks Act I995). Opposition to registration of a trademark can not be made on the grounds of generic use alone, the trademark in it's entirety must be considered (Part 5 Division 2 of the Trade Marks Act I995).

• From the original court transcript (Page 10): "The evidence overwhelming supports the proposition that the terms UGH BOOT(S), UG BOOT(S) and UGG BOOT(S) are interchangeably used to describe a specific style of sheepskin boot and are the first and most natural way in which to describe these goods which should innocently come to the minds of people making this particular style of sheepskin boot. The terms thus lack any inherent capacity to distinguish the particular goods. The Yellow Pages®, Internet, magazine and dictionary uses of these terms make it quite clear that these terms are generic...The registration should not therefore be viewed as conferring rights in the generic term, or terms, from which it is derived. The uses of these generic terms by the opponent are not, therefore, uses of registered trade mark."

• Rather than the false claim that "the Macquarie dictionary recognized the "ugg boot" to be a proprietary term" supports your view, the true case is that the Macquarie dictionary and the Oxford English Dictionary both originally listed the definition of the term "ugg boot" as a generic term for the style. The Macquarie changed it's definition in 2003 to avoid litigation after Deckers threatened them with legal action and the Oxford changed theirs in 2006 after Deckers sent them a letter requesting they change the definition to recognise their trademark.

• Rather than the false claim that "no one in Australia objected or raised concerns until 2003 when Deckers began to see great increases in profits," the true case is that no one objected until 2003 when Deckers sent letters from their lawyers telling Australian manufacturers to stop using the word ugg.

I find it rather strange that you keep making claims that have been discredited in previous discusions. Do you read Talk at all? Wayne (talk) 02:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually Wayne I do check my facts.

1. As per IP Australia, both the fact sheet and the decision itself relate the following: “In this case the Registrar determined that the trade mark had not been used in Australia within the three year period ending 30 November 2003 and was therefore removed from the register as of 22 February 2006.” This is a removal for non-usage of the mark. Had Deckers slapped that particular mark on a pair of boots and sold them in Australia in 2002, it never would have been removed.

2. The Macquarie dictionary in its revised edition of 1985(over ten years before Deckers acquired the mark) had a listing for “ugh boot” which read as follows: “ugh boot, n. a fleecy-lined boot with an untanned upper. Also ug boot, ugg boot. ” You can view it here.--Factchk (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly, the Trademark Act was amended in 1996. Deckers trademark would not have been accepted for registration under the new amendment (sub-section 61 of the Trade Marks Act I995). Wayne (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The Macquarie Dictionary makes no mention of trademarks whatsoever in the ugg boots "entry - ugg boot - noun a boot with an upper made from sheepskin with the fleece tanned into the skin, the fleece being on the inside of the boot and the leather on the outside. Also, ug boot, ugh boot. ". It is absolutely ridiculous that we have people here trying to assert that there is "no proof" the term was ever generic when there are countless references to the word in generic contexts which have been proven time and again from decades prior to Deckers. To claim otherwise is to become a mouthpiece for a corporate mythology that wants to claim their "ugg boots" are the original deal, imbuing them, by proxy, with concepts of being the greatest quality amid the "knock-offs". While this may be shrews business sense, it's not the version of reality we should seek to present on Misplaced Pages - The reader should be presented with all the facts and be able to piece together the exact situation with the provided information. Swallowing the generic term under a tsunami of corporate lore weakens the article. The only interests being served by trying to erase the existence of the very real generic usage of the term are those of Deckers and their bottom line. People who seek to be fully educated about the truth and history of ugg boots get the shaft. Fighting to weasel out of acknowledging the generic origins (and continued genericism) of the boot does little more than exacerbate the situation of ignorance which allowed a generic term to be trademarked in the first place.Mandurahmike (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Mike, the Macquarie Dictionary labeled "ugh boots" as a trademark in 1985 , over a decade before Deckers had any interests in the brand. Its not a matter of "corporate lore," its a matter of public record.--Factchk (talk) 19:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Factchk, I hope you noted in that entry the word "ALSO" before the part that said "ugg boot trademark" - This is NOT the Macquarie Dictionary "labeling ugh boots as a trademark" it's acknowledging the existence of an "Ugg Boots (TM)" in ADDITION to the generic term. The key word here is ALSO. You'll also surely remember the court decision which stated that it should never have been made a trademark and the fact that Macquarie no longer even lists this as one of its alternate definitions. No one here is arguing for a second that someone trademarked "ugg/ugh/ug boots" in Australia at some stage before being removed due to being a generic term. I'd fully support the dictionary re-adding the "Ugg Boots " alternate definition since I seek to give readers information about ALL the definitions of ugg boots. I presume, since you're citing this entry which clearly recognises a generic term by only including the trademark as an alternate meaning, you'll be supporting the proposal to create a few "ALSO" articles here on Misplaced Pages so the other definitions aren't swamped by the Deckers one as they are now?Mandurahmike (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Mike, you’re only reading what you want to. If you look at that entry it does not say “Also Trademark,” it says “Also ug boot, ugg boot. .” The “also” refers to the alternate spellings, same as they do in any dictionary. The acknowledgement of the trademark status of “ugh boot” in 1985 makes it clear to me that it was a recognizable brand in Australia at that time. Now how the usage changed over time, what others uses were available in the 80’s is certainly open. But nonetheless you cannot claim that “ugg is and always has been a generic term.” That’s arguing for the same exclusivity that you find repulsive from Deckers.

Furthermore, you again persist in this notion that the original 1971 mark was dismissed because it was generic. That requires me to once again refer you to the IP Australia fact sheet which states explicitly that the mark was removed because it had not been used in Australia within a particular 5 year period.

I think I see why you are confused about this manner. The delegate of IP Australia stated in 2006 that the evidence supported that similar terms were used descriptively. I don’t disagree with that. In Australia as of the present, similar terms are used descriptively to refer to a type of boot and not exclusively a brand.

At no point in that sentence, however, did the delegate state that the mark was invalid BECAUSE it was used descriptively. At no point whatsoever in the decision did the delegate state that the present use of the term made the mark invalid. This is backed up by the IP Australia Fact Sheet which stated explicitly that only the court has the right to determine if a mark is generic the court has not ruled as such.

Therefore, given these facts, it ought to be crystal clear that the mark was removed for non-use.--Factchk (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It's you who are reading only what you want. The dictionary provides alternate examples of how the word MAY APPEAR - the trademarked example being one of them. The entry clearly refers to a generic style and no amount of skirting around the definition will change that. I also find it increasingly ridiculous the way you are claiming something that anyone who lived in Australia during the past 50 years would refute, as though you know better. If "ugg" was a "recognisable brand" in Australia EVER, don't you think Deckers would have been able to prove this and save the need for their court defeats in Australia? I mean, surely they just need to find a pair of, advertisement for, reference to this "recognisable brand" of which you speak? So, we've got several letters which were later removed from the dictionary backing the concept of trademark (amid other definitions and spellings) against hundreds, if not thousands of examples of the term being used generically in advertising, common parlance, and in the media for decades as well as the anecdotal evidence of anyone who grew up in Australia and owned a pair of ugg boots. I know when I had my first pair circa 1980, purchased from a stall at the Wanneroo Weekend Markets in Perth, I was only calling them their naturally and only name - "ugg boots" - The attempts here to make it sound as though the generic use is somehow similar to the way Americans use "Kleenex" and "Hoover" is nothing but an attempt to blot out the history of the boots in favour of history according to Deckers. This is why the Deckers point of view has been resoundingly defeated in every discussion on the main talk page for ugg boots and in various forum shopping forays such as this one. Again, Misplaced Pages is not here to present corporate truth, it's here to present the real truth. It is not here to pick up on technicalities and offer factoids to cling to a position by citing a lack of absolute, 100% proof, even where this clearly exists. If you can offer me just one example from 1985 or earlier of some "ugg TM" products pre-dating Deckers and from Australia I will cede your point. Surely if the "brand" was so "recognisable" it shouldn't be too difficult, right?Mandurahmike (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to settle this... I bought a pair of Ugg slippers. It has a trademark stamped across the instep so that everyone can see it. Genuine UGG with a trademark symbol. So "Ugg" is the brand name... and that's why I bought them. Their popularity got so vast because of the trademark... and the quality that goes with that name. NOT some "ugly" and "similar" footwear that is synthetic. ChristieSwitz88001 (talk) 10:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC) ChristieSwitz88001 (talk) 11:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Much of what has been talked about is irrelevant. Stop looking at the needles on the pine on the tree that's in your face(s). Step back and look at the entire picture, and the reason "Ugg boots" was listed as an article. It was not an independent article based on some generic style of boot. It was to explain the great brand of footwear that originated in Australia. Sure, there are common off-shoots from it that are generic. But the focus of the article should be about the 'ORIGINAL BRAND and QUALITY that the world has come to know and love (or hate, depending on personal view)! K.I.S.S. ChristieSwitz88001 (talk) 11:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC) ChristieSwitz88001 (talk) 11:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The ugg brand has it's own article. Editors wanting to promote a particular brand should disrupt edit the appropriate article. Wayne (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• Shouldn't Misplaced Pages wait for a legal request from Deckers before deciding that it is necessary to refactor an article in order to avoid damaging their trademark? I would welcome the removal of any incorrect information (does any text suggest Deckers does not own the trademark?), but see no reason to add a bunch of synthesis by listing legal cases to make some point, particularly when that point has very low encyclopedic value for the topic (it's an article on a style of boots—it's not an article on trademark or legal issues). The reason I keep watching this article is that I oppose the use of Misplaced Pages to unduly promote commercial interests—Deckers can look after themselves without using Misplaced Pages. Johnuniq (talk) 11:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

We're not making a point. That would violate WP:POINT. Our goal is, and your goal should be, compliance with WP:NPOV in this article. Forget about all other articles according to WP:STUFF. Concentrate on this article please. How does removal of the "Concerns about quality" section, removal of the counterfeiting cases, and heavy emphasis on "It's a generic term" in the lede and the first half of the article make this article comply with WP:WEIGHT? I look forward to your explanation. Liangshan Yi (talk) 23:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The "concerns about quality" section is sourced from an Australian current affairs programme with about as much credibility as The National Enquirer. Its inclusion is cherry-picking of the highest order. The counterfeiting section has nothing to do with the subject matter and is only included to seemingly discredit people who call their boots ugg boots who aren't Deckers (since the counterfeiting issues are about copying Deckers designs, they do not belong there at all). Oh, and by "heavy emphasis on the generic term in the lead" I assume you mean "it being mentioned at all" - because that's basically what you've got there right now. A few words about the generic concept. Of course this article should be weighted toward the generic term because that -- is -- what -- the -- article -- is -- about! We already have articles about Ugg Australia and Deckers Outdoor Corp. Here we go arguing the same old thing again in yet another of Phoenix & Winslow's forum-shopping expeditions.Mandurahmike (talk) 17:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• "It's a generic term" is the minority view. The ratio of 145:2 defines it as a minority view under WP:WEIGHT, even if we ignore population. If we study population, the ratio would be approximately 150:1. Arguments about other factors are a distraction, and possible a deliberate diversion. For nearly all the people of the world who have heard the word "ugg" and have an understanding of its meaning, "ugg" refers to a brand name. This is true not only in the United States, but also Europe, Canada, India, Indonesia and the Far East. The weight provided to each view in this article should be apportioned with these facts in mind. The amount of space, the wording of the lede, and the positions of the paragraphs supporting each view are all factors in determining weight. Currently "it's a generic term" dominates the lede and occupies the first half of the article. This is an enormous amount of weight. Editors from Australia and New Zealand, rather than correcting this problem, want to make it even worse by removing material that supports "it's a brand name." I encourage new people in this discussion to carefully consider the cultural bias of these editors, and apportion weight to their arguments accordingly. Seeking the nationality of editors may seem inappropriate, but for the limited purpose of the inquiry about cultural bias, it is appropriate. Liangshan Yi (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
• It appears to rather pointless join this discussion a week after was started even though I've been a long term contributor to the article, I wasnt aware of this "discussion" taking place, by excluding those editors it created a bias, after reading all the crap above nothing has changed, all of the above arguements are in the talk page of the article. The problem is that while Deckers uses the "Australia" in its brand name it wishes to have no mention anywhere on the internet that the orgins of the style is from Australia. To this end its spent countless millions of dollars in legal actions, yet where the stye originate the term was ruled as generic by IP Australia, the ruling itself allows for parties to challenge the ruling to the Federal court within 30 days otherwise the ruling is ratified by the Federal court which is what happened. Somewhere in all of this meaningless discussion was a suggestion(appologies to the editor who suggested it for not crediting but I cant find the dif, found it thx Elinruby) for Ugg boot (style), Ugg boot (trademark disputes) Ugg Australia Deckers Outdoor Corporation each given weight to its individual subject matter and each having a breif mention of the other with all linked from Ugg Boot as a disambiguation, thats not an unreasonable solution. Gnangarra 23:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that may be the best solution although from the previous misrepresentation of the trademark disputes by Deckers SPAs and meatpuppets I expect the edit warring would simply move to the Ugg boot (trademark disputes) article. On the plus side, it would be much easier to expose biased interpretation of sources in a dedicated article. Wayne (talk) 01:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Solution?

Several editors have suggested a solution. As this is the only arguement that has had support from both involved and non-involved editors it should be voted/commented on.

Suggestion:

1. Ugg boots article be renamed Ugg boots (style)
2. An Ugg boot (trademark disputes) article be created
3. A disambiguaton page be created for Ugg/Ugg Boot/Ugg boots that contains links to Ugg boots (style), Ugg boot (trademark disputes), Ugg Australia and Deckers Outdoor Corporation

• Support Two years of arguing with SPAs who have lost more than a dozen RFCs on the same dispute needs to end. Wayne (talk) 01:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Wayne, I would like to see links to these "more than a dozen" RFCs that were allegedly "lost." So far, I count only one that was properly filed. Yours was not, and that would make only two. Without being properly filed, how can uninvolved editors become aware of them and participate? Liangshan Yi (talk) 13:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Only one was a "proper" RFC. The Deckers editors rejected the others because none ran for 30 days which wasn't considered neccessary at the time because the consensus was so overwhelmingly against them. The RFC guideline is not fixed policy so the other discussions are still legitimate consensus building discussions, ignoring them is simply philibustering. I point out that many uninvolved editors have taken part in the page over the years. Wayne (talk) 00:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Then there was only one RFC, not "more than a dozen." Please stop lying, Wayne. Liangshan Yi (talk) 04:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'm happy with this approach. I don't think it will solve anything by itself, so much as redistribute the problems, but that would make it easier to tackle them and allow each article to better focus on their core issue. - Bilby (talk) 02:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• • Highlighting Bilby's Support here so it's easier to see.Mandurahmike (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. This solution goes in the wrong direction. This article should be merged with UGG Australia. False accusations of SPA and sockpuppet status have been repeated here constantly and do not contribute to a positive climate. Such accusations belong on the pages created for such purposes. Wayne knows where those pages are, but he doesn't know how to start an RFC properly; so that alleged RFC wasn't "lost." Make your allegations on the appropriate pages, where they will be declared "unlikely" again by Checkuser. Liangshan Yi (talk) 07:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly Support The "Make it all about Deckers" brigade hasn't had anything approaching a consensus in the two and a bit years I have been editing the article. while the other position has consistently produced strong simple majorities. It's time to end the forum shopping and solve the fact that these articles have been going nowhere for years. There's no question of undue weight if items which are, at their very heart, different concepts have their own entries with very limited mentions of the other entries ---where appropriate--- without it turning into the situation we have now where we have three articles about Deckers. If we to merge "ugg boots" into "Ugg Australia" as the opposing editor above suggests, we would be changing Misplaced Pages to conform to the corporate myth that Deckers products, and only Deckers products are ugg boots. WEIGHT is not a question when the style and the brand have their own articles -- all we need to do is make it clear that this article is about the STYLE and the other is about the BRAND. Cutting out a lot of the Deckers-related overkill on this article would go a long way to such disambiguation.Mandurahmike (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• • Also, Liangshan Yi, you'll have to excuse us for some level of wariness over socking/meating because there have been cases of proven sockpuppetry and also some possible cases in the past and this entry does seem to attract a bizarre amount of brand new Wikipedians who immediately begin composing elaborate talk page posts supporting Deckers, citing[REDACTED] guidelines etc as though they were old hands who had long been involved in both the article in question and Misplaced Pages in general.Mandurahmike (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
    • See here. Pro-Deckers editors that have been confirmed as sockpuppets: Linda1997, Bigdog2828, Barclaygla09, Illume1999 and Youngteacher. Likely SPAs on this article: Middlemarch2256, Cowboysforever, Factchk, 63.171.91.193 (Liangshan Yi) and Phoenix and Winslow. Wayne (talk) 00:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes I have repeatedly seen there and I encourage you to read at the bottom, the Checkuser finding of "Unlikely." Please stop lying about that and other elements of this discussion, Wayne. Liangshan Yi (talk) 04:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose “Ugg (Registered trademark)” footwear should be the primary article with headings of:

I)Genuine Ugg (Registered trademark) footwear

A) History

1) How Ugg started

2) Trademark disputes - with appropriate links to other Trademarks

II) Generic ugg-STYLE boots

I really don't care for the idea of titling the article "Ugg boots" because Ugg brand could easily come out with other Ugg Products. Currently Ugg has not only boots, but slippers. So that could be discussed under "Genuine Ugg Footwear."

The "Generic ugg-style boots" (or whatever) would best be discussed, with appropriate links, within a separate heading.

ChristieSwitz88001 (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Your suggestion seems to be a violation of WP:SOAP. BTW, Deckers can bring out other products under the Ugg brand but they would be "Ugg brand slippers" not "uggs". Uggs already are slippers. Wayne (talk) 00:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me, but this really sounds to me like making content on skunks a section of the article on Pepe Le Pew. Elinruby (talk) 00:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The world doesn't revolve around Ugg Australia. The 'Ugg Australia' article does though. So your suggestions are more appropriate to that article. This article is about ugg boots in the generic sense. Donama (talk) 22:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support since I have noticed the vote, I'll cast one in favor of my own proposal, separate articles with disambiguation, specific topics and headers either as above or as agreed upon. If there's a consensus for separating the topics, the next but separate question would be how. If you ask me. I am bowing out again to deal with a different set of issues. Thanks for listening. Elinruby (talk) 20:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The Pepe Le Pew example is exactly what merging "ugg boots" into "Ugg Australia" would be like. The article the SPA above you is suggesting, also, already exists - it's called "Ugg Australia". Again, this move would be just another attempt to make the history of ugg boots all about Deckers Outdoor Corp. "generic 'Ugg stle'" would be a misleading term because this strongly implies that the boots are "in the manner of Ugg Australia styles" when they are not. Deckers do not own any trademark regarding the generic style and I think that's one of the major things getting lost in their vigorous attempts to quash any use of the word "ugg". All they own in the countries where we have established they own the trademark is the right to describe their products by the name. If we take away a Misplaced Pages article for ugg boots as a generic concept - ie, the name by which they have been referred to since the year dot - they no longer have a signifier with which to be described. It would be like if Nathan's Famous one day was able to trademark the term "hot dog" and from that moment on everyone else had to refer to their product as "cylindrical manufactured meat product" or "Hot dog style sausage product".Mandurahmike (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

A better analogy was brought up in Parliament. MP Robert Baldwin said the controversy was the same as if an Australian company had registered the trademark "cowboy boot". Wayne (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Abstain since I think the current arrangement is already best. Corporate horns simply need to be pulled in and sock/meat puppets for corporate interestes need to stop being spawned. If a change to the structure of articles must occur I would support this. Donama (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• • I'll agree with that, too - this would be my preferred result, given that we basically have the situation suggested here already with the "Ugg Australia" "Deckers outdoor corp" and "ugg boots" article. If only the corporate interests of the first two would cease to dictate the reality presented in the third.Mandurahmike (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• • • I'd find the trademark article an interesting read, since according to what I see here the process may have been other than the usual brand name becoming a generic term. If a generic term can become a brand, then man has bitten dog, so to speak, regardless of the legalities. If that page does not exist yet, it would be a fair amount of work though, which I have no intention of doing myself. But there seems to be almost enough material in this discussion alone. Elinruby (talk) 00:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Afghans in Pakistan

Hi, can someone please look at the edits of user:Mar4d in the Afghans in Pakistan. He is editing with anti-Afghan POV, trying to make Afghan refugees living in Pakistan look veyr bad and make his own Pakistanis look good. Can someone please neutralize his edits because when I do it he keeps reverting it and I'm not in the mood for this childish revert war game. Thanks.--NorthernPashtun (talk) 16:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll not comment on user:Mar4d's edits, as I don't know enough about the subject. I would however suggest that you do little for your case by suggesting that "Pakistanis are known for lying" in an edit summary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Andy, what I meant by Pakistanis are known for lying was to say that Pakistani officials are known for lying. They were telling the world that Osama bin Laden was in Afghanistan everytime questioned but it turned out that Osama was safely living in a giant mansion next to Pakistani military base and next to Pakistan's capital. This Mar4d is a Pakistani and he's doing the same thing here in Misplaced Pages in the Afghans in Pakistan article, he's ONLY adding negative things about Afghans... trying to demonize Afghans or evil doers, criminals and terrorists. He is bashing Afghans because he does not like them. This is the problem here, he's miserable and trying to waste our time.--NorthernPashtun (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• (uninvolved)Strong oppose:This argument seems to be defending the racist comment from the edit summary even further which is a personal attack against his opposing editor and racist in general as well. The left over part of the argument is mostly based on prejudice. The editor merits to be a typical POV pusher on basis of just that. I suggest further action should be taken in addition to the WP:3RR block on account of this. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• NorthernPashtun has since been indef-blocked as a previously-blocked sockpuppet. Some of Mar4d's edits have been concerning, however, so if someone still wants to look into this a little ... I have to plead content-ignorance here, as well, but both editors seemed to be POV-warring some in the articles to me. --Philosopher  18:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Good call I guess. The content is a clear POV dispute and has to be weighed by citations, but since the editor concerned has been blocked his edits are safe to be reverted I think, as per that with him being the only opposing editor the section should be closed and blocked editor's edits reverted. Eventually other genuinely interested editors will balance the content if there's any POV possibility from Mar4d's side. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I welcome intervention into this issue as NorthernPashtun is clearly taking things out of hand here, by engaging in WP:Personal attacks and making irrelevant comments as the above diff. clearly shows. I have been editing this article with neutrality, and so far, have been trying to make sure that my sources comply with WP:RS. However, NorthernPashtun has a certain POV with which he views the particular section I'm adding and is constantly trying to tamper with reliable, sourced content to tones that do not fit the context. For example, I add information on militants from Afghanistan seeking refugee in Pakistan, yet he keeps changing it to "Afghanistan-Pakistan" without providing any valid rationale. His behaviour suggests that he is not willing to engage in open, mature dialogue but rather wants to go down the inevitable path of edit warring. It would greatly help if he lets me work and expand on the sections I am currently working on and not needlessly interfere. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't comment on article content, but we certainly have an edit war on our hands and I rather suspect this may not be the correct forum for this discussion. I have blocked both users for 24 hours for violating 3RR (and the incident is noted on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#that noticeboard), but a more permanent solution would be welcome.

On second thought, this may be the right place, but I'm certainly not the right one to comment on the content involved. --Philosopher  19:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

At a brief look into the related Pakistanis in Afghanistan, both are coming close WP:3RR violations. They each have 2 reverts of each other over tag issues (Mar4d ; NorthernPashtun ), Northern Pashtun has another revert of Mar4d at about which Mar4d may or may not have another one at (claimed copyright infringment, so may be immune from 3RR).

After a similarly brief look into Afghans in Pakistan, both users violate WP:3RR. Mar4d reverts on smuggling as does Northern Pashtun . Skipping quite a ways down the article history, Mar4d adds a link and is reverted by Northern Pashtun and re-reverts . A glance at the edit summaries suggests even more reverts - all in this 24-hour period. --Philosopher  18:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Maps of the Golan Heights

There has been a recent attempt to include in articles on sites within the Golan Heights maps that show the territory as being in Israel. This is an extreme minority claim that is rejected by nearly every single country on the planet. I think it is an obvious violation of NPOV to claim Syrian territory as being within Israel and the coordinated attempt to do so at several articles has reached a breaking point. Is it acceptable for a map to be used in the infobox of an article on a site in the Golan as showing the territory in Israel? nableezy - 17:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The details of this issue are unimportant. The important part is that if an image is put onto an article then it has to be there with the consensus of all editors. If a particular map is controversial, do not try to solve the controversy or even talk about what is right or wrong. Only identify the major points of view and make sure that they are all represented. This could mean using two maps, or one map with different borders shown and notes about who accepts which border. Talk it through on the pages in question and then if there are problems report back here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Stop Online Piracy -- systematic removal of cn tags and re-insertion of weasel words and bias

No, I have not raised the issue on the article's discussion page. I have done this ad nauseum on the related Protect IP Act page and devoutly wish to have no further discussions with Xenophrenic. I have spent most of my free time for the past week on that page, which came to my attention through a third editor's despairing RfC, and I still owe comment on the Wikiquette case that she opened. ((Personal attack removed)) -Xenophrenic) Discussion, to put it mildly, has mostly not been fruitful.

Nor can I conceive of any conceivable reason to remove fact and cn tags. Quite outside of the doubts I may (and do) have about the foundedness of the statements attributed to various politicians, they require attribution at a minimum.

Some of the other edits (diff) also speak for themselves, for instance:

• preventing US citizen access to or use of foreign sites that allegedly are in violation of US copyright law

becomes: combating foreign rogue sites

• increased penalties for intellectual property infringement.

becomes: increased penalties for intellectual property theft

• The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and labor groups allegedly both support

becomes: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and labor groups have come together in support

A couple of of points -- some but not all of the edits change edits that I myself made. Changes are fine and even good. Changes that make the article less reliable are not. If the editor feels a need to change recent edits, the trend should be to a middle ground, no? Documentation would also be good. Elinruby (talk) 15:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Your examples are damning. Very poor handling of NPOV. Binksternet (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Your examples require subject matter understanding which I do not have so I cannot say whether they are NPOV or not. You say that Xenophrenic is not a listener but is an arguer; where are the arguments and discussion related to this? I am not seeing where you asked him why he made the edits which he did. Where is the discussion about this issue? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

There has been no discussion about this issue. The unwarranted personal attacks and "commenting on editors" aside, there is some ground for legitimate concern on the part of the original poster about attribution. The missing "citation needed" tags are the inadvertent result of reverting an IP's series of POV edits. The 3 examples above actually use the verbiage (rogue, theft...) from the House Judiciary Committee sources. Since the article is already dripping with no fewer than 5 templates (at last count) demanding NPOV balancing, copy editing and expert input on top of the still present various 'cn' tags, the few swept away in the revert seemed redundant anyway. The article is in need of a major rewrite. (Thanks for the addition of some tags, Binksternet, but you just scratched the surface...) I'll be doing what I can to help remedy that, but I've been postponing any major effort until later tomorrow, as there is a committee hearing on this very bill that will be concluding. There should be an influx of additional relevant material from reliable sources from which to work. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me restate that. First, I apologize for only giving one link. I was very frustrated when I made that post as it undid many small changes I made attempting to correct the article's bias. I have not specifically objected to the latest round of edits, no. There seemed little point, as I have been talking about the article's bias for a week with no response. I have made a number of posts on the discussion page about specific examples of bias, such as here, where I explain why I put a pov tag on the page (Nov 10). On the same day I also said "article is largely a paraphrase of the legislation: Some secondary sources are needed and the language needs to be simpler, clearer, and to actually say something." A little later, also on Nov 10, I noted that the article does not mention that the proposed legislation seems likely to make YouTube illegal, under the header "the proposed overturn of safe harbor needs discussion and also the criminalization of streaming". On Nov 13 I explained my reasons for putting a fact tag on the content section. Xenophrenic did not respond to any of those posts. ((Personal attack removed) -Xenophrenic) Thanks for your thoughts and attention. Elinruby (talk) 08:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect. The "unwarranted personal attacks" to which I referred are your comments above about me in your opening paragraph. Please refrain from commenting on editors. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Actual wording is negotiable. I don't mind clarifying that this is an opinion. I think I should add though, that the article was the subject of a request for comment. ((Personal attack removed) -Xenophrenic) Elinruby (talk) 10:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from commenting on editors. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey I found the link where he cites calling him "dude" as a personal attack! It's here towards the end of the sentence. I'd forgotten the anklebiting remark but will admit to saying something about ankle-biters, in an edit summary, I believe. I'm only human ;) I mean, just *look* at that page and realize that this is the result of someone else's request for comment. The article is already pretty deep down on the despair scale, because the other editors are trying to play by the rules. Elinruby (talk) 08:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It would be well to remove from the article the words "rogue" and "theft", and the phrase "come together". Or, provide an attributed source for exactly one instance of those words and phrases rather than using them in Misplaced Pages's voice. Such a move toward neutrality does not hinge upon the results of legislation. Binksternet (talk) 05:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

If we are really moving toward actual neutrality, then use of weasely and whitewashed words such as "infringement" and "alleged" should also be attributed, instead of advancing one editor's particular flavor of neutrality. Describing an individual's act of murder instead as "a contravention of an individual's subsistence" in the interest of supposed neutrality seems a bit disingenuous. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I've made some revisions which remove a good portion of the polarizing tone from the article. I've kept the NPOV tag until resolved, but the others have been removed for now. I'd like to consider myself an "expert" on both the technical aspects presented in the bill, and the Intellectual Property related aspects, so please let me know what else should be done. C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 00:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. If you or someone else has the time and inclination, the Protect IP Act is the Senate bill and that article has many of the same problems. Elinruby (talk) 11:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC) 10:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It appears that 90% of the above listed concerns have been addressed. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I answered this, but the answer seems to have been removed. As the originator of the post, I feel that the above examples are largely dealt with, but that other examples come up on a daily basis. I have not looked at the article today so I won't make a list here. I am not certain whether to close this post, make a fresh list in a new post, or append. Closing this post seems like the most appropriate for now, as I am really tired. Elinruby (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Eyes needed

We need some eyes and attention from people familiar with contemporary literature on race at Mongoloid race, Negroid race, Caucasian race and Nordic race. They are all entrenched in a pre-1950es understanding of the concept of race and contain little if any references to contemporary literature or debates.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I looked at Nordic race, and think that the solution there is to ensure it sticks to the topic, i.e. the obsolete concept, and doesn't suggest that it has any currency now. So the haplotype material has to go. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Mongoloid race is even worse, any help would be appreciated.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

China

Just as an FYI, there is a debate about The merger of "China" (Chinese civilization) and "People's Republic of China" into one article - Talk:China#The_move_was_surprising_-_7_opinions_on_the_move

Even though there is a current debate over whether "China" should be simply defined as the "People's Republic of China" - some admins argue that POVTITLE allows the usage of POV names if most people in English refer to the subject by the POV name, even if the POV dispute is still active.

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Taliban

An editor on the Taliban article insists it is not neutral to write that the Pakistan Inter-Services Intelligence have given aid to the Taliban. This is widely reported as fact, and the two sources I added to the article are from the academic press. He is insistent on it being an American intel agency only POV and I assume he means this is not mainstream thinking due to this. So is this not neutral? The Last Angry Man (talk) 09:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The issues with the current version are as follows:

1. The article tone in general implies that Pakistan is an ally of Taliban,
2. It is stated at certain instances that Pakistan's military supports Taliban while Pakistan denies it and no refutation has been added. (The above editor is reinstating the content without adding the refutation not following WP:NPOV and is instead asking me to balance it which is his responsibility as per WP:VOLUNTEER. Note that I've cleared the WP:BURDEN on me by giving relevant reliable citations.)
3. Inter Services Intelligence (Pakistan's intelligence agency) is included in the infobox as an ally of Taliban which in no case is suitable (even if the body does end up containing so along with Pakistan's refutation) because it is a clear POV case.

As of now I've given the editor these citations against his POV: . Although he agreed about these being reliable refutations but he insists that these are 'press releases' of Pakistan and not the mainstream thinking in response to which I've given him a mainstream citation to prove my point. Further more the citation he added (reliable or not) itself states that it is involving certain prejudice/stereotyping to analyze Pakistan's role . In addition there is a whole dedicated article on the ~10 year war of Pakistan with Taliban & their allies War in North-West Pakistan which proves the above editor's POV wrong. You might also note that the editor himself is using WP:WEASELs like 'widely accepted fact' to push his POV and is not following WP:HEAR as well inspite my repeated clarifications. A detailed discussion should be reviewed at Talk:Taliban#Content_removed_.26_POV_tag.3F.

I'll like to point out whether or not he is right on this matter, the subject is still a controversy (as per citation contradictions) and the article should be written in a neutral way in anycase and the infobox inclusion as per that is completely unjustifiable. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thi i from your first source the BBC "Pakistan supported the Afghan Taliban before the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States. It was one of only three countries to have diplomatic relations with the Islamist group." So again, now that they deny aiding the Taliban this suddenly means the mainstream view that they have is now contentious? Just because the ISI deny having ties to the Taliban does not make it contentious, any intel agency would deny ties to such group. The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The dispute is not whether they had previous ties to them or not. (Even United States had previous ties to Taliban during the coldwar but now they are at war with them. The case is the same here too). Anyway, we should stick to the topic (which is the current relation) and not present our own assumptions rather let the citations do the talking. Your current argument is baseless. Lets wait for a neutral editor to comment otherwise it wont go any better than the talk page discussion. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Yes, but the problem is that all your citations are just press releases from the government which say "not us" I on the other hand have have supplied high quality sources which say the ISI continue to aid the Taliban, here is another Terrorism financing and state responses: a comparative perspective Stanford University Press pp94-96 The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I have given you a citation from the mainstream (other than a press release) as well. And I've listed your remarks in reply to my citations in my comment as well as linked the talk page discussion which already covers what we are discussing right now. I guess we've both made are cases clear. So lets wait for neutral input and continue the discussion on basis of that. Otherwise we'll just repeat the same talk page discussion here which will flood the topic discouraging neutral input. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The Last Angry Man is absolutely right. Here some more sources to back that up:

• Human Rights Watch: "Pakistani aircraft assisted with troop rotations of Taliban forces during combat operations in late 2000 and ... senior members of Pakistan's intelligence agency and army were involved in planning military operations."
• New York Times: "Two years ago, Jalaluddin Haqqani ... was called a "Pakistani asset" by a senior official of the Inter-Services Intelligence, the nation's powerful spy agency, as a way of explaining why the Pakistani Army did not move against him."
• International Business Times/BBC: "Commanders of the Taliban told the BBC that they and thousands of other members of their groups were trained and armed by Pakistan’s military intelligence and security service."
• Taliban commander Mullah Qaseem: “Pakistan plays a significant role. First they support us by providing a place to hide which is really important. Secondly they provide us with weapons."
• Taliban commander "Mullah Azizullah, said these camps are run by the ISI or are closely linked to it. "They are all the ISI’s men,” he said. “They are the ones who run the training. First they train us about bombs; then they give us practical guidance. Their generals are everywhere. They are present during the training.""
• Pakistani Chief of Army Staff, Ashfaq Kayani himself: "Admiral Mullen knows well which countries are in contact with the Haqqanis. Singling out Pakistan as the chief protagonist is neither fair nor productive."

JCAla (talk) 13:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll like to start by pointing out non neutrality of the above editor since he even removed the valid POV tag from the article (which was left there by both parties) while the discussion was still on going.

• Coming to the topic, the points you've given about Pakistan assisting Taliban before the war on terror are completely invalid because the topic of discussion is whether or not Pakistan's military is currently an ally to Taliban (so those should be disregarded - refer to my 2nd comment in this thread).
• The points you have given about Taliban leaders commenting on the issue, I seriously doubt the reliability of terrorists deciding the issue related to the encyclopedia (those should be considered as non reliable sources - because even though the publisher 'might' be reliable, the source they credit is not).
• About the Army chief's comment; have you even read it your self or are you intentionally quoting it out of context? Editors are free to review this citation where he means that Pakistan is not the only country in contact with Taliban/Haqani/etc pointing out that US also is in 'contact' with them and this certainly does not implicate an alliance.

Yes, the Taliban militants were trained by Pakistani officials for the soviet invasion etc, but they were being aided by US too, and now they are on war with them? Do I smell double standards? And did you see the article I quoted about Pakistan's own ~10 year war with with Taliban and their allies? And that so many dedicated article including War in North-West Pakistan, War on Terror & Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan mention, and properly detail along with sources, US and Pakistan fighting against Taliban and their allies? And did you notice that US (other than blaming Pakistan for these relations) also (still) calls Pakistan their ally rather than Talibans'? The addition of Pakistan as an ally for Taliban (which should rather be added on the opposing side) is completely inconsistent with all the well sourced details of the given articles and makes[REDACTED] reflect inconsistent point of views (other than being non neutral) and is unencyclopedic. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand, this discussion is about the current support. I was just pointing out that as late as 2000 and even 2001 (before 9/11) Pakistan's military is recorded as being an active participant in the War in Afghanistan

(1996-2001), mastermind behind the Taliban military campaigns. That is just for the record for people to understand the depth of the involvement of Pakistan with the Taliban. It wasn't just arms and cash transfer (what is normally understood under the term "support").

Now, for today, I gave reliable sources which quoted a "senior official of the ISI", two mid-level Taliban commanders and Pak. Army Chief Kayani (whose statement is rather revealing considering that the Pakistan government is in official denial). This was only in addition to all the other reliable and academic Western sources The Last Angry Man already provided.

Look, you do not need to lecture me about the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, I am pretty familiar with the issue. If you look carefully, you can see, that I am one of the three editors who contributed most to the TTP article. So, glad, you think it is well-balanced. Now, that you have read the article, you must have noticed that there is indeed a huge difference between the TTP (Pakistani Taliban) the Pakistani army is fighting against and the Afghan Taliban (the Pakistani army is supporting). You seem to have gotten confused by the common name, although I think, you are pretty much aware of the difference. As Gilles Dorronsoro, a scholar of South Asia at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace said: "The fact that they have the same name causes all kinds of confusion." As the Pakistani Army began offensives against the TTP (Pakistani Taliban), many unfamiliar with the region thought incorrectly that the assault was against the Afghan Taliban of Mullah Omar which was not the case. Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Omar repeatedly asked the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan to stop attacks inside Pakistan. Afghan Taliban commander Haqqani also tried to make the TTP stop their attacks against the Pakistani state. An Afghan Taliban spokesman told The New York Times: "We don’t like to be involved with them, as we have rejected all affiliation with Pakistani Taliban fighters ... We have sympathy for them as Muslims, but beside that, there is nothing else between us."

We both know that Pakistan is playing a double game with the Taliban and NATO.

"And which side is Pakistan on? “That’s a foolish question,” says Anatol Lieven, a professor in the Department of War Studies at King’s College London. “Pakistan is on Pakistan’s side, just as America is on America’s.”

But in this double game, Pakistan sustains the Taliban. And it makes sure that Afghan Taliban leaders who seek greater independence from Pakistan get arrested (see Mullah Baradar) and are released only when they are back in line again, that shows the amount of control the ISI has over the Afghan Taliban.

JCAla (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Pointing out that you clarified yourself that "Pakistan is on the Pakistani side" you should have sided with adding Pakistan to a third column instead of adding it as a Taliban ally in the first place. With that being said, it still does not matter till what ever time Pakistan was in support of Taliban since that is not the topic and your statement was there to make assumptions as you put it in the context. I am very clear about the identities of Afghan and Pakistani Taliban. May be you missed to read that I said they were eachother's allies in all the mentioned articles (which you now say have been contributed by you - so it is as per your words, I can safely say). After that, it doesn't matter who Pakistan is supporting since the official status by both Pakistan and USA is alliance with each other (of which I have given references). So you have here both parties recognizing each other as ally hence completely removing the possibility of putting ISI in the infobox as an ally of Afghan Taliban (that too along with the Pakistani Taliban which they are fighting I see). After all that, I didn't object to mentioning that USA blames Pakistan of keeping contacts with Taliban while Pakistan denies (I guess you missed to read the talk page discussion since I already mentioned this there). No more references are needed to support my view. As I said to the other editor involved, lets wait for neutral input since we've all made our cases clear. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Most of what you write is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Also, you can't use unsourced things in[REDACTED] as a source for other[REDACTED] articles. Some things in the articles are disputed, but I don't want to open another discussion about that here. The following is the central issue:

Question: Does Pakistan give substantial support to the Afghan Taliban? Answer: Yes.

Question: Does Pakistan seriously move against the Afghan Taliban (Mullah Omar, Haqqani network or even the Hezb-e Islami Gulbuddin) in order to defeat them? Answer: No.

This qualifies Pakistan as being listed as an "ally" (for lack of a better term) of the Taliban. It is as simple as that. And if the ISI thinks it is justified to do what it does, why is it, that it is always in denial? Why not honestly state your case? Is it ashamed of its own policy? There is no reason to hide from a morally justified cause, is there?!

Pakistan is on Pakistan's side, so far we did agree. So what is Pakistan's side? This war and the underlying conflict did not start in 2001, not even in 1996, it started a very long time ago. Pakistan has always had a very clear policy concerning Afghanistan and that policy did not change just because NATO entered the scene in late 2001. Since 1994, the Taliban play an integral element in Pakistan's strategy and until this very day ISI perceives there is no viable alternative.

Besides, the Taliban article deals with the Taliban in a general manner, not just the current phase. Pakistan, not only today, but also in the past, has been an ally - even mastermind - of the Taliban. That alone, qualifies it to be mentioned as an ally.

The fact, that Pakistan denies any support to the Taliban, really holds no weight considering history. Even while thousands of Pakistani forces were fighting inside Afghanistan, even while the Pakistani military was planning the Taliban military campaigns from 1995-2001, Pakistan (Musharraf's temper is well-known) was outraged at any suggestion it would provide support to the Taliban. Just to recall history 1996-2001:

"The Pakistan government has repeatedly denied that it provides any military support to the Taliban ..." Human Rights Watch 2001

"When asked 'why Pakistan supports the Taliban', an official replied, 'We don’t support but inter-act with the Taliban'." George Washington University 2001

All the while Pakistan was doing the following:

"Of all the foreign powers involved in efforts to sustain and manipulate the ongoing fighting , Pakistan is distinguished both by the sweep of its objectives and the scale of its efforts, which include soliciting funding for the Taliban, bankrolling Taliban operations, providing diplomatic support as the Taliban's virtual emissaries abroad, arranging training for Taliban fighters, recruiting skilled and unskilled manpower to serve in Taliban armies, planning and directing offensives, providing and facilitating shipments of ammunition and fuel, and ... directly providing combat support. ... as many as thirty trucks a day were crossing the Pakistan border; ... some of these convoys were carrying artillery shells, tank rounds, and rocket-propelled grenades. ... Pakistani landmines have been found in Afghanistan; they include both antipersonnel and antivehicle mines. Pakistan's army and intelligence services, principally the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), contribute to making the Taliban a highly effective military force. ... senior Pakistani military and intelligence officers help plan and execute major military operations. ... Pakistani aircraft assisted with troop rotations of Taliban forces during combat operations ... The extent of this support has attracted widespread international criticism. In November 2000 the U.N. secretary-general implicitly accused Pakistan of providing such support. ... The démarche listed features of the assault on Taloqan that suggested the Taliban had received outside assistance in planning and carrying out the attack. These features were uncharacteristic of the Taliban's known capabilities, including the length of the preparatory artillery fire ... On several occasions between 1995 and 1999, the Taliban's military skills improved abruptly on the eve of particularly pivotal battles, and in one case, declined just as abruptly after a credible threat of intervention was made by an outside power. During its offensives in 1995 against Herat and in 1996 against Kabul, for example, the Taliban suffered heavy losses after mounting attacks against veteran government forces . ... the rout was such that some analysts predicted that the Taliban phenomenon had run its course. ... Initial defeats were followed by a period of quiet; then Taliban troops mounted new attacks, displaying capabilities that had been conspicuously lacking before. ... maneuvers that were more characteristic of a professional army-specifically, of professional officers and noncommissioned officers trained in the practice of mobile warfare-than of Afghan mujahidin. ... in August 1998, the Taliban forces that were advancing eastward from the city against resistance ... suddenly faltered and lost their unusual combat proficiency. At the time, the disappearance of Iranian officials had provoked a major crisis with Iran and a substantial Iranian military force (ultimately close to 250,000 men) was massing on the Afghan/Iranian border. The Iranian government explicitly blamed Pakistan for the incident (Pakistan had given assurances for the diplomats' safety) and threatened military intervention if the diplomats were not produced. The sudden decline in Taliban military effectiveness, ... was caused by the withdrawal of Pakistani military advisers as part of an effort by Pakistan to prevent the crisis from getting out of control." Human Rights Watch 2001

Now for today.

• "The Haqqani network ... acts as a veritable arm of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency." - U.S. Admiral Mike Mullen

(Mullen was said to be close to the Pakistani army's chief of staff, Gen Ashfaq Kayani. Indeed, Adm Mullen is thought to have made more visits to Pakistan than any other senior US official or chief of staff in recent times.)

• "In Afghanistan we saw an insurgency that was not only getting passive support from the Pakistani army and the Pakistani intelligence service, the ISI, but getting active support." - Bruce Riedel, Brookings Institution

• "Two years ago, Jalaluddin Haqqani ... was called a "Pakistani asset" by a senior official of the Inter-Services Intelligence, the nation's powerful spy agency, as a way of explaining why the Pakistani Army did not move against him." New York Times 2008

• "Commanders of the Taliban told the BBC that they and thousands of other members of their groups were trained and armed by Pakistan’s military intelligence and security service." International Business Times 2011

• "Taliban sources say Pakistan uses catch-and-release tactics to keep insurgent leaders in line. All told, the ISI has picked up some 300 Taliban commanders and officials, the sources say. Before being freed, the detainees are subjected to indoctrination sessions to remind them that they owe their freedom and their absolute loyalty to Pakistan, no matter what. As one example, the sources mention Abdul Qayum Zakir, who spent five years at Guantánamo and is now the group’s top military commander. They say the Pakistanis detained him and about a dozen other Taliban commanders and shadow governors earlier this year, soon after having picked up the insurgency’s No. 2, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, only to set them free several days later after making sure their priorities meshed with Pakistan’s." Newsweek 2010

The Last Angry Man has provided further academic sources (including from the Stanford Press which I don't think I need to repeat).

In case anyone wonders why Pakistan should support the Taliban. The following could provide some clues:

1. Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts

2. Dispute over territory

"Dubbing Durand line as a line of hatred Afghan President Hamid Karzai has said he does not accept this line as it has raised a wall between the two brothers ."

"Afghanistan and Balochistan should form a legal team to challenge the illegal occupation of Afghan territories and Balochistan by Pakistan in the International Court of Justice. Once the Durand Line Agreement is declared illegal, it will result in the return of Pakistan-occupied territories back to Afghanistan. Also, Balochistan will be declared a country that was forcibly invaded through use of force by the Pakistanis ... After Pakistan vacates territories belonging to Afghanistan and Balochistan, a new boarder should be demarked amicably to determine Baloch dominated areas to become the new Balochistan, and Pashtun dominated areas to be merged into Afghanistan. ... “Pakistan is a completely superfluous and artificially created spot on the world map that has become a breeding ground for extremism, and trouble that would be best done away with.”"

Pakistan needs the Taliban as an "Islamic" counterforce to Pashtun nationalist ambitions which would effectively cut Pakistan in half. The Taliban's interpretation of and focus on Islam (rather than nationalism) is meant to be a binding force between Pakistan and Afghanistan. The non-Pashtun ethnicities of Afghanistan are perceived to be too close to India. That is why Pakistan insists on Pashtun's ruling Afghanistan, but these Pashtuns need to be the Taliban not nationalists following i. e. the way of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan.

3. There are certain dreams surrounding Islamic prophecies, and black banners from Khorasan. JCAla (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

First of all, we don't post whole news citings to the thread, that's just flooding (You should replace those with just the links of their origin). We can all go and read from the links you give. And there's no use of using this notice board if the involved editors are the only one posting long replies (which would discourage neutral input). Coming to the topic, you have just repeated what you said in your previous post. But as I said, all you have written here either is not related to the topic at hand and rather stuff that some one would post to a forum or citings on which you further base your assumptions on. There are some issues with all what you said:

• You say (and agree) Pakistan is on Pakistani side which calls for a third column for Pakistan to be listed in as per your own words since they are playing a 'double game' not being a partner (ally) to either US or Taliban (which I did not endorse, but pointed out).
• Discussion of past relations with Taliban is not the issue here which you are repeatedly bringing up.
• What I wrote was not irrelevant, I did not use the wiki articles as 'citations' (since I already gave the citations along with them). I used them to show consensus from those articles about the alliances. Another point here is that if one[REDACTED] article shows Pakistan as Talibans' ally and another shows them on opposing side, that would be an unacceptable inconsistency.
• Most of your citations are pointing out the contacts of Pakistan with Haqani/Taliban etc, which US itself also has for intelligence purposes and not support purposes (as the Pakistani Army chief pointed out) and rest of the citations are simply saying that Pakistan either has been supporting Taliban in the past or assume that, since Pakistan has links with them, they are allies.
• Even if what you say is completely believed for sake of argument, Pakistan still would not be listed as an ally of Taliban. The reason being, whatever relations Pakistan has with Taliban or US, Pakistan and US call each other allies on the war on terror. We follow the official status per WP:MOS.

So your case here is completely inconsistent and being based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Also, I think I've made my side pretty clear and so have you two. Repeating the same would be of no use and we should wait for neutral input (if at all some one reads the already lengthy thread). --lTopGunl (talk) 10:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• "Pakistan's side" includes the interest in continuing support to the Afghan Taliban, which makes them an "ally" for lack of a better term.
• Discussions of past relations put the current official Pakistani denial into a perspective.
• You are again confusing the TTP with the Afghan Taliban.
• The citations explicitly point out a support role not a contact role.
• Well, the official position of the man who was United States Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff until October 2011, Mike Mullen, is that "the Haqqani network ... acts as a veritable arm of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency."

But, ok, let's wait for other people to provide their opinion. JCAla (talk) 10:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Can we get a response here??????? --lTopGunl (talk) 06:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Having looked at the sources above it is quite clear that the ISI have and still continue to support the Taliban. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is not the issue of discussion, the issue is the official status which is accepted by both USA and Pakistan as being allies. Where as the editors above are adding ISI as an ally to Taliban in the infobox. The secondary issue is that ISI's alleged support is not being attributed to the sources and Pakistan's refutation is not being neutrally added to it. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I would respectfully disagree with you, it is the issue being discussed. Did the ISI aid and abet the Taliban? Yes they did, and yes they continue to do so. The ISI are from the sources presented allied to the Taliban. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The fact that both countries call each other allies is itself enough to put ISI on the opponent side of Taliban, now whether it's secretly supporting Taliban or not is an issue to be discussed in the body of the article. Again, yes, the issue is being discussed by the editor, but I've told him as well (you should review the talk page discussion and my edits that got reverted) that the inclusion of this is not my dispute here as far as it's neutrally conveyed on both the allegation and refutation side. The infobox is. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with both The Last Angry Man and Darkness Shines. And as I mentioned before, the United States Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff until October 2011, Mike Mullen, officially called the Haqqani network (Taliban's most destructive element) the "veritable arm of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency". That renders irrelevant your, TopGun, argumentation concerning "official" positions. JCAla (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Your point is invalid by this reference, since Pakistan and USA still consider each other as allies after this statement (and rather before and during this accusation the alliance was not broken). Your reference is time stamped "22 September 2011". I'll give you newer still calling it an alliance: , and one old: . The WP:BURDEN is still on you. Give a citation in which either Pakistan, USA or even a third party says that Pakistan-US alliance has been broken. Other wise putting Pakistan on the Taliban side is your POV and WP:OR. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

First of all, your "sources" are not "newer". Second, do you even read your own sources? Besides that in your sources the term "alliance" is not being used by any officials, the following is written in your sources:

• "Last month, senior American officials accused Pakistan's spy agency of assisting the Haqqani network in attacks on Western targets in Afghanistan, including a strike on the US embassy in Kabul. They were the most serious allegations yet of Pakistani duplicity in the 10-year war in Afghanistan and sent already strained ties between Islamabad and Washington plunging further."

• And from the CFR link, which is from 2010 not 2011: "Strategic dialogue meetings between senior Pakistani and U.S. officials concluded Friday with plans to cooperate on a range of issues including agriculture, electricity, and health. The meetings came amid growing tensions in the U.S.-Pakistan relationship. ... And the Obama administration is frustrated with what it sees as Pakistan's unwillingness to go after the Haqqani network and the Afghan Taliban--the terrorist groups considered most dangerous to the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan. ... To gain Pakistan's cooperation against militant groups it continues to support, some experts call for a stronger stand. The Cable, a Foreign Policy blog, reports that U.S. officials are "taking a markedly tougher tone with the Pakistanis than before.""

Now, there seems to be a confusion on your part what the term "allies" means. JCAla (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

If you missed to check the time stamps. They are new. For your info (since your mind is set on finding what you like and not what is being referred):

• "The latest strikes come as Marc Grossman, the US special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, arrived in the Pakistani capital of Islamabad to hold talks with Pakistani leaders to strengthen the two countries' fragile alliance."
• "An unhappy alliance."
• "The Strained U.S.-Pakistan Alliance."
• "Zardari emphasises restraint to avoid straining Pak-US alliance."

You can find more if you look. Stop repeatedly stating that US (and whoever else) alleges Pakistan of 'continuing to support militants', I have read that once. What you've failed to prove is that there is no alliance between Pak and US instead you claim the opposite. I've given you citations for my claim. You are misleading. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Lewontin's fallacy

• This is a sockpuppet of Mikemikev (talk · contribs). If you want[REDACTED] to be a place where Stormfront.org, Neo-nazis and Antisemites can disseminate their ideology unhindered Mikemikev is your man. Also note that he misrepresents Long (2009) as suggesting that the concept of race is supported by genetic analysis when in fact he says the opposite. Also not that Long doesn't mention Edwards or his paper - the topic of the article that Mike was trying to insert the material into.. Also note that he has a long history of nasty personal attacks both on and off wiki on editors he classifies as communists or jews.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Why have we got an article on one scientific paper? Is it much more notable than most papers? Itsmejudith (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

No. It hardly gets cited at all, except by a fringe pushing a POV. It is in Misplaced Pages because (a) Mikemikev and the like wish it to be, and (b) far too many uninvolved people don't have a clue how to determine the notability of scientific articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

To be fair it does get some attention - but only because Lewontin's argument (whoich we don't have an article for) does. There is a fairly unanimous consensus in Anthropology that Edwards argument is trivially true but that it has no relevance for the question of race - because race does not simply mean, and has never meant, "genetically distinct population". ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's merge into Race (classification of humans), with mentions in Lewontin's and Edwards' bios. We don't even have a category for scientific papers. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Its better merged into Race and genetics which has a section on the debate already.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to try, though given the result of the recent AfD, you'll have to put up with resistance from sockpuppets, and from people who seem not to understand what the debate is about, but want the article kept anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Nationality Misconception

There is a misconception on[REDACTED] regarding the nationality of certain notable Irish figures. The term Anglo-Irish is being bandied instead of Irish as a nationality. Many of the figures involved are Irish, but come from the Anglo-Irish social class, it is not a nationality, and there is a lot of inconsistency regarding its use, an example is Jonathan Swift an Irish man but for some reason is disregarded by a minute section of editors who refuse to acknowledge that he is Irish and Anglo-Irish (but only in the respect that he comes from that social class in the article), and then other articles like Oscar Wilde who is Irish but of Anglo-Irish culture, he is renowned internationally as Irish (not Anglo-Irish because it is a class not a nationality) I don't understand it, a tiny segment of editors are trying to ignore the fact are coming up with all this pseudo-social/historical claptrap to make it difficult for observers for whatever reason, I am being accused of breaching Wiki:POV, which IMO I am not, please comment. Sheodred (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

are we talking about planters? And are we talking about Ireland or Northern Ireland, and in what period? Some context would help. I probably am not the person to decide this as I have only a smidgen of knowledge but my family history as told to me makes a distinction between Irish and planters. But also, you are saying "nationality". Are we making a distinction from ethnicity? To me, nationality is citizenship.Elinruby (talk) 03:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

1. Goodson, Larry P. (2002). Afghanistan's Endless War: State Failure, Regional Politics and the Rise of the Taliban. University of Washington Press. p. 111. ISBN 978-0295981116.
2. Giustozzi, Antonio (2009). Decoding the new Taliban: insights from the Afghan field. Columbia University Press. p. 248. ISBN 978-0231701129.

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution