Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:22, 16 June 2012

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

Archives

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

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

Frank L. VanderSloot

Request opinions on relative compliance with NPOV for these two edits: (edit summary; that's not NPOV wording) )edit summary: LGBT issues: NPOV wording)

The question is whether the linking of the living person to "Mormon pedophiles" by saying

he responded to a series on Mormon pedophiles working with children as part of the Boy Scouts of America.<]] by purchasing full-page advertisements in the investigating local paper criticizing the coverage and discussing, among other things, the sexual orientation of the journalist breaking the story

is more or less NPOV with regard to VanderSloot than is saying

he placed ads criticising articles linking child abusers with the Boy Scouts of America. Collect (talk) 07:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• WP:FORUMSHOPPING -- Collect has already been to BLPN and Jimbo's talk-page with this one. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Nope. This is a specific NPOV issue - and as such belongs here. Were I to raise it at BLP/N, I would be told it was not an issue to raise there. Cheers - but making such aspersions about intent when a noticeboard is being properly used to gain opinions fromothers is rather less than utile. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately it's true that you did raise it there. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
      • ROFL! Did you note who started the section on that page? GreyFell, not I. The issue as to the BLP content was raised by a different person - so accusing me of anything is simply absurd - this is the board wherein I suggested it was less than NPOV. And this is the board where such is a reasonable query to pose. BTW, making personal asides on a noticeboard is "not done" - the folks reading here do not wish to see wikilawyering done either as a rule. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

After reading the source on this topic, I think the first sentence linking VanderSloot to mormon pedophiles is fair considering that he took out multiple adds in the newspaper linking himself to the series via his critical full page ads. His bio does not accuse him of being one of them so imo it is OK in light of the weekly ads he had published in his name.Coaster92 (talk) 05:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you note the character of the "source"? Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

As I've stated at the recent BLPN post and on the talk page of the article. The sources are weak and this is not a major event in the context of this man's life. Therefore, it deserves only a minor and very neutral mention. Having read both sources, I consider the first (current) version to be highly inflammatory and non-nuetral. For example the first sentence says "among other things" but then cherry picks the most inflammatory aspect of the ads (the sexual orientation of the journalist) as reported by the newspaper that VanderSloot attacked (ie. the primary source). A neutral wording would be: "He paid for six full page adds which criticized that newspaper's articles linking child abusers with the Boy Scouts of America". Personally, I am not a fan of VanderSloot and I question his actions, but I will not support POV pushing on his BLP just because I or someone else doesn't like him.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

VS' actions are not in dispute. He took out the ads. His ads criticized and were in response to a series on mormon pedophiles. The first sentence is more accurate. The second attempts to shield VS from his own actions, which are undisputed. This is POV imo. The sentence and entire section are not out of proportion in his bio. Again, it looks fair in this case.Coaster92 (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Ramapough Mountain Indians page - NPOV/Close Relationship

All-

I want to highlight an article that, I think, is hopelessly lacking in a neutral point of view - 'Ramapough Mountain Indians'. From the looks of the talk page, there's a long history, with, ramapoughnative1, a member of the "tribe" (not meant as scare quotes - they're not officially recognized (and that's a part of the problem)) engaged in a multi-year edit war against everyone else who try to edit the article into something resembling neutrality. The article appears to have been tagged in the past with either NPOV or Close Relationship (or both), but the tags have been removed by ramapoughnative1 as everyone else has given up in the face of his dogged resistence to a more neutral article.

I don't have the time or expertise to edit the article or engage in a edit war, but it's one of the most slanted articles I've seen on wikipedia, and I have no dog in the fight - I was just checking the page to settle a wager with a friend regarding whether the Ramapo Indians were part-Dutch or not. I think that those invested in the neutrality of[REDACTED] would want to intervene.

Thanks, D.R.Z. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.167.98 (talk) 12:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I asure you my friend .. you have lost your wager. We ARE recognized by the states of NY and NJ and the Supreme Court. It's because of people like you with your tired comments who have to question who we are that makes me so mad and aggressive. Why are we Indians the only people that have to have more proof than any other race to show who we are? It is especially frustrating when we didn't have a written language and the only proof you people understand is what's in your books. You are correct in one thing.. You don't have the expertise so...have a good day. Ramapoughnative (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

one more little tidbit.. I have not a drop of Dutch blood.. but i do have Irish. John Suffern, the founder of Suffern, NY was my 6th great grandfather. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramapoughnative (talk • contribs) 16:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Martyrdom of Polycarp

What am I supposed to do with this? I mean, I don't want to just revert it, there's good info in there with actual references. But it's also formatted horribly and is written rather non-neutrally at parts. Silverseren 08:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Looking here, I see that it is a part of one of those school projects. I want to be helpful with a new user, but I don't know where to start with this. Silverseren 08:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Are statements for a sources notability POV?

At Ramapough Mountain Indians an editor insists that a statement by the first of a long list of sources say "*Herbert C. Kraft Considered a "Noted Scholar" by peers in his field". I am not arguing that this isn't true, Kraft's an expert, but that this form of wording is pov and argument by authority. I suspect that there is quite a bit of pov in the article. The main editor is a member of the tribe who is, understandably, quite sure they are right about everything to do with the subject - a read of the talk page is recommended. If I ever have time I'll take a more thorough look at it. Probably quite a bit of OR also, I just reverted an obviously OR recent edit by the same editor but this isn't NOR. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Its not a WP:NPOV issue per se, to state that someone is a "noted scholar", "preeminent authority", or even a "tribal expert", if WP:RSs back that up. — GabeMc (talk) 05:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, being a "member of the tribe" does not exclude the editor from being NPOV. As far as the AbA concern, is the editor the source for the article, or do third-party reliable sources verify the material? — GabeMc (talk) 05:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

As it was written, the use of "noted scholar" would seem to imply additional weight should be given to his views in the paragraph concerned; simply describing him by profession would be more neutral. Part of the problem is that the section concerned is currently a sequence of eclectic statements presented as bullet points, rather than as decent prose describing the different perspectives. Some of those bullets are definitely POV in tone. If it was rewritten, then the prominence of the most respected or authoritative academic opinions could be highlighted in a more encyclopaedic fashion. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this, it is a clearer restatement of the problem as I see it. I agree it should be rewritten. Right now it's almost a list. I'm not sure how to go about it and I suspect that it might be difficult. Dougweller (talk) 08:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Another example of what I think is pov (and OR) is a statement about a BIA report added by the editor 3 years ago, which says "The BIA failed to recognize the written eyewitness accounting of former county judge James M. Van Valen in his book History of Bergen County", published in 1900." This is an observation by the editor and thus OR, but it's also IMHO a pov comment, part of an argument the editor is making about his/her tribe. Dougweller (talk) 09:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I have written exactly how it was stated in the links provided but no one bothered to read them. It is not WP:POV when I am copying what was written. I have provided the links and still you have persisted to call it 'Puffery'. Regardless if i'm a member of the tribe or not, if it's written as such and verifiable, explain how it is POV? Ramapoughnative (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

As far as the part about the BIA, how would you write it? The information was supplied them but not utilized in their decision. (Since then, we now know why. It had nothing to do with our history and everything to do with the state's concern for Casinos.) Ramapoughnative (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

You've been pointed to WP:PEA and the supplment at WP:BETTER#Avoid peacock and weasel terms which explains how to handle this. The article now reads " a professor of archeology at Seton Hall University who conducted extensive studies of the Lenape" which is much better. As for your question about how would I write the part about the BIA, I wouldn't. There have been many times when I'd like to point what what someone overlooked, but as that is my observation it would be original research. Without a reliable source pointing it out, we leave it out. Dougweller (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Senator_letter.pdf My link for my above statement. also, WP:PEA states.. "The examples given above are not automatically weasel words, as they may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, where the article body or the rest of the paragraph supplies attribution. this is what is followed.. The BIA statement is not "my observation", it is fact because of their statement "None of the interested party or third party comments provided substantive proof that the earliest proven RMI ancestors descended from a historical tribe of North American Indians. Therefore, the third-party comments were not directly pertinent to criterion 83.7(e)". I am not here to discuss the opinions of the BIA, just present the facts. It is a fact they ignored eyewitness accounts from verifiable sources. Ramapoughnative (talk) 16:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Also i consider this "The article now reads " a professor of archeology at Seton Hall University who conducted extensive studies of the Lenape" which is much better." This is your POV, not mine and I find unacceptable as it is not how it was written in the links I provided. Ramapoughnative (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

"With the death of Herbert Kraft in 1999 and that of C. A. Weslager several years ago, we lost the leading Lenape-Delaware historian-ethnographers of the latter decades of the 20th century." This the description of Kraft from "a Kansas Delaware and a former Kansas Delaware Chief and and now Ceremonial Chief." on their website http://lenapedelawarehistory.net/mirror/bibliography.htm Still think he's just an archeologist? Ramapoughnative (talk) 16:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you find it unacceptable because it isn't the way you like it is I'm afraid irrelevant. Not only do you not have consensus for your preferred text (see WP:CONSENSUS it is pov. No one has said he's "just an archeologist", and it is not a good idea to put words into other editor's mouths.

As for the BIA, if they didn't use any of the third party comments, then we shouldn't be singling any out. Perhaps this is a pov problem rather than an RS one after all. Dougweller (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

You did! (16:37, 31 May 2012‎ Dougweller (talk | contribs)‎ . . (38,579 bytes) (-32)‎ . . (→‎Historical perspective: remove 'noted scholar', we should never try to use adjectives in this way to make someone sound authoritative) (undo)) Is this not your name on the edit? So the only argument you can use as a defense is WP:Consensus? Total BS and you know it. Despite the fact it is documented as such and 'not' implied, you want to go with your opinion of what is WP:PEA, contrary to what is described within as valid.. Discussing this with you is pointless and we need a third party to get involved who's unbiased. Ramapoughnative (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Please learn to WP:Indent. That is my name on the edit, it clearly does not say "just an archeologist". And note that the article history shows 4 editors, including me, disagreeing with you. So are all of us biased? Is editor Hchc2009 who posted above also biased? You've had a 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th party already. Dougweller (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Ramapoughnative, I'm straying a little from the NPOV noticeboard purpose here, my advice would be to focus on the structure of the historical section. If it began by describing, in its own words, rather than lots of quotes, the mainstream, modern view of the Ramapough Mountain Indians's origins pre-1790, you'd have a good couple of initial paragraphs. You could then explain that there are differing views about whether there has been continuity in the group over the entire period, especially 1790-1830. You could then neutrally describe Kraft and Pritchard's position - that there was continuity - and Cohen's view - that there wasn't. Many of the other named individuals in the section could probably be reduced to footnotes or eliminated altogether (e.g. Pierson, who doesn't seem very significant in the debate). This would set the scene for the Bureau of Indian Affairs application section, although perhaps cleaning up the structure and perhaps reducing the long quotes a bit? You'd then have a neutral article, but which captures (if I'm reading the material in the article correctly, I'm not a specialist) the point that a majority of the academics agree with the continuity argument. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

thank you Hchc2009. All I asked for was clarity. Every link I posted a valid link, it was met with a WP:whatever and not explaining their issue with it. Kraft had many lifetime achievements and should be respected for his accomplishments. He was top professor at Seton Hall (a scholar) and most of his work was the basis for other's work. He is recognized by the state of NJ and as well by various Delaware Tribes. (well known and respected) How does this not equal "Noted Scholar"? David Cohen was Herb Kraft's student. Ramapoughnative (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

@Dougweller.. mincing words now? "Archeologist Herb Craft" = 'just an Archeologist' when you don't recognize his achievements. Ramapoughnative (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. And you are dropping insults all over the place, please stop it. It's against WP:PEA and seems totally unnecessary. Why is it so important to you? You have 4 editors disagreeing with you at the article, you can't just ram it in. Dougweller (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

where are you seeing insults? I have not posted one insult to you yet.. Believe me if I were being insulting, you would know it.. What I can't understand is if it's in print as such in a verifiable source, why you're fighting so hard to exclude it. It was not my description but the description from others in print. If this is considered unusable, then it seems any source can be challenged by anyone who doesn't like what you print. Now i have others questioning federal documents and a lawyers submission to the Supreme Court as POV.. Totally ridiculous. Ramapoughnative (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for using indent, it makes threads easier to follow. "Mincing words" and "What language did you think we spoke before 1st contact, english?" are what I mean by insults. Now back to the issue. It isn't whether it is true or not that is in question, no one is questioning the fact that Kraft is considered an expert, the issue is about what we call puffery. I note that yet another editor has posted to the article talk page with links to puffery. We need to be careful that we aren't telling readers that one author is right and the other is wrong. As I've said elsewhere, we want to avoid a situation where we have "notable author x says y, not very notable author a says b, and dubious author c says d". What is wrong with Fat & Happy's wording? Dougweller (talk) 05:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be satisfactory.. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramapoughnative (talk • contribs) 00:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I think we can put this to bed. Ramapoughnative and I hope to work together to improve the article. Dougweller (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Greenwashing and bias in BP article?

Hi there, Would anyone here be willing to add their 2 cents at the BP article? It appears to me that there is 'greenwashing' in the intro and editors are unwilling to allow a more neutral read.

This is my change which was labeled POV:

BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence.

In 1997 the company became the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change, and in that year established a company-wide target to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases. BP currently invests over US$1 billion per year in the development of renewable energy sources, and has committed to spend US$8 billion on renewables in the 2005 to 2015 period. By comparison, BP invested $8.5 billion in exploration and production of fossil fuels in the year 2001.

This what how it looked before:

BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence. In 1997 it became the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change, and in that year established a company-wide target to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases. BP currently invests over US$1 billion per year in the development of renewable energy sources, and has committed to spend US$8 billion on renewables in the 2005 to 2015 period.

To me it is obvious that to mention only the investments in green energy and to be unwilling to mention (the vast majority of BP's) investments in petrol is classic greenwashing in on no way neutral. These stats for BP's petrol investments were the only ones I could find in a pretty exhaustive search online. However, there is an employee of BP who is giving suggestions for the article, he might be willing to help with those numbers. Secondly, the statements about green energy appear tacked on to the "BP has been involved in..." as a rebuttal. It makes no sense for these unrelated statements to even be in the same paragraph, unless in fact some editors do want this page to make BP look good. petrarchan47c 22:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, is the link to discussion. petrarchan47c 22:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC) You might take note also that the editor who favors the more biased (imo) paragraph is also taking direct suggestions from a BP employee on how to improve the article. petrarchan47c 22:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

IMO the statement about the amount BP spends on exploration of fossil fuels puts its monetary amount spent for renewable energy in proper perspective. I agree that the sentence should be added. Otherwise undue weight is given to its renewable energy efforts.Coaster92 (talk) 04:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Do editors here also take these opinions to the discussion page of the articles in question? I am wondering how this works, as the editors on the BP page don't quite see things this way.petrarchan47c 04:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

This is #4 from this page, above: "Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Give a link here to that discussion, and the final answer to your question will be posted there where other users can read the result." Hopefully, some other editors will give their feedback here and you can take a summary back to the article talk page.Coaster92 (talk) 05:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

That is most helpful, thanks.petrarchan47c 06:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Cynthia Tucker bio

http://en.wikipedia.org/Cynthia_Tucker

This sentence from the Cynthia Tucker entry requires little consideration before being removed:

"She blogs regularly but no one reads her drivel"

Further in the article, her characterization as a "radical leftist" is very debatable by anyone familiar with her writing. This sentence should be edited to include "considered by some" or be completely rewritten to reflect an objective POV.

No need to respond, I am not engaging in discussion. I am simply trying to report this & I do not see a simple place to do so.

Thank you (whoever) for your effort and consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.251.111.130 (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Those cracks were inserted two weeks ago and have now been undone, possibly because of your nudge. —Tamfang (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Soka Gakkai

Personally I am trying to stay clear to edit the article on Sōka Gakkai ... I am not sure if I can be called unbiased anymore, but the latest edits got rid of basically all critical views on this organisation ... could someone look into that? --Catflap08 (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

David Irving

I find it hard to believe that the article on David Irving meets WP:NPOV by any stretch. I tried putting the not-NPOV tag on it, but it was quickly removed. In part because I did not provide a list of specific things that make it clearly NPOV. This is due in part to the fact that the NPOV issues with the article will be *obvious* to anyone who has read it- and because the Talk Page and Talk Page history are filled with examples of NPOV objections (which went unresolved.)

I am neither pro nor anti-Irving, per se. But after reading the article I was left with the strong impression it was one of the least "balanced" and "fair" articles I'd read in some time. I'm listing this here so any fair-minded editors/admins can take a look at the page and decide for themselves whether they think it meets Wikipedias WP:NPOV stance. (Especially enough for it to qualify as a "Good Article".) Emeraldflames (talk) 03:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The article appears to reflect the preponderance of scholarly opinion. You would need to specify your concerns, because they are non obvious. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you Emeraldflames. That whole sector of Misplaced Pages en is biased and written and controlled by opponents of the groups and living people. Here is a list of the contributors if you want to investigate. There is no chance to do anything about it through editing, I suggest promotion in the public realm of the sector balance might be a better solution than attempting to edit it. It is impossible to write an informed neutral article about such contentious people or groups under English Misplaced Pages's current guidelines. The policies and guidelines are not strong enough to stop people coming to attack them, and such people have a lot of opponents, so rather than write a neutral informing article about the person , their opponents want to use the Wiki project to attack them - and that is what is happening in this sector - as happened in the climate change sector and the new religious movements sector and anything "fringe" - any attempt to correct the content bias is lengthy and massively disruptive and rises to Wp:arbitration before it is dealt with.Youreallycan 04:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Fifelfoo, it is difficult for me to believe that anyone who has read that article believes it is even remotely fair and balanced. But I'll assume good faith.

Re: Youreallycan, I'm relatively new to Misplaced Pages, but what you said was the impression I've been forming. Especially after reading the Talk History of the article, I realized that my attempting to edit it would be pointless. I figured the only other thing I would do was to list it here and on the "Good Article" forum. (Although, I think it violates WP:BLP as well.) Thanks for your feedback. Emeraldflames (talk) 06:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I eagerly await your analysis of how and why the article fails to meet our policy. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I can't see how one could 'balance' his stuff like the TV stations try to do. At least with Hitler you could say he got people working and developed industry and patronised a style of art and architecture and patted little children on the head sometimes. What's there to say about David Irving that would make the article more 'neutral'? Dmcq (talk) 09:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages requires that even Satan get a neutrally worded article - which means Irving is worse off than Satan. Saying :we can;t find anything good to say about him at all" or the like is a direct statement that NPOV is allowed to be ignored. It isn't. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Irving is notable for his engagement with historical writing. The preponderance of scholarly opinion regarding Irving's engagement with historical writing has a clear and overwhelming opinion, and the WEIGHT to hold such a view, and the article we have seems to present this opinion. As Collect observes, we don't get to debate the value NPOV here (major policy reviews happen elsewhere). The article presents and centrally weights the key and singular scholarly view regarding Irving, just as required by NPOV. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

A good number of the editors of the article have made statements consistent with great disdain for the person on the Talk pages- and it certainly shows in their work. It shouldn't take much beyond the first sentence to see how overwhelmingly POV/hostile the editors are to the subject.

Let's just take the first three paragraphs: The editors have decided that a)he's not even a historian (some say he's not- others say he is- that isn't for WP to decide whether sources say it or not), b) that he denies the Holocaust (which is an apparent oversimplification of his actual position- and something the subject has denied. Again, not WP's job to decide that, whether sources say it or not.)

Surely his positions on the holocaust deserve a special section, since a lot of notoriety was created from that. A criticism section is obviously justified. But the entire article is almost singularly *devoted* to his controversial views on the Holocaust. And it does it *over* and *over* and *over* again. Just about every section is colored by it.

I don't know this subject terribly well, but based on some of the discussions in the Talk page history, it seems like- apart from his views on Jews- his historical work and expertise have been established. There are also plenty of examples in the Talk Page history of other criticisms of the objectivity of the article. Emeraldflames (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

So you don't know the subject well, but you claim to have mastered the current scholarly opinion on Irving's work sufficiently to criticise the article's correct implementation of NPOV. Misplaced Pages follows the preponderance of scholarly views, and dismisses FRINGE claims. People that suppose that Irving is a historian hold fringe views. This view may change, the position that Irving is not a historian has changed from the early 1970s, but the article reflects the current scholarly consensus; which is its obligation under NPOV. You seem to have a problem with our NPOV policy, the correct place to discuss major policy change is the village pump. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I know enough to know that some of your characterizations aren't true. For example, I checked online and have seen many mainstream (not fringe by any means) sources refer to him as a controversial historian. That's just one point though- there are numerous other issues with the article. But this isn't a battle that is worth fighting to me. The article is what it is. Emeraldflames (talk) 02:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The standard for scholarly articles is the current scholarly view; not newspaper characterisations. The Lipstadt trial, and its reception by the community of historians, is a clear and overwhelming indication of Irvings current professional status. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I really don't understand this claim that the non-neutrality is supposed to be "obvious". Neutrality is defined by the major points of view taken toward a subject by reliable sources. Unless you expect everyone to be familiar with the mainstream literature that reviews Irving and his work, I don't see how whatever you see is going to be obvious. I mean, of course it is obvious that the point of view of the article is decidedly anti-Irving, but if that's the only significant viewpoint, then it's the neutral one as well. We're not going to sugarcoat the article and hand Irving a lollipop because the big bad historians were mean to him. If you think there is a significant viewpoint that is neglected by the article, or that the mainstream viewpoint is misrepresented, then it's your job to show that. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality means that articles reflect how subjects are reported in reliable sources. Generally mainstream sources say very little good about people who promote far right fringe views and find themselves imprisoned and deported or barred from liberal democracies for their activities. However, for this discussion to go forward, you need to provide specific examples. TFD (talk) 04:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

A neutral point of view ought to be maintained *regardless* of how a subject is reported in reliable sources. The point of view of the article should *not* be decidedly anti-Irving. And there are quotations that others had wanted to add to the article that were more sympathetic to Irving which were denied. This was one of them:

Emeraldflames (talk) 06:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Emerald, what do you think neutrality is? I get this feeling that when I say neutrality and when you say neutrality, we are actually talking about different things. Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Neutrality isn't about being kind, or balancing "bad" opinions with "good" opinions. That's a writing strategy for journalists with no spines. But regarding the Judge's comment, can you link to the discussion that decided it would be excluded? Someguy1221 (talk) 07:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly! WP:NPOV does not mean we have to go out of our way to treat somebody nicely, or to pretend that their views are rational or backed by the facts, when the overwhelming preponderance of evidence is to the contrary. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Emerald: I’m not clear what the problem is either, as far as neutrality is concerned.

The article starts by saying Irving “is an English writer”, “best known for his denial of the Holocaust, who specialises in the military and political history of World War II, with a focus on Nazi Germany”; that “His work on Nazi Germany became controversial because of his sympathy for the Third Reich, antisemitism and racism” and that “He has associated with far right and neo-Nazi causes”.

That seems pretty accurate, and a "fair, proportionate and unbiased" description of the man. What exactly is the problem?

It is hardly a breach of neutrality if an article on a con-artist says "x was a con artist" (viz) or one on a serial killer saying "y was a serial killer" (viz); why is this one un-neutral for describing Irving in the way it does? If that is what he is notable for, then that is what the article will (and should!) say.

And why is it an admin issue? If you have specific concerns about neutrality they should be discussed on the article talk page, preferably (seeing as the issues are self-evidently not self-evident to the majority of people reading this) by responding to the request for specific issues and suggestions. Xyl 54 (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The inclusion of various incidents of discrimination/intolerance against Christians in Israel in regards to NPOV

The article on Anti-Christian Sentiment concerning Israel was recently rewritten to sound more like an apologist essay replete with WP:OR statements including reduced numbers and minimized frequency of incidents. One editor in particular has shifted NPOV significantly with her/his contributions. I have since tried to find a compromise and get the article back to encyclopedic standards. An RfC has also been opened. Feedback from a broad background of editors would be greatly appreciated in stating how NPOV can be achieved.

Here is a reference of the most significant edits concerning this:

• The article previous to Avaya1's initial changes here

• Avaya1's original edit here

• My first edit here

• My second and final edit seeking compromise with Avaya1 and trying to reinstate WP:BALANCE here

• How the section reads today here

The discussion is currently taking place on the article Talk page:Anti-Christian Sentiment#Israel.

Thanks for any and all participation. Veritycheck (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Rich Nugent

I have edited parts of the Rich Nugent page, but was still looking to see if I can could get another opinion on this one, Nugent's page reads like someone who is a supporter of his has written it, I've removed some unnecessary detail that was on there but this really needs a look at by the board. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Americium-con (talk • contribs) 02:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, where to begin. The article reads like a promo or campaign ad for Nugent and needs to be rewritten with a more neutral tone.Coaster92 (talk) 05:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

A user just cleaned a lot of the article up - see here. I think that it is better now because of recent attention. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Feminazi

A couple of editors are insisting that the term feminazi is not comparing feminists to Nazis. The rest of us think that's absurd, but User:Paul Barlow, one of them, just removed a link to reductio ad hitlerum from the article, calling it unsupported. I feel that when you call your opponents "nazis" you have committed the reduction ad hitlerum by definition; but wish to get some outside input on this before we get into a real edit war. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• This is the edit in question: . I deleted it because it was original research. If there's a source for the claim that the term is a form of reductio ad hitlerum then let's see it, and restore the sentence to the article (sourced). The Sound and the Fury (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I added two good sources to the talk page thread. Let's see how that goes for the article's editors. Binksternet (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Orange Mike is completely misrepresenting the issue. 'Feminazi' is a comic-polemical portmanteau word design to piss-off feminists. It does even apply to all feminists, only those deemed extreme. So it is not comparing feminists as such to Nazis at all, but alleged hard-liners among them. My argument is that this is the same as many other similar expressions, such as “health Nazi” or “fashion Nazi”, which refer to alleged extremists with dictatorial inclinations in those areas. No one doubts that this involves a comparison to Nazis. But the argument is that this is not an example of the Reductio ad Hitlerum, a logical fallacy in which a particular point of view is condemned because it was shared by Nazis. It's as absurd as saying that “fashion Nazi” is a Reductio ad Hitlerum, and then 'disproving it' by expaining that in fact the Nazis had no special interest in haute couture. Even leaving aside the obtuse humourlessness of such an argument, that would be actually the opposite to the Reductio, comparable to Steinem's quoted words on the page (i.e. 'we are not Nazis because our views are quite different', whereas as the Reductio depends on sharing some views). Of course if you can find a source that says it is an example of Reductio, it can be included and attributed, though it would remain my personal view that this is a logical error and misuse of the concept. Whatever the case, it is not the case that "when you call your opponents nazis" you have "committed the reductio" by definition. That only applies to a particular type of logically fallacious comparison, not to any comparison. Paul B (talk) 08:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree, but going further than that, I think that it is using a newer meaning of the word "nazi", (which arose from but isn't Hitler Nazism) e.g. from dictionary.com "a person who is fanatically dedicated to or seeks to control a specified activity, practice, etc." North8000 (talk) 12:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Ought we redact Soup Nazi etc.? The modern use of the word is much broader than the WW II use now, whether we approve or nay. I certainly think it may be objectionable, but on a Misplaced Pages scale - it passes. Collect (talk) 12:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

What strikes me is that the line in question is part of the "Criticisms" section of the article. At the moment it is an unattributed criticism - which means it is being made in Misplaced Pages's voice. That is a POV problem... Misplaced Pages should not criticize anything in its own voice. Instead, we should neutrally report on the criticism of others. This is done by attribution. In other words, we need to tell the reader who objects to the term as being a "Reductio ad Hitlerum". Blueboar (talk) 12:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

First of all, even if original research were allowed on Misplaced Pages, the claim that feminazi is an example of reductio ad Hitlerum would be problematic. That is because examples of reductio ad Hitlerum are necessarily association fallacies. But that is not even relevant here, since original research is not permitted on Misplaced Pages. Therefore, whether the claim should be made in the article is not issue of neutrality, but of original research (Misplaced Pages:No original research/Noticeboard#Reductio ad Hitlerum). --Joshua Issac (talk) 19:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, this can be resolved through attribution. I would assume someone outside of Misplaced Pages has complained that the term is an example of "reductio ad Hitlerum" (and if not, then mentioning it would be giving this complaint UNDUE weight). Blueboar (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

We got there in the end. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian race controversy

This is an article under ArbCom sanctions. It was split from a larger article (which covers modern scholarship on this subject) and states at the top of the page "Please note: this is not the article for discussing actual evidence pointing either way in this debate. This is a "history of controversy" article: please discuss it in this way, bearing in mind academic consensus, this is not a referendum on Afrocentrism or Eurocentrism." When you edit it, there is a yellow message above the edit window that says "Please note: this is not the article for discussing actual evidence pointing either way in this debate. This is a "history of controversy" article: please discuss it in this way, bearing in mind academic consensus, this is not a referendum on Afrocentrism or Eurocentrism."

An editor with no previous edits arrived at it a few days ago and made major changes which were basically arguments about the "actual evidence pointing either way in this debate" and if they belong anywhere belong in Population history of Egypt. Attempts to discuss these on the article talk page and at WP:DRN have resulted in statements saying that the editors disagreeing with him are bullies, censors, etc although I and another editor have tried to explain the problems (I don't want to focus on editors' behavior, just pointing out that it is because of this behavior that am bringing this here). Last night the editor reinstated his version saying it should stay pending discussion. I was about to bring this here when that was reverted, so I want to discuss his earlier version and get more input. His version is at .

The first obvious thing is the use of quoteboxes. Our not-guideline on this says, correctly I believe, "As a matter of style, quoteboxes should generally be avoided as they draw special attention to the opinion of one source, and present that opinion as though Misplaced Pages endorses it." I haven't done much editing of this recently, but even before his edits there was too much use of quoteboxes (I'd remove most if not all of them), and his use of them in the lead and in the section on Modern scholarship made this worse and are, I and the other editor on the talk page, being used to push a pov as well as being in the wrong article.

Leaving aside the use of a block quote in the lead, he uses them heavily in his addition to the Modern scholarship section. This section starts with a paragraph stating:

"Since the decisions of the UNESCO Conference of 1974 several authoritative Encyclopedic references have made conclusive statements on the "race" of the ancient Egyptians based on contemporary research, which disputes those earlier claims. The 1984 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica concludes that the Negroid element of Egypt was stronger during predynastic times."

Misplaced Pages articles should clearly not be claiming that there are any 'conclusive statements' on a subject which is still disputed (and complex). There's an RS issue about Britannica which I may bring up at RSN, so we don't need to discuss that there, but the use of a blockquote from it is I believe not appropriate in any case.

The rest of his addition here is basically blockquotes. I can't see how an exhibition at the Fitzwilliam can be a conclusive reference to anything, but he firmly states that it represents mainline scholarship.

He also introduces a large blockquote about the introduction of sheep. It looks to me as though the original use of that source from the National Georgraphic wasn't accurate in that it doesn't seem to say what it is referencing, and I'll look at that and fix it if needs be shortly, but the blockquote was at best overkill in an article about the history of the controversy, which it doesn't mention at all.

I'm going to take the liberty of adding a post from Wdford on this subject: "SirShawn, the material in the "population history" article is all relevant here, as a "modern hypothesis", because there is still controversy and a lack of consensus among 'scholars". However this article was spilt a while ago, because it was getting too big. The basis of the spilt was decided - with much acrimony – to be along the lines of a “history of the debate” article and a “modern scholarship” article. It’s a bit arbitrary, but a split had to be made. "In line with wikipolicy, the “modern scholarship” section in the “history” article is thus just a very brief summary, with a clear link to the other article for those who are interested. Lovell etc are mentioned in the “modern scholarship” article already, as is the discussion about languages, skeletal proportions, DNA analysis etc etc. The short summary is supposed to be short, but you have been adding lengthy quotes (which co-incidentally all support a certain POV) while leaving out the huge corpus of scientific study which doesn’t support this viewpoint. Feel free to add your Lovell quote at the appropriate section of the “modern scholarship” article, alongside the info that contradicts her, but we don’t need to duplicate material across the two articles."

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

These are the edits that I've proposed to add

Let me first start off by saying that every single contribution that I have made to that article are as mainstream and contemporary as it gets in regards to this discussion. In the modern scholarship section of the article I have added in the official statements of the "Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt", "The Encyclopedia of Archaeology of ancient Egypt", University of Manchester, "National Geographic" (which in itself cites a dozen scholars for their statements), and the Encyclopedia Britannica. The issues that several posters are having is that every one of these modern authorities have pretty much plainly come out in the support of the "black African" theory in regards to ancient Egypt. Their rejection of these sources is clearly a reflection of their own biased. Doug has attempted to argue that the contextualized (in terms of the social concept of "race" which is relevant to the article itself) statements by every one of those authoritative sources belongs in an article which is supposed to deal with individual studies dealing with strictly with biology and culture ("Population history" article). The population history section is dealing with conflicting individual studies, and almost none of which deal with "race" in the social sense. Doug is also hypocritical on what he perceives the purpose of the article to be. He states that it is somehow only to reflect the "history" of an on-going debate, while simultaneously acknowledging a section of the article devoted to MODERN scholarship and disputing the inclusion of the most MODERN and accepted theories in regards to Egypt's origins TODAY.

Interestingly enough another issue with the article is that a blatant lie in regards to a claim that modern Egyptians are "90%" genetically identical to ancient Egyptians is cited by a source that does not state it anywhere in the link. This claim prior to my contributions was posted THREE TIMES throughout the article (clearly a POV). Now why should that original research be repeated throughout the article, yet the contextualized (keyword) statements dealing with race of the Fitzwilliam, Oxford, Manchester, Britannica ect be excluded? It's makes absolutely no sense.

Another issue is that they are saying that my sources are basically biased to support my POV. Well is it at all possible that one particular POV is well...where the facts lay in regards to this issue? If not, then why not simply cite another modern institute of the same academic integrity (as the Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, Encyclopedia of Archaeology of ancient Egypt ect) which opposing contextualized statements? If it's really that much of a dispute amongst modern scholars shouldn't it be easy to cite other recent views, rather than censor the one side to make it appear as though no decision has been reached? Clearly there are emotional attachments to this issue, and imo anyone who wishes to censor any of those top notch sources should not be taken seriously.

One poster (WDford) attempted to say that somehow argue that including these sources were a POV because they were cited "Afrocentric" scholars. When I pretty much debunked that assertion (see the talk page), he nor anyone else responded.

As evident by the talk page these users aren't trying to be logical in their decisions. They are emotionally attached to certain ideas, and are simply trying to bully their views into place with a so called "consensus" to be unreasonable.SirShawn (talk) 21:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I think SirShawn's stuff is inappropriate for that article and should be in Population history of Egypt, And even there something should be done about removing the big quotes. Basically I agree with Dougweller that the split of the articles should be respected.

However I think the Ancient Egyptian race controversy would be helped by a bit of revision to make its scope clearer. The position of modern scholarship should be put at the very start and be more clearly a summary of part of the population history of Egypt article. The title 'Specific current-day controversies' is a bit strange, 'Current controversies' would be shorter. The history section could go at the end as it is historical. Dmcq (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Shen Yun Performing Arts

This edit is being disputed, on the grounds that my removal "Basically calling into the question the editorial independence and integrity of the newspaper without evidence.". I'd just like to establish whether a performance write-up, not a review and not sold as such, should be used to endorse a glossy description of a performance. I mean, is it sufficiently reliable or neutral to be used in this manner; or ought it to stay go? --Ohconfucius 03:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution