Jump to content

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 35

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37→Archive 40

Abdullah Al-Sha'ab

The section on the attack of the mausoleum needs more de-POVifying. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 03:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Pope Julius III

I have voiced concern that the Pope Julius III article givews too much weight to rumours and should focu on the scandal involving the Cardinal-nephew more. I attempted to add a tag, but three editors would immediately remove the tag, stating that my concerns were "wrong and everyone says so". Given that the tag was removed o quickly, it would never allow other editors to join in the dicussion, and I take offense to the notion that any concerns about nuetrality would be described so harshly to an eidtor. One editor claimed to be an admin, and the admin went on to say that if I continued to voice my concerns I could be blocked {"I will make sure you are blocked temporarily edit-warring and disruptive editing"), and further seemed to epress the notion that as an admin his opinion mattered more ("you have been told by a number of editors, one of whom an administrator (me), that you were wrong") and seems to look at newer editors with disdain ("I understand that the combination of zeal and only 134 edits can lead to this"). So I found this page ad hope someone can perhaps help voice my conerns without further threats.

The article quotes, or at least purports to quote, several authors and contemporaries of the pontiff. I have some concerns of this as they are all English quotes given in the article and some of the authors are German and the contemporaries are Italian, German and French. These quotes, many of which are written by enemies of the Pope or the Church, are weaved into the sentences as though they were undisputed fact. While many have questioned the relationship between Pope and Cardinal-nephew, there are just as many doubts. This is evident as many of the contemporary rumours contradict one another, it is a known fact that the Cardinal-nephew was having affairs with woman that came to the Papal Court, and usually a man interested in 14year olds (the age the Pope first met the Cardinal-nephew) is not inteested in 20-somethings (the age that the Cardinal-nephew was reciveing the many gifts and papal offices). It may simply have been a childless uncle showering his adoptive nephew with gifts since he would have no children of his own. Either way, it looked bad, and the incident was used against the Church quite effectively--and this point should be the focus of the section, not the quotes about unproven rumour. I am not saying remove all of it, but simply not to put undue weight with it. Sentences that refer to the pope's "sodomitical affairs" are way out of line. Bellae artes (talk) 08:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know my concerns had a shelf-life of only an hour before they could be romoved, nor did I think that a discussion about Julius III was to consist of an editor and his two buddies telling me I am clearly wrong and calling me an idiot. But as I grow more experienced, I will expect such in the future. Thank you for these lessons. Bellae artes (talk) 09:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
We've tried to be constructive in listening to your concerns and trying to take account - but when you refer to "an editor and his two buddies" you really let yourself down. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Oregon Petition suffers from NPOV, poor sources, rambling

This article repeats unverifiable claims as true and has citations that are circular. 76.21.107.221 (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Contrary to the instructions at the top of this page, this supposed issue has not been opened at Talk:Oregon Petition. For that and the other evident deficiencies this complaint should be rejected as premature and incomplete. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

la convivencia

user "gun powder ma" is blatantly violating npov on the convivencia-page. he/she wrote a *huge* criticism-section using 3 sources, fernández-morera, mark cohen and bernard lewis. i dunno anything about fernández-morera but cohen and lewis are misused as their views are much more nuanced. cherry-picking of quotes is against our guidelines: "editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. as such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all notable and verifiable points of view". and further: "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". thus, it is required of "gun powder ma" to edit in a neutral manner.

also, content from criticism-sections should be integrated into to the main text, as criticism-sections are highly pov-loaded. but wait... there is *no* main text. the page just has a lead and a huge criticism-section! a criticism-section written by "gun powder ma" himself/herself, where he/she has used cherry picked quotes. the academic consensus regarding the issue is clear: the la convivencia period was progressive (although not an utopia), when compared to other contemporary christian/non-christian regimes of the time. he's also involved in original research because he's adding historical incidents, by random, that has nothing to do with "criticism of the concept". to makes matter worse, he is trying to edit-war a "segregation-section on the "islam-in-europe"-page.[1] user:gun_powder_ma has no intentions to contribute in a neutral manner.-- altetendekrabbe  05:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Catch your breath. All three authors are faithfully cited. The article by Fernández-Morera is even available online, so anybody check this anytime. The only reason why the criticism section seems comparatively long is because this article has been a small stub for the longest time and only recently expanded. But this will pass once the pro view is also added. There is no WP policy which requires pro views to be added temporarily prior to contra views. You are very much welcomed to add such views of Al-Andalus as a "tolerant" society, but crudely 'balancing' articles by removing entire sourced sections is not in order. As an aside, uninvolved users should note that altetendekrabbe is currently bounded to 1RR, so he may see overly agitated reports here as a kind of substitute for (constructive) editing/reverting. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
While in principle the response here is correct - that balance might come through adding more content rather than disallowing anything critical at all and that each editor is not necessarily obliged to add balancing material themselves - equally there are a number of problems. As noted, the page is now simply a lead and a large "criticism" section - the latter being the above editor's sole contribution to the page - and that's it, which would be bad enough for a page on a topic where that genuinely could be said to reflect reality. The main source they have relied on to build that section - 18 out of the 21 footnotes in that part of the page - is this paper, which, while seemingly with half-decent academic credentials, is published by an organisation that nonetheless would appear to have something of an agenda on this sort of issue. That paper itself freely acknowledges in the first paragraphs that in standard, mainstream thinking, there is a broadly positive appraisal of La Convivencia - albeit it goes on to say that it wishes to debunk that "myth". N-HH talk/edits 09:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
thanks for your very good and astute observation! the criticism-section should be reduced to a few sentences or so. fernandez morera represents a non-neutral and fringe view and bernard lewis has been quoted *totally* out of context (he doesn't mention the "la convivencia" at all). although the view of mark cohen is more nuanced than what gunpowderma is able to represent, some lines from cohen might still be ok in the criticism-section.-- altetendekrabbe  17:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I think there's space within the topic for a section or content that says "However, the mainstream view has been challenged by writers such as ..." and which then goes on to offer some attributed criticism, with a line or two given to a couple of examples - as there is in the current version. We shouldn't be uncritically accepting received wisdom or excluding opposing views from WP articles, but a contribution that simply throws in a massive "Criticism" section, based pretty much solely on lengthy, mostly unattributed details from one, partisan pamphlet/paper - which the same editor has been mining in similar ways on other, related pages - speaks of an agenda. Fernandez Morera could maybe get a sentence added to the current paragraph, noting that he specifically sets his views out as non-mainstream; and the preceding material could do with expansion from more positive commentators. Anyway, I'd better drop out of this as I seem to have upset the editor in question. N-HH talk/edits 08:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

This edit is highly problematic. I don't even think there is any serious debate that Jews weren't treated better under Islam than they were in Christian Europe, I have never heard any Jews or Europeans make that claim before. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

i totally agree with eraserhead1. i have now removed the fringe content added by user:gunpowderma.-- altetendekrabbe  19:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Accusation of POV re Suetonius on Christians

I have been at loggerheads with an editor for two weeks. I have been to AN/I in an effort to deal with what I considered disruptive editing. I was set straight that it was a content dispute. I have asked a few times on this noticeboard for help regarding WP:DUE, but to no avail. Today the other editor has attempted to use tags to discredit the material I have placed in the article. First he used template:Connected contributor after it was shown to be inappropriate, the editor tried template:COI. This time I went to the "conflict of interest noticeboard" and a third editor came and removed the template. All along the talk page has been a constant flow of accusations, which spill over to my talk page. Now the editor has tried another tag to discredit the material, this time he has marked a section with the template:POV. Can I get a ruling on this use of the POV template, please? This seems to me to be an editor out of control. -- spincontrol 18:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there is no reason for getting upset over a POV tag. They are placed on articles all the time and need to be discussed. And clearly WP:AGF must be exercised. As I had stated, the name of a single "minority view" author (Slingerland) appears 15 times within the article, and seems tilted to me, in that Slingeland has been accepted as a minority view above on this page by yourself when you called him the contrary view. There is agreement that his views are minority views - as confirmed in Van Voorst's book, pages 31-32. Van Voorst states that Slingerland and Benko are the two voices that go against the majority view - and that Benko is the better one. So if Slingerland is the minority view, why are references to him dominating the page? That is a valid question in my mind given the WP:Due issues. I think some other editors need to get to know the topic (if not already familiar with it) look up the majority/minority view issues and see if there are POV issues. History2007 (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Yet again, you misunderstand WP:DUE for it doesn't deal with authors, but content. An author can support a majority view at one point and a minority view at another. Many of those references to peer-reviewed Slingerland articles (they are all from peer-reviewed articles) provide majority views, those of the Cassius Dio section and the Orosius section. Branding this author a "minority view" author is simply false and misleading. The conflictual section on Gallio where there are three references from his work is preceded by a contentless paragraph of meandering repetition, whose intent seems to be to provide the interpretatio christiana in weight of repeated opinion, the facts already provided by Slingerland. -- spincontrol 18:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I do not know what to say, given that you had already accepted the second paragraph as the "majority view" above on this page. And you had stated elsewhere that Slingerland "has the temerity" to go against the general scholarly views - and I said that means he is the minority. So the fact that he goes against the majority is accepted. The 15 mentions go along with his views. The minority view presented by him still dominates. That is the point. And regarding "the facts already provided by Slingerland", please see WP:V. But I will wait for further comments by others, if any, and not respond until then. History2007 (talk) 18:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I have appealed to this noticeboard three times for an independent voice on the conflict I've been involved with. Not a word. Is neutrality no longer of much concern? -- spincontrol 06:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I was not planning to type more here unless the discussion expanded, but recent edits to the article have required that I also place a tag on another section. As a general scenario for any page, assume there are 300 scholars in Group-A (the majority) and 100 scholars in Group-B (the minority). Assume that the Academic consensus has been established by WP:RS/AC and has been confirmed on the WP:RSN noticeboard - as has been the case for this article. Now, suppose 30 sentences from 30 minority scholars from Group-B begin to pile up in the article. They will just over-run the established Academic consensus and bury it. That is the situation in the article.
And the placement of opinions has been such that the majority view is getting trumped by tiny minority views. An example is this recent edit which directly placed the view of Francesco Carotta ahead of the majority view expressed by Louis Feldman. Feldman is a highly respected scholar, while Carotta's Wikipedia page calls his views "eccentric", "superficial", and "completely implausible" - right at the top; given that the basis of his theories is the assertion "Jesus = Caesar"! Moreover, the paraphrasing of the quotes is less than desirable from a NPOV aspect, e.g. Andrew Clarke actually says what the majority view is, but in the article that is called a "popular assumption", not the majority view, and the emphasis has been placed on some recent disputes. I could add 40 sentences from scholars from Group-A, but that is not the way Wikipedia articles are developed. Per WP:Due and WP:RS/AC the mainstream views need to be explained first, the minority disputes with less emphasis. The minority should not trump the majority view, and the article needs to smoothly clarify what the majority, minority and "tiny minority" items are, not throw sentences in a semi-random form that takes the focus away from the Academic consensus. History2007 (talk) 12:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I have recently added some authoritative views from classics scholars to act as a balance to the preponderance of the biblical scholars who are cited in the article. I moved the Carotta statement, which was originally inserted by another editor, out of the Latin text section as it involved an interpretation of Chrestus rather than the Latin text and placed it after a paragraph which starts with the opinion that "most scholars infer ...." -- spincontrol 12:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
It was placed before "Feldman states that most scholars assume that..." just look at it. But let us not bicker about details. I have expressed my view of the problems above. Louis Feldman is no apologist. He is a highly respected scholar. History2007 (talk) 12:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't really care that it is before Feldman. You've slapped a POV tag on because of a ridiculous piece of nitpicking. The Carotta statement follows this paragraph:
James D.G. Dunn states that most scholars infer that "Suetonius misheard the name 'Christus' (referring to Jesus as Christ) as 'Chrestus'" and also misunderstood the report and assumed that the followers of someone called Chrestus were causing disturbances within the Jewish community based on his instigation.[1] Andreas J. Köstenberger asserts that Suetonius had confused the name "Chrestus" with "Christus" and that he thought "Jesus was alive and in Rome at the time of the expulsion."[2] William L. Lane states that Suetonius' reference to the agitator displays a "notorius confusion" and indicates that Suetonius may have relied on contemporary records, without careful evaluation.[3] R.T. France says that the notion of a misspelling by Suetonius "can never be more than a guess, and the fact that Suetonius can elsewhere speak of 'Christians' as members of a new cult (without any reference to Jews) surely makes it rather unlikely that he could make such a mistake."[4] The term Chrestus (which may have also been used by Tacitus) was common at the time, particularly for slaves, meaning good or useful.[5] William L. Lane states that while Chrestus was a common name among Roman slaves at the time it was not a common Jewish name.[3] Van Voorst states that the name Chrestus is never found among Jewsh inscriptions in Rome.[6]
The "interpretatio Christiana" is quite in evidence well before Signor Carotta. Why not just have a separate Carottid section. Then you could slap all sorts of wonderful tags over it. -- spincontrol 12:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
There is probably no need for us to copy large sections the article here. The tag I placed was for the overall issues in that section, not just that edit - which however exemplified the latest problems, as well as the Group-A Group-B sentence selection issues as well as the language used to paraphrase sources. I have explained the issues above. Now, I will again stop unless there are further developments. History2007 (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

A note here that based on this edit I have informed user:Doktorspin that given his use of profanities I can not engage in discussion with him. I have zero tolerance for profanity. Wikipedia editors should not be subject to fear of profanity-based retorts as they discuss content. History2007 (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

This Sarah Bernhardt act won't change the fact that he is a disruptive editor. See this edit for example, with the summary "That edit does not respresent the Novak source's "firm support" of the AD 49 date, as in the previous paragraph. Novak is in the majority view, not minority". I quote what Novak says on the talk page to show that History2007 didn't know what Novak said when he made the edit. He just doesn't understand the notion of "majority view", as he has demonstrated for the last week. It simply isn't about people but content. "Novak is in the majority view, not minority" is facile and a misconception. -- spincontrol 10:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I maintain that Novak firmly supports the AD 49 date along with the majority of scholars. But that is a "content issue" while your use of profanities is a "user behavior issue" that deserves a block on your account. History2007 (talk) 11:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

You can maintain whatever you like, except such disruptive editing. I fairly cited the source for what it says and you didn't even bother to check it out before you attacked it with a hatchet. You had decided that he was one of the good authors who agreed with your views. That's not how WP:DUE works. Novak might support the 49 CE date, but not everything he says is majority view. You are trying to use WP:DUE to enforce your views and you have gone to lengths to force them, including promiscuous use of tags to make accusations and reverts that remove good sources. That is disruptive. You clearly have ownership issues and you continue to harass me on my talk page. And you talk about behavior that deserves a block! -- spincontrol 19:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not agree at all, here is a link re ownership but no further comment at this time. History2007 (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Ownership is not about numbers. It's about using whatever means one can to maintain one's views in an article. -- spincontrol 22:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
As I said, I do not like to interact with you due to your use of profanities and breaches of WP:CIVIL. The policies are clear, both on ownership and civility. History2007 (talk) 23:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I welcome other editors, but I don't expect editors to chop good sourced material without even checking. -- spincontrol 23:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Rachel Corrie

The article Rachel Corrie is currently under constant attacks by POV pushers promoting far-right views, labelling her as "anti-semitic" and so on[2]. Most recently, User:Activism1234 removed Amnesty International's sourced reaction[3] to an Israeli court's actions, while adding numerous reactions of obscure bloggers, far-right fringe groups nowhere near Amnesty's notability.[4]. His edit also includes POV labelling of the UN Special Rapporteur, and removal of the obvious description of her as a peace activist (she is listed in the peace activist article). JonFlaune (talk) 17:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

JonFlaune has been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring on this contentious article. All I did was revert his edit, which removed referened content from media outlets like The Telegraph, becuase it didn't promote his POV. There are other examples of bad behavior JonFlaune has engaged in since then, but not necessary for here. --Activism1234 17:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The only edit warring is by you, as anyone can tell from your edit where you removes Amnesty International's sourced reaction while instead adding reactions of fringe groups. This is a case of you removing Amnesty International and sourced material from articles because you don't like it, nothing else. JonFlaune (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

To admins - JonFlaune, who filed this complaint, has just been blocked for 2 weeks for bad behavior on contentious articles and Wikihounding me. So this is pretty much pointless. Thanks. --Activism1234 17:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

HarrisMyCFO page looks like a company website!

Obviously some fans of [Harris MyCFO] thought it was funny to make the website look like a company webpage. They have the WORST fans of any major private bank, even worse than Coutts! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harris_myCFO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.255.174.217 (talk) 06:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The piece looks a little bit spammy, as is true of most articles of this genre, but it doesn't get my backhair up. Certainly not a "company webpage" per this complaint... Carrite (talk) 14:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship

Editor Zbrnajsem has accused me several times by name at Talk:Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship of dictatorially imposing my POV on the article. The article is about a fringe theory, and had severe weight issues which have been mostly resolved by the efforts of Tom Reedy, Paul Barlow, and myself over the past two months. Zbrnajsem has expressed the opinion that Oxfordism is not a fringe theory, that it should be given as much weight as the academic mainstream, and that he is being censored. I welcome any outside input. - Cal Engime (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

If anyone would try to read everything concerned, he/she would see that the above accusation is not correct. It is exaggerated. Besides this, Talk:Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship is a talk page. My opinion is that it is allowed to say freely what is one´s opinion on a talk page - especially a talk page of a theory connected with a social science - as long as the person who says this or that remains correct in tone etc. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I never used the words "dictatorially imposing (his) POV" in connection with User:Cengime. I did not write the following: that Oxfordism should be given as much weight as the academic mainstream, and that I, User:Zbrnajsem, am being censored. Besides this, "Oxfordism" is not a correct term. There is an article on Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship, so "Oxfordian theory" is the only correct term. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Sometimes it's referred to as "Oxfordism", sometimes as "Oxfordianism". As far as I am aware this is how they refer to themselves, just as they refer to mainstream scholars as "Stratfordians" and to other theories as "Marlovianism" etc. Thank you for saying what you did not write, however Cengime was attempting to summarise what he believed to be your views, not quote your exact words. Could you state what you do believe to be the problem. Paul B (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Balance at You didn't build that

Please see this diff here. In it the editor states:

Dude, unless the pro-Obama:pro-Romney ratio is about 9:1, it's wrong. Very, very few commentators support the Republican distortion of facts, and certainly no neutral commentators.

— Scjessey

This, in my humble opinion, is not keeping with NPOV. Additionally, although it is not something this noticeboard has preview over, the editor has been uncivil. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not clear what the issue is here. Perhaps you could elaborate? Editors are not obliged to achieve NPOV in their talkpage comments. Formerip (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The talk page is not what is contested regarding NPOV. However, the quote above is the opinion by the editor in what is their view of what NPOV means for the article which the talk page is for. I thought I would mention it here, as others have accused me of edit waring, and there has been tag team removal of my edits.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Scjessey's comment is spot-on. It's still not clear what exactly you want from this noticeboard. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
So it is the opinion of this administrator that the article should be unbalanced? Please see the article, and the talk page discussion. I have shown previously that the article is actually more critical of the Romney campaign and conservative commentators.
So if the majority want the article to be heavily skewed to be an anti-romney, anti-conservative article, it should be? Please help me to understand.
The reason why I brought this up here is if what this editor is suggesting is correct, it may lead to the article to (IMHO) be heavily non-neutral, and heavily weighted to be anti-one candidate, and pro-another candidate.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
(what "administrator" are you talking about?)
You misunderstood Scjessey's comment. Read it again: few commentators support the Republican claim; therefore, wikipedia will reflect that. In other words, if very many sources say X is true, and only a few say Z is true, then wikipedia will support X. That's all Scjessey is saying. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If, in this particular instance, reliable non-partisan sources come down harder on one politician than another, then our article should reflect that. That is balance: following the emphases of the best available sources.

Balance doesn't mean treating each political attack ad as inherently credible and relating a he-said-she-said of partisan commentatary. Balance means accurately and proportionately representing the best available independent, reliable sources. If non-partisan reliable sources view a politician's attack ad as deceptive, then we need to convey that view (attributed appropriately per WP:ASF) to the reader.

As an aside, you are edit-warring; you were recently blocked for doing so on this article, and you're up to at least 3 reverts already today as well. What you describe as a "tag team" might, in fact, be a consensus of editors disagreeing with you. MastCell Talk 21:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Scjessey is expressing an opinion about what kind of balance should be struck in terms of tone and text at the article. That balance is described at WP:NPOV as requiring the proper proportion. Scjessey says the proportion should be nine to one. Others might think it should be five to one, or perhaps fifty to one, but the crux is that the topic is very, very roughly treated by almost all observers. Voices that are friendly to the topic are in the great minority, and are identified as Romney promoters. The proper proportion is to weight the article against Romney supporters. Binksternet (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Thanks for the opinion. I contest with what that editor claim, that the views of commentators are primarily anti-one candidate, and have expressed that on the talk page.
Also please see my contention regarding my edits. I understand that there were editors during the AfD who did not want this article to exist, and I understand that I have been vilified by others.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The commenters here have correctly assessed the meaning of my comment. Wikipedia articles achieve neutrality by making sure they reflect the overall sense conveyed by reliable sources on their subject. Neutrality has nothing to do with giving "left" and "right" political views equal coverage, which sadly is the problem You didn't build that suffers from - largely due to the efforts of RightCowLeftCoast. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Equating opposition to Islam with prejudice, discrimination and irrational fear

Following a heated CFD in which a number of categories using the term Islamophobia were deleted, some editors seem presently determined to co-opt neutrally termed categories to denote opposition to Islam based on prejudice, discrimination and irrational fear. The two categories in question are:

All arguments so far have been presented in edit summaries, so see page history to assess the situation. Perhaps an opinion from this forum can set the appropriate perspective. __meco (talk) 09:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, I suggest all categories saying one is "opposed" to a religion per say should be deprecated as being intrinsically matters of opinion from others. Just as categorising people as being members of a religion should require self-identification, so should this sort of category - in fact the imperative should be greater here and encompass groups as well as individuals. Collect (talk) 10:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
You cannot equate opposition to something with prejudice or a phobia. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
It's not a medical phobia so that argument is invalid. The problem is that since the islamophobia catgeory was deleted these categories now have to do two jobs. 1) criticism of the religion and 2) hatred of it's adherents. // Liftarn (talk)
The fact that there are articles in this category that fit the description of prejudice, discrimination and irrational fear doesn't mean that the category as such can be placed into such categories. __meco (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
But that's exactly why Category:Islamophobia was deleted. Because that is handled by Anti-Islam (that actually originally was called Category:Islamophobia). Since the category is about islamophobia it should be properly categorised. If it is not, people will not be able to find it. // Liftarn (talk)
I think those categories are poorly named, what on Earth is "Anti-Islam"? I know what antiprotons are, but this is over the top. My suggestion would be "Criticism of Islam", and that wouldn't include the Crusades, which could fall under a category "Conflicts between Christians and Moslems". --Dailycare (talk) 10:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to categorise Anders Brevik under "criticism of Islam"? It would be accurate, but it doesn't seem very neutral. Formerip (talk) 11:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, anyone, I really mean anyone, except the far-right fringe, would describe Breivik, the counterjihad movement that he was part of, Jihad Watch etc. etc., as Islamophobic (the universally accepted term for hatred against Muslims), not "critics of Islam." That includes close to 100% of serious scholars and mainstream media, the EU, the UN etc. etc. Even the Anti-Defamation League and the Jerusalem Post have no problem with describing Breivik or these groups as Islamophobic, not "critics of (the religion of) Islam." There is a serious problem with WP:FRINGE views being pushed in various Islamophobia related articles and pages, which has already caused a Norwegian newspaper to report on how this issue is treated here (i.e. how extreme views are being pushed in order to portray Islamophobia as "legitimate criticism of Islam"[5]), and more press coverage could be forthcoming. JonFlaune (talk) 12:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, I'm not Norwegian so I don't know it better, but that Klassekampen newspaper ("The Class Struggle") itself seems to be the Communist newspaper, and atleast before aligned as Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, which itself is the other extremeist side just like the far-right that oppose Islam. So I don't think it's a very neutral view either. I supported the deletion of those categories, and atleast I have no sympathies with Breivik or any other mass murderer whatsoever, and I think you should stop using such claims that everyone who disagrees with your view in CfDs is a "far-right Breivik sympathizer". --Pudeo' 16:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I really think you should stop misrepresenting what other people write. I'm referring to what is the prevalent opinion in scholarship and mainstream sources regarding the term Islamophobia, and what newspapers write on the issue (Klassekampen is a centre-left, mainstream newspaper that receives state funding, that supports the incumbent Labour Party government, that hasn't been communist for decades, and not in any way "extreme"). We can't change the prevalent opinion (see WP:NOTCENSORED) because some Wikipedia editors, who are unable to cite any sources supporting their claims, don't like the prevalent opinion that is agreed upon by almost every single reliable source out there. The fact that some Wikipedia editors think Islamophobia should be renamed "Islamorealism", doesn't make this opinion that is unsupported by sources into an accepted mainstream opinion or anything else but a WP:FRINGE opinion. JonFlaune (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Obviously proposals like "Islamorealism" are nonsense, and I wonder if the person who suggested that is a troll. And that was a single newly-registered user. I haven't seen anyone defending Breivik here or the case about his Islamophobia. The issues in Talk:Islamophobia have been deeper. I don't know about Meco's motives (and are they of our business anyway?), but his arguments have been pretty rational. I don't like the edit war with the categories of categories though. I think the best debate has been indeed at Talk:Islamophobia, mainly by Jason from Nyc and Benjamil. --Pudeo' 19:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
A quick Google search easily shows that the person suggesting Islamorealism is a real person using his own full name and a highly active participant on a multitude of websites and in a multitude of organisations that are self-described parts of the "Counterjihad" movement, so I don't know why this person should be considered a troll. JonFlaune (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC) (for example, here is an article on the website Gates of Vienna referring to someone called Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff who is apparently a self-identified member of the Counterjihad movement and who was convicted of hate speech[6] and here is that same person protesting together with Sabaditsch-Wolff "for freedom and against Islamization of Europe".[7] The article says he is a member of this organisation: [8]). Also, Gates of Vienna recently had an article encouraging its readers to come and influence Wikipedia articles. JonFlaune (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't put Breivik under "criticism of Islam", and I don't think the project needs a separate category for persons like him, unless it's something broad enough to also receive Jeffrey Dahmer (who isn't now in any category). I would revise this opinion if it proves there is a cluster of more than ten or so articles devoted to issues around the "Counterjihad/Gates of Vienna" line of thinking. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 10:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
In fact we have dozens of articles relating to what one could call the "Counterjihad/Gates of Vienna line of thinking" (including articles on organisations, publications/blogs, incidents, theories, scholarship/scholars (such as Mattias Gardell) and more, as Islamophobia is a huge area of study), and many of them (surely a lot more than ten) were correctly categorized in the Islamophobia categories (compare Category:Antisemitism, Category:Homophobia etc.). But some people think Anders Behring Breivik, 2011 Norway attacks, Kach and Kahane Chai, Eurabia, Counterjihad, Gates of Vienna, Jihad Watch], English Defence League etc. etc. should be categorized as "opposition to Islam" (a WP:FRINGE point of view) instead of Islamophobia (=hatred/prejudice against Muslims), the mainstream point of view held by virtually all RS, and are more than happy to enforce their opinion, even against a clear policy-based consensus to keep the Islamophobia categories in line with conclusions already reached in its main article, in discussions regarding its template and more. JonFlaune (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, so the cluster of articles seems to exist. However if the "Islamophobia" category was just deleted, then obviously any new category shouldn't be called "Islamophobia". If no acceptable name can be agreed, then the new category simply shouldn't be created, IMO. Maybe the category could be called "Counterjihad ideology"? --Dailycare (talk) 08:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Ideally we would follow WP:CAT, i.e. "Topic categories are named after a topic (usually sharing a name with the Wikipedia article on that topic).", but an activist admin made that impossible. // Liftarn (talk)


Category:Anti-Islam and Category:Opposition to Islam

I must disagree with the notion that we have to pigeonhole everything in some binary manner. There is a vast continuum of negative responses to Islam from the benign philosophical disagreement to the vicious hatred by crazed fanatics. As I examine the categories and sub-categories there is diverse thought among the articles we have available. Still the material isn’t so great that reader can find thoughtful Criticism of Hadiths in the Criticism of Islam category (often by Muslims themselves) and yet still locate horrible crimes in the Persecution of Muslims article. If one is looking for a modern discourse on bigotry the article titled Islamophobia promises to deliver what the title suggests. Do we have to judge every person, organization, and written work? Clearly our job is not original research. Let the articles reflect the experts, their disagreement, and most importantly nuanced commentary. Just because a category covers a continuum, that doesn't not imply we are equating the benign with the vicious. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

As it is now we actually have nuisances. For "vicious hatred by crazed fanatics" we have Category:Anti-Islam (that is the equivalent of Category:Antisemitism) and for "benign philosophical disagreement" we have Category:Opposition to Islam (matching Category:Anti-Judaism). As they are two different subject we have two different categories. I agree that the naming of Category:Anti-Islam is not optimal as it can be misunderstood. // Liftarn (talk)
An examination of the categories and sub-categories in question doesn't support your categorization of them. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually it does. Please note that the categorisation is (or should be) according to what reliable sources say, not your personal opinions. // Liftarn (talk)
I don’t think you can keep this straight. Look at the entries in Category:Opposition to Islam and they are predominately about Islamophobia, not "benign philosophical disagreement"? Jason from nyc (talk) 14:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that "anti-Islam" and "opposition to Islam" are too hard to distinguish from one another. I can't distinguish them at all, and from my vantage point, those who make distinctions do so on absolutely tenuous grounds. We need to sort this out for all the anti religion categories, not just Islam. __meco (talk) 16:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the naming of the categories is confusing don't help the matter. That is why it's so important to have some kind of text describing the category and what it's supposed to be about. But some editors remove the description. // Liftarn (talk)
We remove your WP:POV descriptions inserted and re-inserted without consensus. The whole category Category:Opposition to Islam, that was just recently created, should be deleted. There is no Category:Opposition to Christianity, Category:Opposition to Judaism, or Category:Opposition to Catholicism. There is Category:anti-Christianity, Category:anti-Judaism, or Category:anti-Catholicism. Your recently created Category:Opposition to Islam is a bold POV split based on your POV notion that there needs to be two categories based on whether racism is or is not involved (see the descriptions you added to each). Jason from nyc (talk) 12:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
In what way are they POV? They are there to a) give a description of the category subject as described by experts in the field and b) help people navigating to the correct category. I have removed racism from the description and I hope the description can remain as such. What goes into what category and what the description should be, but as I understand it Category:Opposition to Islam is the equivalent of Category:anti-Christianity, Category:anti-Judaism and Category:anti-Catholicism (i.e. for criticism of the religion) while Category:Anti-Islam is the equivalent of Category:Antisemitism and should be renamed to Category:Islamophobia to avoid confusing people about the subject of the category. // Liftarn (talk)

Criticism? Now that you mention it there is a whole Category:Criticism tree. And there is already a category for criticism of Islam in that tree. Here's the tree with a sample of the sub-categories:

Category:Criticisms
Category:Criticism of atheism
Category:Criticism of religion
Category:Criticism of Islam
Category:Criticism of Judaism
Category:Criticism of Hinduism
Category:Criticism of Christianity
Category:Anti-Christianity
Category:Anti-Catholicism
Category:Anti-Protestantism
Category: Counter-Reformation
Category:Jesuit history

There is no need for Category:Opposition to Islam as a criticism category since there is one already just like other religions. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually there is a need for it as the category it is not (as the name might suggest) about opposition to a religion, but the hate of it adherents and their descendants. If we look at Category:Religious discrimination we correctly find parallel categories such as Category:Antisemitism. // Liftarn (talk)
If we look at the Category:Criticisms tree we see that the "anti-" categories are sub-categories of the criticism categories. The Category:Discrimination is orthogonal to the Category:Criticisms tree. The Category:Religious discrimination tree is not as well organized. Once again there is no "opposition" categories for most other religions. And no "racism against" sub-category for Christianity. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the category should be named "Islamophobia" rather than "Opposition to Islam" as the name obviously is confusing. As far as I know Christians have not been the target of racism. If so perhaps you should dig up some academic papers and start an article on the subject. // Liftarn (talk)
It should be deleted or merged into "anti-Islam"; like "anti-Christian" as it is about opposition to a religion or some aspect of the religion. If you want to write an article about racist attacks on Christians you can start with Armenian Genocide, Greek genocide, and Istanbul riots. Knock yourself out! Jason from nyc (talk) 01:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
No, it should be renamed into something sensible. I guess "Islamophobia" is out of the question so perhaps something like "Hate against Muslims", "Anti-Muslimism" or something could be acceptable. // Liftarn (talk)

Looking at the log at Category:Islamophobia shows that it was moved to Category:Opposition to Islam so the naming is even more fucked up than I thought. That means the naming of Category:Anti-Islam is indeed in line with Category:anti-Christianity, Category:anti-Judaism and Category:anti-Catholicism. My bad. I'll switch the descriptions around. // Liftarn (talk)

Heh. But actually per the CfD close it didn't make that kind of a distinction between the two categories. Opposition to Islam category was intended to be a collection of organisations and events that oppose Islam, the Islamophobic ones too (It superseded the "Islamophobia in X" categories). It seems Category:Criticism of Islam was forgotten in this discussion. That's where the most intellectual criticism of Islam should go. What describes "Opposition to Islam" category most may be that it's about active opposition to Islam such as groups and events by those groups. But I agree with Jason that it could just as well be in Anti-Islam because Criticism of Islam exists too. --Pudeo' 02:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think having academic debates and hate groups in the same category does anyone a service. // Liftarn (talk)

This is a universal problem with using "phobia" words as titles in cases where the proponents say that the term is not limited to actual phobias. The quest is to brand any opposition or concerns as "phobia" and then try to say that non-phobias can be included under the "phobia" term because the "phobia" term doesn't mean "phobia". Wikipedia should not be participating in these quests. More neutral and more widely accepted terms should be used as titles or headings for the covered or listed phenomena. North8000 (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not our job to redefine the English language. The widely accepted term is actually "islamophobia". // Liftarn (talk)
Your implied premise (that this is redefining the English language) is incorrect. Phobia terms when they admittedly cover non-phobias are controversial terms promulgated/promoted by some and opposed by others. Wikipedia should not be used to take and promote sides. More neutral and widely accepted terms are available for titles and IMO should be used instead of phobia terms for covering topics that are not phobias. North8000 (talk) 12:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
We should not redefine the language to invent words to replace generally accepted words because the word may be considered offensive by some. We should not call homophobia "criticism of the gay agenda", we should not call antisemitism "criticism of ZOG" and we should not call islamophobia "opposition to Islam". // Liftarn (talk)
The first paragraph of Islamophobia tells us the word is controversial. And we often use more generic descriptions for loaded phrases like pro-choice, which redirects to "Support for the legalization of abortion" and pro-life, which also redirects to a generic description. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
It's not clear why we need a category for "opposition to ..." We have Category:anti-Islam like we have Category:anti-Christianity and we have Category:Persecution of Muslims like we have Category:Persecution of Christians. In both cases we have one category for thought and another for actions. That covers it. It should be the same. Oh, wait, there a Category:Persecution by Christians but no Category:Persecution by Muslims. Hmmm. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Categories as Category:Homophobia and Category:Antisemitism clearly shows that Wikipedia isn't shy of using loaded terms so your argument falls flat. As for the rather strangely named Category:Opposition to Islam it is used for articles about islamophobia while Category:Anti-Islam is for opposition to and criticism of the religion. Category:Persecution of Muslims is a subcategory of Category:Opposition to Islam. // Liftarn (talk)
Homophobia is not about religion. As the article Antisemitism shows the word originated by those who viewed Jews as a separate race independent of religion. The comparison of Islam to Catholicism (or Christianity in general) is an "apple to apple" comparison as both are multi-racial religions. So let's stick with that comparison. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
As is readily evidence Category:Persecution of Christians is in the Category:anti-Christianity. The only reason we don't have Category:Persecution of Muslims in Category:anti-Islam is because you and other have created an duplicate category Category:Opposition to Islam while there is no such duplicates for Christians or Catholics. Category:Opposition to Islam should be merged into Category:anti-Islam because it is not needed for Islam just as it is not needed for Christians. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Homophobia (mentioned above) is another one where a more neutral title is needed, not a reason to not fix this one. Both here and there people fight for using that term because it brands mere opposition to their POV as being a "phobia", and then try to justify it by saying that the "phobia" term doesn't mean "phobia". In short, they fight for using the term BECAUSE "phobia" means "phobia" and try to justify it by saying that "phobia" doesn't mean "phobia" Wikipedia is not the place to try to further such quests. In both cases are using a highly disputed definition for something that has much more neutral wording available in order to pursue their cause of branding all opposition to their cause as a being a "phobia". North8000 (talk) 11:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Excellent point! Jason from nyc (talk) 11:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
And islamophobia is about people who view Muslims as unable to change, as a "race". // Liftarn (talk)
That's your point of view that you've been pushing for over seven years in this venue. PS why not date your comments? Jason from nyc (talk) 12:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
My point, as well as the point expressed in several reliable sources including a bunch of peer reviewed scientific journals. I think that is pretty much established as a fact. // Liftarn (talk)
Do you have an argument that does not require a tinfoil hat? // Liftarn (talk)

Biblical creation a myth?

On List of creation myths there seems to be a small scale edit war going on on the subject of whether Biblical creation should be included in the list of creation myths. But since it is the position held by hundreds of millions, if not billions, so as to comply with NPOV, it should not be included in the list of creation myths, even if it is a myth. Right?

Legolover26 (talk) 13:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't notice the edit war and replaced it. To decide that one creation myth is not really a creation myth would be pov. We either don't have the article at all because we can't call any of them myths, or we call them all myths. Many of them still have believers, we can't pick and choose. See The Oxford Companion to World Mythology By David Leeming [9], Biblical And Classical Myths: The Mythological Framework Of Western Culture By Northrop Frye, Jay MacPherson and many more (including some religious sources). Dougweller (talk) 13:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Doug, per WP:Equal validity, and on my own per some of the sources in our Christian mythology article (since it's usually my more fundamentalist brothers and sisters who object to the term). That some Christians object to the use of the word "myth" is a result of their misunderstanding the word "myth." A number of Christian theologians (including C.S. Lewis) readily accept a number of stories in Christianity as myths that are true. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I broadly agree with Doug and Ian here. I can see why believers might object but the scholarship decides the issue; I know of no scholarly source in which "myth" is synonymous with "falsehood". Haploidavey (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
All right, I accept the consensus. But why is Evolution not a myth? Legolover26 (talk) 01:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Because it doesn't meet the definition of myth? See mythology and wikt:myth. Science is a very different beast. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I would begin to say "Because evolution is backed by evidence that has been gathered, studied, published, and reviewed by the trained scientific community," but it isn't even that. Evolution is not a sacred narrative (well, except for Teilhard de Chardin, maybe), it's just a scientific explanation. It is no more a story than the theory of gravity, and accepting evolution bears no more religious implications that accepting heliocentrism (well, except for de Chardin for evolution and Giordano Bruno for heliocentrism). Ian.thomson (talk) 05:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


One of the problems we are having is that there are sticklers who insist on a very academic usage of the term 'myth', with its supposed lack of negative baggage, versus those who are supporting a more mainstream verbiage, in which the common understanding of the word 'myth' would imply 'false'. It is a bad idea to simply assume that either position is wrong here. However, you should ask, are we writing an article for those who are academicians and professional historians, sociologists, or anthropologists? Or are we generally writing for the public at large? I would say if you are concerned with the public at large understanding the meanings correctly, you easy them into the terminology, rather than assume they know. As such, I would say that calling something a "creation myth" without proper context would be irresponsible and inaccurate. -- Avanu (talk) 05:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe the current introduction to List of creation myths handles that reasonably well:
"A creation myth (or creation story) is a cultural, traditional or religious myth which describes the earliest beginnings of the present world. Creation myths are the most common form of myth, usually developing first in oral traditions, and are found throughout human culture. A creation myth is usually regarded by those who subscribe to it as conveying profound truths, although not necessarily in a historical or literal sense."
I will allow that it could be expanded further, but the main point of the list article is not to discuss the topic in itself (that's what the linked to Creation myth article is for), but to list examples after directing them to the Creation myth article if they do not already understand the concept. I also have to point out that we go with the academic understanding when handling evolution or physics because we expect the reader to learn if they do not know. I would think that that idea would apply to the social sciences as much as the physical sciences. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what 'very academic' means, but my seventh grade students learn that a myth is a story told to explain the origins of the world, or why the world is the way it is, and that the people who first told the story believed it to be true. And they certainly aren't doing graduate-level work. Unless Wikipedia is taking the position that one specific creation myth has been verified to be true, I'm not sure Wikipedia can leave one myth off the list because it's true. All creation myths are or were believed to be true by someone. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't see the Big Bang theory on the list of creation myths, yet it would certainly qualify as an ex nihilo myth per the definition given above. I can already hear why you are going to say it doesn't belong there, but to quote FisherQueen above: "Unless Wikipedia is taking the position that one specific creation myth has been verified to be true, I'm not sure Wikipedia can leave one myth off the list because it's true. All creation myths are or were believed to be true by someone." -- Avanu (talk) 02:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
The Big Bang is not a story, it's a scientific theory that was developed with evidence and peer-review. Big difference. It also is not sacred, and does not contain philosophical truths, it's just science. Atheists, Bahai, Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Satanists, Sikhs, Wiccans, Yezidiis, and Zoroastrians can accept the Big Bang and Evolution, because it's not a myth and has no more inherent religious implications than gravity or heliocentrism. Science is not natural theology, as much as the former benefits the latter. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
The real issue is why this is the only one that gets to be called "narrative". That kind of racism needs to be brought up here. But we've had that discussion before to no avail... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, could please you clarify that? I'm not exactly sure which you're saying is unfair to be the only one to get called a narrative. By "the only one" do you mean Genesis or the Big Bang? Ian.thomson (talk) 12:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I thought it was obvious. Go through the list: Everything either has a name or is a myth. There's only one that's different: Genesis creation narrative. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, right. I had used the word "sacred narrative" earlier in this discussion as a synonym for myth. Yeah, that bit of POV needs to be fixed. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I may point that "it is the position held by hundreds of millions, if not billions" is severely incorrect. There are millions of christians in the world, but not all of them take everything that comes in the package. Many do not take the Bible literally; they believe in God, but they do not believe in the fantastic things from the Bible, they just think that God created the universe and everything else afterwards (origin of the sun, origin of the earth, origin of life, evolution and diversification of life, etc) transpired the way science explains. In fact, didn't the pope accepted the validity of Evolution? I'm from Argentina, national religion is Christianism, and I have NEVER heard of someone promoting locally this whole thing of "give equal validity to Evolution and Creationism" that is discussed in the US. Cambalachero (talk) 03:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm an atheist and consider creationism to be incorrect, doubly so if taken literally. But Wikipedia is no place to be taking value-judgement swipes at something that is a core religious belief of hundreds of millions of people. The common meaning of "myth" includes "false". A list article that dominoes into editors taking value-judgement swipes at widely held religious beliefs should either leave off highly controversial classifications, or have the whole list article deleted. I suspect that the latter is the better remedy as such a list inherently pejorative, and inherently the value judgement of the editors, even if they can find cherry-picked sources that promote their same value judgement. Wikipedia for covering things, not inventing value-judgements on them. North8000 (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

So go ahead and start an AfD. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I'll post something to this effect on the article talk page. North8000 (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I did. Upon further consideration, I think that renaming the article to a more neutral and less pejorative name is a better solution than deletion and said so there. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
If we accept Henri Frankfort's understanding of myth, in which myth makers saw each event as an act of will on the part of some personal being, then we can easily rule out evolution, Newtonian gravitation, and the big bang theory from the canon of myths, and have to include the Biblical account of Creation. By Frankfort's criterion, if it's caused by a personal being (a deity), it is a myth, and vice versa. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 01:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

That article/list is going to need more eyes. The prevailing thought there is (in MY words) that, we, as editors, know or should decide that all of these beliefs are false, and then should label them as false in order to educate the readers. This is not correct. And, IMO, unneeded terminology that unnecessarily and actively "kicks" other people's beliefs is unnecessarily nasty and POV. North8000 (talk) 10:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Without some extreme theological leaping through of hoops, the creation stories cannot all be true. To treat one as less untrue than the others would obviously be unacceptable. There is therefore no philosophical problem with calling them all myths. HiLo48 (talk) 11:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Agree that they can't all be true. But would not a simple rename to Creation stories solve a whole lot of problems?...and I don't see any down side to it. North8000 (talk) 11:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Calling all of them "myth"... except for one, of course... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
The word 'myth' is a widely used and accepted term to describe Greek, Roman, Norse, etc beliefs, so I would keep it despite the controversy it creates. It does seem reasonable at first glance to differentiate between obsolete myths no longer widely believed by a current religion, such as Greek mythology or Egyptian mythology. However, obviously to comply with NPOV we would have to accept that all creation stories believed in religions practiced currently are not 'myths', including many Native American creation stories presumably (I'm not familiar with Native American religious beliefs). It might get complex to decide which creation stories are currently taught by some religions, so I support a consistent policy. We can keep the article on Genesis in its current name, leaving out reference to 'myth' in it's title or the article presumably, but I think it's entirely reasonable to have it in a list of creation myths from all around the world and throughout history.--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
That's another very eloquent plea to perpetuate and justify racism. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Er, I've not no idea who you think I've offended. Moreover, accusing someone of racism w/o any evidence violates AFG and a few other policies I imagine.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Racism is a very strong word which I don't think can be accurately applied here. Privileging Christianity over other religious traditions has nothing to do with race, because Christianity is practiced by people of many races. It's more of a language issue: Christians are a very large part of the audience and editorship of the English Wikipedia, so they will naturally be the religious group that English-speaking editors are most sensitive to. I fully support a move to "Genesis creation myth" for consistency with the other pages, but I don't think there's any call to use that word when editors who disagree with you are likely to take it personally. - Cal Engime (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
(ec) You say that when a good chunk of believers is white, "narrative" is justifiable, but when the believers are exclusively brown or black, it's a "myth". Race is the only difference here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Choyool'iihi, nobody said that. That's very inflammatory and unhelpful. Plenty of Christians are non-white anyway, as Cengime stated.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, the truth hurts, I know. But it needs to be said. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Most of the people who believed in Greek, Roman, and Norse myths were white too. - Cal Engime (talk) 20:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
That is true. But they're dead, and thus cannot be offended, much less argue that their beliefs need to be given special status on wikipedia. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Choyool'iihi, I might agree with you that the Genesis creation myth should in fact be called a myth; but what's at issue here is whether it's listed in the list in question. It is and I hope there's a consensus on that for now.--Johnsemlak (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Actually, Genesis is referred to as a 'creation myth' in the lead sentence in the article.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

"Gaza Holocaust" NPOV help

Could someone here not involved with the discussion help work towards NPOV relating to the use of the term "Gaza Holocaust" as it relates to this discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_5#September_5 ? --108.23.47.101 (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Derry/Londonderry and the Ireland Manual of Style

I need some basic advice on the matter of NPOV, especially concerning the Ireland Manual of Style. In that style guide it is stated that for the city of Derry/Londonderry we should use "Derry" and for the county of the same name we should use "Londonderry". The idea is that by defining a standard we avoid edit wars. But the issue of which version to use is a big dispute in the real world. So by defining a standard for Wikipedia we are, in fact, pushing a POV that for the city Derry is right and Londonderry is wrong (and the other way round for the county). I have seen comments in edit summaries such as "at Wikipedia we use Derry". Also, there are numerous editors who look out for cases of alternative use and change to the Wikipedia preferred version citing WP:IMOS. These editors simply do not allow the alternative uses anywhere on Wikipedia. It seems to me that this WP:IMOS is flying in the face of the central NPOV pillar of Wikipedia, albeit for the best of intentions and that a manual of style is no place to resolve this type of controversial matter. Am I right in thinking this? The Roman Candle (talk) 16:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Out of curiosity have you ploughed through the talk page of the IMoS, especially this discussion and its backward references? -- spincontrol 16:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
No, I have to admit I haven't, but I'll give it a scan. I guess the issue has been debated extensively all over the place. I suppose I'm more interested in the principle here, rather than the detail of the arguments. The Roman Candle (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
And you have just come across what is possibly one of the top ten most argued over topics on Wikipedia. Both sides feel very strongly over this issue.--JOJ Hutton 16:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
The short of it seems to me to be how can you be NPOV on the issue when there can be no agreement other than through an expedient compromise in which conflicting positions each give up something to get something? One would need to offer a better practical alternative. -- spincontrol 16:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Presumably you are NPOV if you (i.e the encyclopedia) doesn't support one of the alternatives. By forcing editors to adopt one of the alternatives you are, implicitly at least, "pushing a POV". The Roman Candle (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I post Derry and you edit to Londonderry. Now what? The context as I see it is no agreement other than through an expedient compromise. This seems to be the consensus view from the talk page discussion. -- spincontrol 17:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I see it's definitely the consensus but I recall reading from Jimbo Wales that NPOV is non-negotiable, so I understand it to mean that you can't trump it by consensus. The answer to this problem is to adopt the strategy that applies to American English versus British English. In that area editors are free to use whichever version they like for a new article (with the obvious caveat that the context of the arcticle should be considered). Thereafter, you are not permitted to change versions without broad agreement on the Talk page. The same should apply to Londonderry/Derry. In essence, it would be regarded as edit warring to trawl through the encyclopedia and change versions, but editors creating a new article, or introducing the term into an article where it doesn't already exist, would be free to select either alternative. Their choice would then stick, until agreement was reached to the contrary. this could be managed; it would still result in endless debating, but the edit warring could easily be controlled. The more I think about this issue the more I'm coming to the conclusion that the IMOS flies right in the face of NPOV; it should be struck down, otherwise in this matter at least, Wikipedia simply cannot claim to be NPOV. The Roman Candle (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, so we deregulate and most of the articles say Derry (city) and Londonderry (county). New edits on those articles have to follow the already established precedent and then there appear a handful of new articles, some of which stake out the territory for the alternative. Is that how you see it? -- spincontrol 17:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, precisely. It might need to backed up with measures to stop editors changing from the established version in an article. I'm not sure exactly what those should be, but it could be done. The Roman Candle (talk) 17:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
When it comes to the Derry/Londonderry issue, there's no such thing as a NPOV (personally I'd like to rename the city OLdandboringargumentstown and the county Whatcenturyareweinthisisgettingridiculous). The 'who started the article gets to chose' convention isn't NPOV either - it is a Wikipedia convention and has nothing at all to do with making decisions based on the article topic. The compromise we have now works (more or less) - why try to change it for the sake of imposing an alternative equally arbitrary solution? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it's convention, but it supports NPOV because it does not favour one position over the other at the level of the encyclopedia itself. WP:IMOS does the opposite. As I said above, it states that at Wikipedia we use Derry for the city ... That is straight POV. Readers unfamiliar with the issue could easily take it to mean that Derry is right and Londonderry is wrong (for the city). The Roman Candle (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
If you think your solution is going to 'support NPOV', I have to say that as much as I admire your optimism, I don't share it. At the first opportunity we'll be getting a whole new set of interminable arguments. It'll only take a minor just-about-notable incident in county you-know-where for two competing articles to spring up, and off we go again... For the sake of maintaining a little peace, I'd rather that Wikipedia added a footnote saying "except in regard to the names of certain cities and counties to the northwest of Lough Neagh" to its NPOV policies than have that bit of nonsense start up once more. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

No further comment, so I'll not persue it, other than to say it seems like NPOV is, after all, negotiable if it makes things easy for everyone. The Roman Candle (talk) 11:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm amazed nobody mentioned Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars#Derry/Londonderry... --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Gay Nigger Association of America

Resolved

Regarding this revert, the Gay Nigger Association of America is a self-admitted trolling organization which has apparently been active on Wikipedia for the better part of a decade now. They claim that they are not actually racist and homophobic in self-published sources, and at least one journalist has reported the fact that they make such a claim. As far as I know no reliable source has actually agreed with their assertion that they are not actually racist and homophobic. There is abundant evidence that they are actually racist and homophobic, e.g., the "testimonials" linked from [10] and the mention of a "stolen USB stick" in [11]. Additional examples are very easy to find. Further discussion is at Talk:Gay Nigger Association of America#Actual racism.

Should the group's assertion that they are not actually racist and homophobic appear in their article? Even in the context of it being repeated without endorsement in a presumably reliable source? —Cupco 23:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Since when is the group not allowed to respond to criticism? Refusal to include such information would be inherently non-neutral. Wikipedia includes all significant views. The subject of the article has significant views, and if we can't use third-party sources to confirm their views, then they are impossible to include. This blatantly violates policy. Mythpage88 (talk) 5:24 pm, Today (UTC−6) Mythpage88 (talk) 23:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
The self-published views that they are not racist or homophobic are not significant because they are not published in independent sources (the fact that they make such statements is not an endorsement of them) and because they are contradicted by what is probably the vast majority of the group's own publications. At this point I suspect I am being trolled in bad faith and intend to back off. Could we please have a third party perspective on this question? —Cupco 23:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Their response to criticism states that they use such language for shock value. The subject of the article's views are significant, by the very definition of the word "significant". I don't see how any of the group's publications contradict the claim that they use such language for shock value. In fact, it seems to support it, given the very nature of the group. You had no problem with the sentence when you reviewed the article. What changed?
You suspect that you're being trolled? You are a brand new user bringing up age-old controversy, that stinks of troll, at least in my book. Mythpage88 (talk) 23:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
As is clear from the diff at the beginning of this section, I did not remove the group's claim that they use such language for shock value. Your definition of significant views does not correspond to anything in WP:NPOV. I recently decided to abandon an earlier account associated with my name, location, and employer so that I could work on more controversial articles without fear of reprisal. I learned of the GNAA article because you nominated it for Good Article status. I thought I was helping you: in fact I did help you clear the way for future GA reviews; without my help you would not have noticed that they were impossible to perform. But now that I have removed the group's absurd, self-published claims that they are not racist in the face of overwhelming and evidence to the contrary from the group's own publications, you oppose that vehemently? —Cupco 00:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
How is stating that they are not racist any more "fringe" from saying that their use of such language is intended to be shocking? We include "absurd" viewpoints if they are significant. Just look at the claim on Stop Islamization of America that they are a "human rights" group! Mythpage88 (talk) 00:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
WP:SELFPUB gives provision for an organization to present its own self-description as long as "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity." There is no requirement that this must appear in otherwise reliable sources. __meco (talk) 09:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
WP:SELFPUB says nothing of the sort. You neglected the other criteria, which include "unduly self-serving". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Their explanation of the controversial name of their organization is clearly permitted under SELFPUB. The main thing is that pieces need to be sourced out beyond a group's own press for notability purposes. If the Wakkky Wizzards of the Ku Klux Klan made the assertion on their own website that they were a "gentlemen's club for European-American businessmen," so long as there was sufficient OTHER sourcing to prove notability of the organization in a potential challenge at AfD, it would be perfectly fine to write something like: "...For their own part, the Wakkky Wizards of the Ku Klux Klan claim to be a 'gentlemen's club for European-American businessmen.'"(FOOTNOTE) Same deal here: include other solid sources, then let the group have their say. This is the way to do NPOV. Carrite (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Which is also why Stop Islamization of America has the claim that they are a "human rights" group. Mythpage88 (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Then would somebody tell me why Cupco saw it fit to, despite the discussion here, stick the NPOV tag back anyways? Mythpage88 (talk) 23:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Dominus Vobisdu above and Diego Grez at [12]. I think it's worth reporting when hate groups describe themselves as being motivated by religious freedom concerns, but this is a group of self-admitted trolls who claim that their excessive racism and homophobia isn't. That's unduly self serving for the group, and an insult to the reader, not to mention the groups they insult. How many times do you intend to remove the dispute tag (e.g. [13][14]) while this discussion is ongoing? —Cupco 00:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
And just to save everyone else the time it takes to check, he was blocked as such. a13ean (talk) 21:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the original quote from the cite template for Blog Theory, on the grounds that the quote was unfairly abridged and citation guidelines specify that we use exact quotations from the source.

The guideline in question states, "A footnote may also contain a relevant exact quotation from the source, if this may be of interest (this is particularly useful if the source is not easily accessible)."
I see no reason that any of the quotations are of interest, as they are all available from the linked URLs. —Cupco 09:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Paul Ryan and speech reception

Currently there have been a series of edits at Paul Ryan about the reception of the speech he gave at the Republican convention. There is some minor edit warring going on regarding the text as it stands. I came in when I noticed the warring and feel that the text does not meet NPOV guidelines.

Here is one of the edits (in this case, one that brought back the text in question.) Here are my issues with it: 1. Negative reception cites outweigh positive reception cites. In this case, the cites are: Fox News (mixed), WP Opinions (negative), The Atlantic (negative), The Guardian (mixed), TNR (negative), WP Politics (pretty straight coverage as it covers reception and aftermath), BBC (negative.) Per WP:UNDUE we should not give weighted coverage, and there have certainly been rah-rah articles about his speech. If one is going to cite negative articles, one should cite positive ones too. Even better, one should cite articles which give balanced coverage. 2. One editor who has been reverting this back has stated here on the article's talk page that it is not their responsibility to find positive cites. I disagree. NPOV does not mean "I can write one-sided stuff and someone else can write the other one-sided stuff." One should abide by WP:NPOV. Stating that the reaction was "uniformly negative" seems to be cherry picking sources.

I do not want to get into an edit war on this page but I would appreciate some input about NPOV with this kind of cite. Thanks. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

My take on it is that, while everyone seems happy with Ryan's speaking skills, the overwhelming majority of reliable sources take issue with the truth value of the content. To be blunt, we have reliable sources calling him a liar, in as many words. My understanding of relevant policy is that we need to say pretty much what I did just now, only with careful citations because this is a BLP. I don't believe that WP:NPOV requires us to hide the fact that his speech was (according to our sources) tainted with big lies, nor to hide the entire speech just because it might be embarrassing to supporters. And if I understand WP:UNDUE, it means we cannot give equal weight when our sources lean so heavily to one side.
In short, I disagree with Vernon's deletion of our coverage. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I concur completely with StillStanding. It's not our job to manufacture neutrality when it doesn't exist in the source material. In fact, that very discussion just occurred in the section before this (You didn't built that); scroll up. Kerfuffler (talk) 05:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Note that I do, however, take great issue with the use of scare quotes in the original statement, as noted in Talk:Paul Ryan. Kerfuffler (talk) 05:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

It is our job to manufacture neutrality just because you have a reliable source saying something does not mean you need to add their point of view, or polemics if I'm sourcing an article that says Obama is a bad president because of this job loss number this month I would report the number job loss number as that is a fact not the POV on Obama. Most reliable sources like the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal have points of view it sells papers but wikipedia mission is to never have a point of view and being as neutral as possible. It seems both still-24 and Kerfuffler are just saying we have to include the POV wording the reliable sources use since it matches their own views, while if I did the same thing with fox news and included their POV wording then they would be whistling a differant tuneJohn D. Rockerduck (talk) 21:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

This isn't just wrong, it's entirely contrary to policy. We cannot pretend that the news is neutral when it's not. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I think StillStanding meant to say "the overwhelming majority of the sources that I looked at". He needs to remember that other editors may be (and, in fact, probably are) exposed to more balanced coverage. Per Wikipedia policy, it IS our job to "manufacture neutrality". Those who are not able to do so should probably sit this one out. Belchfire-TALK 05:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
While I have not been watching this article uber closely every day, my impression is that an effort has been made to remove the "positive" statement's sourcing (which did exist at one point a few days ago), leaving just the "positive" statement, the "negative" criticism and the "negative" criticism's sources. Of course one can turn around and then say the negative now outweighs the positive so the action then becomes removal of the entire portion of the article. I find this odd since this edit clearly shows the ability to loacate even more positive sourcing yet the reluctance in adding it. Rather we wind up here and -- off course by the time I hit enter here any positive sourcing will have been reverted and gone there so we are back to a "false" appearance of an unbalanced section giving one side undue weight & allowing the justification for removal of the entire section at any given moment in time.
Fish or cut bait - add the positive sourcing [back] and both points of view will be balanced and properly sourced. Again, nobody disputed the positive assertions to the point where referencing was neccessary. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
This edit [15] is a balanced and encyclopedic version that cuts out the crap coming from both sides, positive and negative. I don't see any need to change it. Belchfire-TALK 06:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, User:Belchfire, but WP:NPOV does not mean we manufacture neutrality where it doesn't exist; it means we represent the tone of the outside world. As I said, see this exact discussion in the previous section. Kerfuffler (talk) 06:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
The edit you cite removes all discussion of criticism and merely quotes some bits from the speech. That isn't balanced at all; it just suppresses part of the historical record. Kerfuffler (talk) 06:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Belchfire, you linked to a version that irresponsibly fails to cover the response to the speech. We can't do that.
If there are positive reactions, I don't oppose their inclusion, but we can't pretend that the reaction isn't overwhelmingly negative. Put bluntly, Ryan lied and lied, and the media noticed. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Kerfuffler is correct. If the sources, on balance (pun), overwhelmingly point out that Ryan's speech was factually challenged or whatever euphemism you would like to use, it is not our job as editors - it is the opposite of our job as editors - to dredge up marginally reliable sources that said it wasn't all lies. Due weight != balance. Honestly, the edit linked in the OP is extremely mild compared to the assessment reliable sources have made of Ryan's claims. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
When you name a ref "DefinitelyMisleading", is it any wonder that NPOV is questioned? Also, it's pretty easy to find defenders of Ryan from reliable sources such as IBD and the National Review. Granted NR is biased - not sure about IBD - but so is The Atlantic. Why not just stick to unbiased articles? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Before we even discuss which reactions to include, somebody needs to justify why we should include any reactions at all. There is no valid reason to include anything other than that he made a speech, and maybe a few of the highlights. Covering it that way instantly ends this argument (which wouldn't be happening if there weren't editors looking for an excuse to sneak in their own POV). Belchfire-TALK 06:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Criticism is a valid and important part of the record, especially in politics. As for your assertion, please read WP:AGF. Kerfuffler (talk) 06:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Already covered on the talk page - a I quote from WP:BLP: “Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, …”. It is in fact part of the purpose of Wikipedia to document public reaction to politicians and celebrities, because it's part of the historical context. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
There is no "historical context" for something that happened last week. What's your next argument? Belchfire-TALK 06:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
No next. I stand by the assertion that the reaction and reporting to an acceptance speech of a nomination for a major politcal party during a major election contest qualifies for historical significance the moment it ended. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
To agree with Belchfire on this point, WP:NOT#NEWS clearly states "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." Reaction to the speech should be included if it's enduring, and it's pretty close to the time the speech was given to know whether anyone will even care about his acceptance speech next month. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
That's an argument for removing the speech completely. To include parts of the speech and descriptions of it, without including any commentary at all on the reaction, is effectively using Wikipedia as a tool of self-promotion. Kerfuffler (talk) 06:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well said Kerfuffler. The content of a partisan speech is not more neutral or encyclopedic than well-sourced responses to the speech. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
You are kidding me. Self-promotion?! We are quoting what the subject of the article said. Isn't that what people read this article about Paul Ryan? To find out what his views are? Rtmcrrctr (talk) 06:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I have never seen a printed encyclopedia that merely had a laundry list of a politician's supposed viewpoints. Furthermore, I just did an unscientific survey of Wikipedia pages for a bunch of very well known politicians, and every one of them contained substantial commentary about public criticism. Kerfuffler (talk) 06:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
And to elaborate: no, that's not what people come to Wikipedia for. If they merely want a list of bold statements, they can go to the politician's own web site—where shameless promotion is expected. Kerfuffler (talk) 06:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not an argument for exclusion; it's an argument for the minimalist approach that I have consistently promoted. The speech is clearly part of the historical record, and needs to be mentioned, but how well it played or what affect it has on the election cannot yet be known. Trying to balance positive and/or negative reaction to it, at this point, is a fool's errand. And, much as I pointed out earlier, some editors will cry "self-promotion" or "bias" unless they get to include an assertion that Ryan is a liar. Which is a good reason to follow my suggestion and simply mention the speech and leave the rest alone. Belchfire-TALK 06:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The bare facts are that Ryan made a speech at the convention. That's all. When we start choosing what parts of the speech to include in the article, we're choosing them based on reception by audiences and news sources. Clearly the speech's reception is part of the historical record - indeed, such speeches are designed around reception, unlike the superfluous "reaction" sections in other WP event coverage - and suppressing the reception because it was negative is an obvious POV move that, however, does not surprise me from some of these users. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
So my edit that you last reverted met the balance needed both in content and in sourcing but it just was not old enough? -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, I've long thought that Wikipedia should have a blanket policy against documenting anything less than N days old. But that ends up just being another argument for removing anything related to the speech. And I suspect we could argue for a long time about what the value of N should be. Kerfuffler (talk) 06:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The tenuous relationship between Paul Ryan's speech and the facts made headlines around the world, all the more because it was well received. Does anybody actually dispute this?Trishm (talk) 06:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Around the world = US and Britain? I've heard there are other countries. Some with more people, even. (Edit: Sorry, I wasn't trying to be sarcastic, but we didn't exactly use worldwide coverage. I did find an article in the Hindustan Times about his speech though. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
And Der Spiegel: [16] –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
More about the campaign climate than Ryan's speech, but a good read, thanks. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
No, I reverted your edit because it consisted of superfluous commentary. Belchfire-TALK 06:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Belchfire, you reverted it because the truth makes Ryan look bad. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
StillStanding-247, please read WP:AGF. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I am assuming good faith, but if you read the policy, you'll find that there are finite limits to this assumption. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Again - the age point put aside - my edit that you reverted met N:POV in your opinion? -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, no. There's no way for anybody to have a neutral point of view on this, for reasons I've already explained. And to reiterate, nobody has made a cogent argument for why any commentary is needed. "He made a speech and he talked about X, Y and Z." That's all we need. Belchfire-TALK 07:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Also, as I said before, when you have a reference tag called "DefinitelyMisleading", well, that's going to set off NPOV alarms. It should. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Please read more carefully - the term is part of the linked reference's article title URL as published. It may be an unfortunate abbreviation at first glance but I doubt there was anything sinister about it. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that both I and User:Roscelese have made exactly such an argument, which is well supported by guidelines and common practice, and you're simply labeling it as “not cogent”. Kerfuffler (talk) 07:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Forgive me for not being more clear - I did not link the NPOV policy before - can you please explain, using the NPOV policy, how exactly my addition did not meet the threshhold for inclusion. I begining to wonder why I was asked to participate in the NPOV Noticeboard if I did not violate long-standing policy is all. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
You were asked to participate by me solely because (a) I thought the article had a NPOV dispute, and (b) you were one of many that contributed to the Talk section of that page discussing these edits. I invited everyone who participated in that Talk thread to this discussion, regardless of their views. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
OK but I was fixing that by adding the positive sources you yourself found and posted on the talk page while cutting down on the number of negative references that Azrel had a problem with to try and achieve balance. Still trying to figure out what exactly was "wrong" about it - unless providing a moving target is really the goal here? Sorry - I'm just confused I guess and would like an explaination that actually resolves that. -- 07:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by George Orwell III (talk • contribs)
On further inspection, I will strongly object to redstate.com as a source, because they are very obviously right wing pundits and have a clear conflict of interest. Kerfuffler (talk) 08:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
BTW, the “nobody is objective” argument, along with several other things that have come up here, is covered in WP:NPOVFAQ. I particularly like the paragraph that starts with “It is a frequent misunderstanding of the NPOV policy, often expressed by newbies, visitors, and outside critics, that articles must not contain any form of bias, hence their efforts to remove statements they perceive as biased.” Kerfuffler (talk) 07:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
To continue: "The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias." While I hesitate to break WP:AGF, I think there is some editorial bias going on. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
How so? The point in question is a 1 line summary of both the positive reaction and negative criticisms? How can one get editorial with so little to work with? I don't like the term "lies" either (and will gladly drop it) but the rest about misleading premise and noteworthy omissions is hardly subjective sythesis with so many sources saying as much. -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I can't answer that question, but I do want to comment on the l-word. I Googled "Paul Ryan lies" and it seems that this word is quite popular as a description of the content of his speech. I don't know why we'd want to avoid this word when our sources favor it. I realize you're trying to compromise, but this is too strongly supported to ignore. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
You'll get no push-back on that from me but I'd like to resolve this nevertheless. Its very disturbing to see that simple reporting (even from what some consider media favoring the right) can cause so much angst. George Orwell III (talk) 08:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I have hopped in and out of the article. I also added most of the coverage of the actual speech, (vs. coverage of what his opponents think about it.) I did it based on what was covered / excerpted by a neutral-appearing source. Folks have been trying to minimize actually covering the speech and maximize coverage of what his opponents think about his speech. My quick thoughts that come to mind are:

  • It was a pretty effective speech. No factual errors, and there are not even specific allegations of actual factual errors, but it had the usual spin and misleading by omission stuff that 80% of speeches have.
  • There is the usual "fact checking" but in the case even the quoted ones did not even allege any specific factual errors. Instead some pointed out the misleading areas and creatively juiced those up into calling them factual errors or lies
  • There are "sources" who are really participants in this case making baseless really nasty statements like "lies"
  • There is a question of germaneness and sourcing for the less germane items. Germane is the speech itself. One step-removed is what his opponents are saying. The "slams" are what opponents are saying (including some media folks) and so they are not sources, they need sources. And any wp:undue analysis of this should count participants as participants, not sources.
  • "Lie" is a pretty high standard. Has to be deliberately saying something that is clearly false. That word has no business in thee, even if someone finds a cherry-picked source that used it.
  • In the flurry of edits here the middle ground got lost, which is a few notes on analysis of the misleading areas in his speech by some neutral folks. And leave out the "slam" words that people ar trying to game in. They violate wp:npov, wp:blp, and insult the readers. We need to give them the information, not characterize it with slam words to tell them what to think about it.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The article is subject to WP:BLP. The addition of silly season "criticism" presented as "fact" rather than as "opinion" is a major problem. Some editors appear to have a strong political POV on this, with an earnest desire in multiple venues to describe people as liars - including the case at hand. It is not the task of an encyclopedia article to be used for such purposes. Also in the case at hand, clearly partisan opinion sources are being used to make the claim of "lies" without noting the other sources which specifically debunked or attacked such a charge. Doing that is actually where the violation of NPOV would occur. [17] is a typical edit using an opinion of The Guardian as a source for "containing lies, misrepresentations and omissions." Stating this as "fact" in Wikipedia's voice is a clear violation of WP:BLP and of WP:NPOV. One of the "lies" was stated as "He faulted Obama for failing on a campaign promise to keep a Wisconsin plant opened. It closed a month before Obama took office." Other sources state that the plant was closed in April 2009 -- which, admitting this is original research here <g>, was after Obama took office -- making the "lie" charge a bit odd indeed. Unless, pf course, Obama took office in May 2009, of course. Thus making the initial errant "fact check" claims in Wikipedia's voice without noting the corrections is against NPOV and also against WP:BLP. I have not seen Still24 using [18] in any article, and suggest he read WP:PIECE. The idea that silly season edits to BLPs should be made for political talking points on any side at all is a great weakness of Wikipedia. indeed. BTW, this is not just true of US politics - I would note as an aside the Australian ones as well - though those are generally aimed at the Labour Prime Minister there. AWU scandal and Health Services Union expenses affair are cases in point (see edit histories to see their "evolution". Can we someday simply shut off the silly season edits? Heck -- folks accuse Ryan of a major lie for misstating his marathon running time - which he corrected! Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Now that the 1st night of the DNC is completed it will be interesting to see if some of the same editors fall overthemselves to add in all of the "lies" made last night into Reid's, Castro's, Sebelius'....articles. Thankfully, these were clear not true, and not just opinion. Arzel (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Paul's speech was widely described as lies, by sources that are generally considered reliable. I think this is somewhat irrefutable
  • No factually wrong statements have been identified. those that have been proposed are spin an exaggeration, not lies http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/30/politics/pol-fact-check-ryan-gm/index.html etc
  • It is extremely common for politicians and pundits to call eachother liers - this instance is not particularly notable
  • The above points are widely admited, such as "The other day I said I thought Paul Ryan's convention speech was politics as usual--evasions and misdirections rather than outright lies" and "[accuser] isn't confining himself to checking facts, he's contesting one interpretation of the facts with his own interpretation. Whatever the merits of the rival interpretations, that's not fact-checking, it's commentary" and "the 'fact-checking' conceit is false advertising. In the end, the 'fact-checkers' are weighing arguments, not checking facts. That's commentary. Don't pretend to be doing something cleaner and more authoritative than plain old punditry"
  • While I think it would be difficult to say we should not mention that some depicted his speech as containing lies, it must be heavily balanced by the fact that no actual lies have been identified, and that the accusation of lies has been itself identified as misleading.

Gaijin42 (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

All three of you are editorializing, making your own decisions about what constitutes a “factual error”. This is not appropriate on Wikipedia. We are here to document what other people say, not what we do—and a very large fraction of the media has in fact stated that the speech contains lies and misstatements. You are using bad interpretations of WP:NPOV as a justification. Kerfuffler (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2012/08/30/todd-claims-ryan-distorted-truth-must-concede-ryan-technically-factual-#ixzz25c9vSfEe Gaijin42 (talk) 16:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

We have WP:NPOV to guide us. Just report what reliable sources say without talking sides in the debate and without bias. It should be easy. Cwobeel (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah. Come on, guys - this is simple. Use high-quality independent, reliable sources. Attribute notable opinions (e.g. "The fact-checking website Politifact described Ryan's claim as...") It is never - never - a BLP violation to describe the reaction of reputable fact-checking organizations to a major political speech. As much as possible, try to avoid the hypocrisy evident in some comments here (for instance, it seems odd that one can advocate a "minimalist" approach to conveying reaction to Paul Ryan's speech while simultaneously arguing for a massive standalone article about the reaction to a speech by Barack Obama). MastCell Talk 16:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I have gone to substantial effort to review User Talk:North8000, User Talk:Collect, and User Talk:Arzel. There is a clear bias in all of their editing on political issues. E.g., try [19]—a pointed edit that misquotes the source, doesn't even use correct grammar, and has a broken web link, but which he defended. I could list numerous others, but there's no point. Kerfuffler (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I can confirm that the behavior you found is typical. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
And I can confirm that your post is uncivil and inapt. I have over 2500 pages on my watchlist, and my edits are absolutely straight down the middle (see the Australian silly season articles, for just one taste where I seem to have been accused of being a Labour supporter)). Your desire to attack everyone but yourself is what is notable here. And in the meantime, an employee of the Department of Homeland Security is editing as an IP (IP address traces directly to a DHS computer) promoting your POV on the BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Are you alleging that StillStanding is using the IP in question? If not, what is the relevance of shouting about it in this thread? This is the NPOV noticeboard; can we all make an effort to focus on the question at hand (how to neutrally convey notable reaction to Ryan's speech)? MastCell Talk 20:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Nope - and Washington DC is nowhere near Katmandu (adding a place which Stillstanding will not redact) (silly redaction by Stillstanding in violation of talk page guidelines) for sure -- just that a government employee is editing a political BLP during the campaign season. I am sure that they are allowed to visit the usual porn sites <g> etc., but making political edits seems questionable to me. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I removed the location. Please see WP:Privacy. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I violated no one's privacy at all - I posted no personal information about anyone, and one editor has an exceedingly strong BATTLEGROUND attitude here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. The page has been semi-protected, which seems entirely appropriate and should resolve the problem. MastCell Talk 22:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Not germane to the discussion in any way. But in case you're curious, a friend of mine who works for the DHS told me last year that they are allowed moderate personal use of the non-secure network. (She said she actually has multiple computers on different physical networks.) But since this is unsourced, it can't go further than the talk page.  :-P Kerfuffler (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
BTW, I've found a guestbook log on another web site, which claims to be from that address. Looks fairly innocent personal use to me, and even references that he found that site through Wikipedia. (I'd post the link, but I'm not sure whether that would violate a policy by outing personal info about the editor WP:PRIVACY.) Kerfuffler (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Do you both really want to travel down this road? Kerfuffler has....almost no history yet a surprising high level of knowledge regarding various WP policies and templates. Still, I don't even want to get into your crusade here at WP. Tread lightly. Arzel (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
No, I don't think I'm going to be silenced. As for Kerfuffler, feel free to file an SPI. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
So you decided that on Kerfuffler's behalf? North8000 (talk) 23:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
And your point is? Please, file a WP:SPI if you like. Meanwhile, I'm calling your editing practices into question here. It sure looks to me like a few of you are engaging in filibustering by repeatedly using numerous Wikipedia processes to stall edits. Kerfuffler (talk) 22:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
My point is this is not the place to assume bad faith regarding the motivations of other editors less you are looking for a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Arzel (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • In the end this is analogous to film reviews. If a film gets 90% positive reviews, we don't mention and equal number of the "bad" 10% purely to enforce some weird version of NPOV, because clearly opinion was not neutral. This case should be similar; however of course the problem is that some reliable sources are not entirely neutral (I'm pretty sure that I could predict the reaction of, say, Fox News and The Guardian to the speech). Anecdotally, here in the UK it does seem that reception was generally negative (here's an article from the main right-leaning UK newspaper which is critical for example) but in the end there must be balance depending on what the majority of reasonably neutral sources reported. Of course, we must also be careful to ensure that criticism (or praise) is not interpreted to be in Wikipedia's voice, as well. Black Kite (talk) 00:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Because some of you are too careless to read, I'm going to spell it out for you. Collect is outing me by posting where he believes I live. I have asked for it to be redacted, but you people have made such a mess of this that it's pointless. You should be ashamed of yourselves for aiding him. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I am OUTING no one at all and I find your attack to be far beyond the pale. Show me where any personal information about anyone was connected by me to anyone at all. I find this to simply be your BATTLEGROUND attitude showing once more. [21] shows you adding the ONLY connection between you and my post -- which means you were clearly seeking to stelthily make "outing" where none occurred. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
StillStanding, you will notice that on the contributions page for IP editors there are various tools to track the IP, and these tools are accessible to anyone. When you edit with an IP, you are putting your IP address out there whether you know it or not. Collect has done nothing wrong here. Instaurare (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Collect has. You do not attack the editor in a Talk page. (Instead, you attack the argument they make or the content they choose to add.) You do not post or claim COI-based POV on a Talk page. You take concerns that a person is breaching protocol to the appropriate Administrative noticeboard, you do not use supposed COI as a method of attacking contributions of fellow editors. There is no reasonable defense of these actions. -- Avanu (talk) 05:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't follow the personal back-and-forth above, and I think there's probably better places for that. On the actual issue at hand, though, here's the text as I left it:

"Although the speech was well received by the convention audience and praised for being well-delivered, it was also criticized by multiple sources for being exceptionally dishonest.[7][8]*[9][10][11]"

I think something like that has several things to recommend it:

  • It avoids the word "lie", which is a magnet for WP:TRUTH-warriors on both sides.
  • The main clause focuses on the wider reception of the speech, since its reception within the convention itself is lesser news.
  • It is well-sourced.

Homunq (talk) 12:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I added specific sourcing of opinions to those who hold them - much of the "criticism" is editorial in nature, to be sure, and we are required to cite editorial opinions as opinions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:Aspects of capitalism

Isn't something like Template:Aspects of capitalism inherently POV? As it is now it includes things that most economists would say is not an aspect of capitalism at all. While of course Marxists would claim it is. Even those things that nobody denies are a part of capitalism, such as cycles and bubbles, are to a large extent negative, despite the idea of capitalism being something generally negative today is a decidedly fringe view. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is POV in the sense that the template takes the view of some experts at the expense of others. By the way, it is not true that every economist believes the business cycle is part of capitalism. The Austrian business cycle theory (which has been developed in part by a Nobel Prize-winning economist) argues it is mostly due to central bank intervention. The overwhelming majority of attributes in the Template:Aspects of capitalism can also be listed in the Template:Aspects of socialism if one cites certain mainstream economists. Perhaps it would be best to create a template Template:Aspects of economic systems. Or let's just be honest and rename the template Template:Aspects of Marxist economic criticism. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
As it is now, the template is all of four days old... Some effort has been put into providing balance, but I agree, there is plenty of room for further development and balance. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 12:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
@Jason: Renaming it to a POV title would indeed solve the problem. :-)
@DASonnenfeld: I started this discussion to a large extent because I'm not sure it *can* be balanced. But if you want to we can try. I think a balanced version of this would include something like the following:
General: Competition Cyclical Economic bubble Economic development Entrepreneurship Globalization Innovation Merit Multinational corporation Oligopoly Privatization Startup company Wealth
Ideology: American Dream Democracy Free market Human rights Individualism Laissez-faire Liberalism
Cultural aspects: Advertising(Not sure how that's a cultural aspect, but OK) Consumerism Economic mobility Freedom (note, not Economic freedom, *all* freedom) Philanthropy Pop music Social justice Social mobility
Social aspects: Accountability Employment Inequality Labour market flexibility Labour supply Productivity Prosperity
Would that be acceptable? --OpenFuture (talk) 13:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Yep, it is POV. The first draft of this template at launch, that is when it was added to various pages such as Child labour, included only things that were mostly negative, off-topic social issues. The template has since been revised, some environmental topics taken out, for reasons I support. I have added few more things to it, post its launch, to balance it out.
The template is POV because there is no verifiable or persuasive reason to call it 'Aspects of capitalism'. It could as well be called 'Aspects of socialism', or 'Aspects of Marxism', or a number of other titles.
A more neutral title may be 'Aspects of economy' or something.
Finally, I wonder what the template really adds to an article? Should this template be kept?
ApostleVonColorado (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Is it redundant with Template:Economic systems sidebar? —Cupco 20:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, it's redundant to Template:Capitalism. Mangoe (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Since it seems the agreement is that it is redundant and POV, starting a deletion-process seems the right thing to do here. Do you AfD templates? I don't know how that works. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
While I agree that improvements are needed, all this seems hasty. I, for one, would be happy to include suggestions from above towards making this template more balanced. I like the potential of this approach over Template:Capitalism; the two can be complementary, I think. My preference would be to give this template some time to develop further in a more balanced direction. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
What about my proposal for balance above? --OpenFuture (talk) 10:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Have included some suggestions, above, as well as made a few other changes (additions and subtractions) towards making it a more balanced template. Getting closer? Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, much better. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding sidebar Template:Capitalism, from the talk page:

Unlike the template for Marxism, capitalism has no criticism section. Can someone say that is not NPOV? --SomeDudeWithAUserName (talk with me!) 20:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

--Sum (talk) 14:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


I added "antithesis" as well (adding Marxism and Communism at the outset) -- seems that this is the absolutely most straightforward way to deal with "opposites" in general. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

What is a NPOV?

This should be a fairly straight forward question. I have always been of the impression that NPOV does not require that we give all POV but describe relevant POV from a neutral perspective. For some time I have had the editor User:Langus-TxT following my contributions on Falklands topics and reverting them with the demand we represent the Argentine POV. From my perpective we don't represent matters from the British POV or the Argentine POV. We describe the British and Argentine positions from a neutral POV. A common mistake by nationalists of all persuasions is to demand that their POV is represented to counter what they perceive as bias.

I would be grateful if editors could comment on whether my interpretation of policy is correct, as I'm rapidly tiring of this. I'm really sorry to bring this here yet again but its only when a 3rd party opinion backs my comments he'll actually listen. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I thank you for leaving a notice in my talk page.
The issues on which we usually clash (and this is not a problem between WCM and me only, but it involves several British and Argentines editors) is regarding matters where opinions amongst authors/sources is divided. There's a tendency of some editors of doing an "evaluation" of the merits of both points, and to make a choice about the appropriateness of including one opinion, both, or both but with a rebuttal.
I see this as a failure to WP:NPOV. Our opinions, as editors of Wikipedia, shouldn't have that much weight in deciding what to include and what not. In other words, we shouldn't be "trying to see through it all", trying to distinguish the right argument and the wrong one. I usually refer WCM to WP:NPOVFAQ, where I think the issue is cleverly explained:
Regards. --Langus (t) 16:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments: A large number of problems concern whether something is a "fact" (empiricallly verifiable) or an "opinion masquerading as fact." Where something is empirically verifiable (John Gnarph was born in 1851, ... Water freezes at about 0 degrees Celsius, etc.) then NPOV does not require large exposition of disputes thereon.

Where the dispute is over a "contentious topic" including religion, politics, economics, modern history (including cases of national irredentist issues), and most especially where gradations of opinions are found, then NPOV should require that we present all the opinions in a manner proportional to their importance to the topic (note this is not the NPOV wording, but my opinion, of course). The idea that we can somehow "count sources" to gauge their "relative acceptance" is the cause of a large number of ArbCom cases - by saying that the importance of the opinion is a better gauge than "number of sources" or (worst version) whether "all the major scholars hold this opinion", is, again in my opinion, a large part of the problem here.

The third class is where an entire topic is basically "opinion" and I (if I were left as monarch of all encyclopedias <g>) would just as soon do away with - they endemically have edit wars etc. In the case of WP:BLPs - I would just as soon do away with all "Criticism of John Gnarph" opinion sections and edits entirely. Wikipedia should use "is this of long-term encyclopedic value?" as the criterion, and not "I found this in the 'Daily Tattler' about John Gnarph, therefore it must go into his BLP." And this goes treble for "allegations" in BLPs, or in any articles which refer to living people. Such stuff is not of long-term encyclopedic value, and NPOV has naught to do wth it. (end soapbox) Collect (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the criterion “long-term encyclopedic value” is itself very subjective. E.g., you'll probably argue that how a political speech is received is not fair game, but I will argue that substantial public reaction (especially negative) to an inaugural or state of the union speech is something that will be an enduring part of the public record, and people many years into the future will want to know the reasoning behind the reaction. I look at it more as “won't be substantially incorrect 5 years from now”, but that contains a bit of bias from the print encyclopedia days. Kerfuffler (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Really? Can you tell me anything off-hand about FDR's second inaugural address? The 1938 State of the Union address? Even the major address at the dedication of the Gettysburg cemetery? (Hint: It was not by Lincoln and was covered in far more detail by the newspapers at the time than Lincoln's few words were) Anything?? The idea that Wikipedia should be an active political forum during silly season is one of the most egregious intrinsic violation of the Five Pillars one could have. We would be well off avoiding such "stuff". Collect (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree absolutely with the above comments, there's a first me agreeing with Collect.
As regards Langus' comment lets put that into perspective, it is usually Langus-TxT claiming articles are biased because they don't reflect the Argentine POV. This is then used to justify wholesale reversion of edits to the "last consensus" when it reflects the Argentine POV, or to edit war to impose an edit that reflects the Argentine POV when it doesn't. Its disruptive editing that is paralysing attempts to improve articles.
In the latest case he is edit warring to include a comment that the Argentine POV is that an event in 1833 was an "invasion", in an article on self-determination where it is completely and utterly irrelevant. He has used then this has an excuse to wipe out all of my edits that removed references to POV, in preference to describing the debate and manages to refer to the Argentine POV THREE times in two paragraphs (TWICE in one) [22]. Its simply ridiculous that he is edit warring to impose a text that is so badly written. Please can someone break out a clue stick. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
The opinions to be balanced are informed, mainstream opinions of scholars, rather than political bodies, such as the UN or British or Argentinian governments. Academic sources typically explain the relative acceptance of different views. Of course we must report the positions of political bodies, but must then explain their degree of acceptance by informed commentators. Also, we should use the names most commonly used, which means that the English Wikipedia article is called "Falkland Islands", while the Spanish Wikipedia article is called "Islas Malvinas". What I have seen in this and similar articles is editors trying to find neutrality between the British and Argentinian positions by deciding among themselves the relative weight to assign to them. TFD (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I'd say that scholars supporting Argentine sovereignty claim mostly use the word "occupation".
Also please note that I'm not trying to include anything, but the other way around: Wee Curry Monster wants to take out of the article the contrast of opinions.[23]. Could we please stop the mud slinging, Wee?
I have to say that I tend to agree with Kerfuffler when he says that "long-term encyclopedic value" is subjective. "Proportional to their importance to the topic" could be also subjective if you don't "measure" it somehow.
But we are diverging from the original question. --Langus (t) 18:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Not mudslinging, a demonstrated fact, this is the edit you imposed [24]. Lets not try to obfuscate what you're trying to impose, your excuse for doing so is that I removed a statement of POV that is irrelevant to the topic. Again NPOV doesn't demand we state the Argentine POV explicitly but that we describe the debate from a neutral perspective. From your own comments above you acknowledge this isn't even the mainstream Argentine POV, effectively you're seeking to impose a minority fringe view. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Mud taken. --Langus (t) 20:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

User: Mrt3366

Hello, I am Jayemd. I have heard that on Talk: Kashmir conflict, Mrt3366 is reverting other users' edits 'at the sound of a heartbeat'. I have provided advice to the editors, but from what it looks like, they might have another dispute. --Jayemd (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Smithfield Foods

All,

I am an employee of Smithfield Foods, and came to Wiki to look up information about the company I work for. Unfortunately, all I found on the page were controversies about methods of hog production and other tangentially related topics. The article reads as a smear campaign against the company. There is virtually no information about the company itself---brands, history, leadership, financial results, acquisitions, etc. For reference, I checked out another company in the food and beverage sector, Kraft Foods, and found that their page included the type of information I had hoped to find about Smithfield, with a controversies section included.

As an employee, I didn't feel it was appropriate for me to make changes to the page myself, so I posted on the talk page to see if another editor would be willing to do a revamp of the article. No one has yet responded to my request, so I am posting here hoping to gain some attention to the issue.

I'm happy to help provide information to help revamp the page, if helpful.

Thanks

Kkirkham (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Tricky. I just had a very quick look at the article (Smithfield Foods) and agree that it appears to have focused too much on company problems (but that's a very tentative assessment as I have not looked in any detail). I'm a bit busy and probably can't help much but I did add the article to my watch list and will notice activity there, and will try to help. I suggest starting with one or two concrete proposals on the article talk page (Talk:Smithfield Foods). Perhaps ignore the negativity for now and start with any actual mistakes or misinformation, or outdated information (bearing in mind that an encyclopedic article is supposed to retain at least an overview of history, so not everything will be current info). Make a couple of proposals and I'll respond at the article talk (if I miss it for a couple of days, please prompt me with a brief reminder at my talk). Johnuniq (talk) 11:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I read the article and agree there are POV issues and suggest that you put a POV template on it. The negative information forms too much of the article and does not put it into context. I assume that Smithfield Foods' actions are typical of the food industry, but the impression is that its record is exceptionally poor. You could ask for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies. You may edit the article yourself, see the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline. If you run into disputes when editing then you should use dispute resolution (WP:DR). It can be daunting. TFD (talk) 01:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
A common approach to provide more balance overall is to add more content (the pieces which are missing have already been highlighted above). IRWolfie- (talk) 22:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for all the help! Kkirkham (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • More company history would be good; photos of finished products or exteriors of facilities would be good. The company really demonstrating animal-rights abuses have been rectified also should be mentioned. There is arguably too much lurid detail, but it's a business in which much of any detail is apt to become lurid — "ya don't want to see how sausage is made," as the saying goes... Carrite (talk) 14:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Although the original post is nearly stale, the article is indeed problematic and would benefit from broader input by neutral editors. I made several edits in an attempt to achieve better balance in the article, removing some over-the-top material and adding RS quotes from a relevant state agent who had personally inspected the facility and commented on the issues directly. Unfortunately, 100% of my contributions were immediately reverted by an established custodian of the page who refuses to allow any material to be removed, regardless of weight of balance. Clearly this article needs more attention from experienced editors and a larger cross-section of the WP community. Doc Tropics 14:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your observations and attempts to help, Doc Tropics. How do you suggest we get this article the attention it needs? I made a couple benign edits to the page (added sections for brands and company leadership), and while the information was not removed totally, it was moved by the custodian you mentioned to reduce its prominence on the page. Kkirkham (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Australian Greens

Hi, I have proposed an edit to the Australian Greens page. I propose to add a Political position in the infobox, as is standard with Wikipedia political party entries. The Australian Greens are the third largest party in Australia, and hold 1 seat out of 150 in the Australian House of Representatives. The other seats are held by the Liberal Party of Australia, the Australian Labor Party, and the National Party of Australia. Each of these articles contains a politcal position. The Liberal Party of Australia is described as 'centre-left'. The other two parties are described as 'centre-right'. The Greens have various policies that would fit into the Left-wing politics category. These include gay marriage, a 40% pollution cut by 2020, voluntary euthanasia, opposition to the Iraq and Afghanistan war, abolition of the Monarchy of Australia, cuts in funding for private schools, free University education for all, free health and dental care for all, compulsury student unionism, abolition of private health insurance rebate, increase access to abortion, increased public housing, no mandatory detention of asylum seekers who arrive by boat, an end to the Pacific Solution, end the Northern Territory emergency response, increased multicultural programmes, gay adoption, establish intersex as a gender, increased restrictions on the media; particulary News Limited, increased social security, a stronger line on Israel-Palestine, increase overseas aid and increased rights for unions. These policies are all available on www.greens.org.au/policies. Some are available in the Wikipedia article.

The Wikipedia article on Left-wing politics notes 'In politics, the Left, left-wing, and leftists are people or views which generally support social change to create a more egalitarian society. They usually involve a concern for those in society who are disadvantaged relative to others and an assumption that there are unjustified inequalities'. This describes the Greens perfectly. The page also says 'the term (left-wing) was applied to a number of revolutionary movements...including green politics'. The Greens are clearly to the left of Labor, which is described as 'centre-left'.

I also note that other Green parties around the world, affiliated to Global Greens such as Green Party of England and Wales, Green Party of the United States, Scottish Greens and Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand are described on their articles as 'left-wing'. I have also found the following sources that describe the Greens as left-wing:

There are very few political party pages on Wikipedia (if any) that don't have a political position. I have tried to discuss this issue, but have not received many helpful comments. A lot of stonewalling. Please help me. Welshboyau11 (talk) 02:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

One of the users involved, Timeshift is also a vocal critic on his user pages of conservatives and the Liberal Party of Australia. I am actually a supporter of the left-wing Plaid Cymru party in Wales. I am just trying to approach this fairly and with consistency. Welshboyau11 (talk) 02:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I do not appreciate your singling me out. The article edit history and talkpage display your unilateral actions vs others. And my userpage is irrelevant, it is allowed to be POV - my userpage has already been queried and cleared. Articles aren't for POV.Timeshift (talk) 02:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Then why do you constantly reject any edits to left-leaning articles that you don't consider flattering? I didn't 'single you out'. I was noting it as a point to consider. You are one of the only editors disputing the changes, and have also attacked me several times, and the first time I came across you was when you falsely accused me of being a meat sock puppet, which I disproved. Welshboyau11 (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC) Welshboyau11 (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, what do Timeshift's or your political leanings have to do with this discussion? HiLo48 (talk) 03:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
The problem is: is Timeshift letting his judgement be clouded by political leanings? Welshboyau11 (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Ah, we have a mind reader in our midst. Welcome. HiLo48 (talk) 05:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I said is he? I didn't say he is. Stop personal abuse. Welshboyau11 (talk) 23:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I have a very different view. The world's first green party was in Tasmania. It grew to become the Australian Greens. As it emerged, it was heralded as a radically different party from our traditional ones. If it's radically different, there is surely no need nor benefit to labelling according to an old political spectrum it never aimed to be part of. Its position is Green politics. HiLo48 (talk) 03:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

That's hardly a NPOV. To declare that it's not part of the old politcal spectrum. It's position is not green politics only. Did you even read what I wrote above? It's not a single issue party. Your dislike of 'old party spectrums' is not a valid reason to ignore massive precedent and reliable, valuable sources. Plaid Cymru was formed to advocate Welsh Independence from the United Kingdom. Does that mean Welsh independence and Welsh nationalism are it's only objectives? Certainly not. I note on Plaid Cymru's article, the party is described as left-wing. Shock. Horror. Welshboyau11 (talk) 03:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
How is it consistent or in line with Wikipedia policy to ignore precedent and consensus to favour a political party you personally like? How come you get to choose what party gets this labelling? How is it NPOV to decide we can't edit this article because the Greens are 'new politics'??? Welshboyau11 (talk) 03:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
The Greens original, single issue may have been the environment. But they have expanded and taken on left-wing views. Green politics is in itself, left. See above. Those policies I mentioned are on their website. They don't have anything to do with the Environment or Green politics. But they have everything to do with Left-wing politics. Welshboyau11 (talk) 04:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Welshboyau11, I suggest that you stop telling editors what their political leanings are, when neither Timeshift or HiLo48 are allowing their political leanings, whatever they are, to influence what they say here. I do not know what political party either of them "personally likes". Are you now going to jump to conclusions about my political leanings? --Bduke (Discussion) 04:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

With the greatest respect, Timeshift has made his views very clear on his User page for a start and his constant trolling of political pages with defences of left-wing groups and views. HiLo48 has made some POV comments above that bring into question his/her impartiality. He/she said the Greens should not be labelled left-wing becasue they are 'part of new politics' and 'political spectrums are old politics'. That is clearly biased based upon emotional feelings and no evidence whatsover, or support from Wikipedia policies. And you don't call that allowing political views to influence comments made? All this backbiting is all irrelevant. I am trying in good faith to bring these matters to the attention of editors. I brought this issue to a discussion on the talk page before editing, but sadly no one was able to engage and discuss the issues. . Let's just focus on the issues above surrounding the other Green parties being labelled left-wing and the other Australian parties being labelled, and the policies which are broadly left-wing in line with the Wikipedia article Left-wing politics, which actually mentions Green politics as a specific part of Left-wing politics. Kind Regards Welshboyau11 (talk) 04:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
With the greatest respect, please do not call me a troll. Timeshift (talk) 04:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Infoboxes. I'm sick of them. How can you accurately represent a political party as a point on a spectrum? If you have to reduce the Greens to a point on a spectrum, it's most commonly labelled as left. The underlying issue is the moronic simplicity and inevitable inaccuracy of doing so. But we do. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Look, I couldn't agree more. They may be stupid or silly, but this is the precedent. The policies outlined above fit into the category that is used. Moreover, this is the consenus that currently exists. It exists on all the other parties, including Green parties I mentioned above. We can't make special rules for one party that we may like or think is new. Welshboyau11 (talk) 04:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
The core issues here.
1. The reliable sources including party senator Lee Rhiannon, media, and Department of Foreign Affairs
2. The policies - they align with the defintion of left-wing politics taken from the wiki article: '...generally support social change to create a more egalitarian society. They usually involve a concern for those in society who are disadvantaged relative to others and an assumption that there are unjustified inequalities'
3. The precedent including other worldwide Green parties including Green Party of England and Wales, Green Party of the United States, Scottish Greens, Wales Green Party and Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand. Whether we like it or not, these parties are all defined as 'Left-wing', most without sources.
4. The consensus behind infoboxes at this time, and universal use
5. Other parties including in Australia such as the Liberal Party of Australia, National Party of Australia, Australian Labor Party, The First Nations Political Party, Australian Democrats and more. Why should the Greens be any different? That's favourtism and hardly NPOV. Welshboyau11 (talk) 04:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I regretfully agree. Come on HiLo, you know I'm right. This is finger in the dyke stuff. There's more fruitful places to spend your energy. Welshboyau11, please don't speculate on the motivations of other editors, and avoid verbs like "troll". It doesn't help. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC) Updated 04:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
You are cherry-picking. I might point out that every party you linked to at 5 goes between centre-left to centre-right. There is no use of the absolutes of left-wing or right-wing. Question, what would you label the 25-35 percent of Australian Green voters who preference the Liberal Party above the Labor Party? Timeshift (talk) 04:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Every Green party listed at 3 is defined as simply left-wing. If you don't think the Greens fit into that what do you suggest? Far right? Welshboyau11 (talk) 16:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Some Green Parties around the world are considered to be on the right spectrum. But regardless, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Timeshift (talk) 23:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. That's the case in Canada, where the left vote that attaches to the Greens in Australia is pretty much owned by the NDP. Orderinchaos 09:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
1. You do realise even most Green activists regard Rhiannon as far-left? She is argued by many such to have a controversial POV which reflects her desire to move the party in a hard-left direction, and some people believe that saying something enough times makes their position the orthodoxy. There are people like that in every party. 2. is entirely subjective. 3. "Precedent" ignores that some of those parties for historical and regional reasons may be entirely different - which of them has the capacity to elect Senators (non-singular) and win seats on preferences as in the Australian system? The German Greens are a better comparison, but even they're not a directly comparable party due to the strength of Die Linke and the German Greens history in coalition government. 4. What consensus - where? 5. Nationals definitely shouldn't (the SA / WA Nationals are not right-wing), nor should First Nations (single-issue party) or Democrats (broad spectrum of centre-left to centre-right views although consistent in social liberalism), as none of them have an objective left/right position. Orderinchaos 09:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It's complex. Yes, The Greens have policies in most areas. Some are leftish, some are not, and some are new. They invented Green politics. Giving it a simple label doesn't help anybody. Just tell the readers what the party's policies are on the many issues. Don't try to fit it into an old paradigm.

Again, you are letting your personal views get into the way. Why do you get to define that they are 'new' politics? Why do you get to choose that we create a new rule for the Greens and ignore the sources, precedent and consensus? Welshboyau11 (talk) 16:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I can see arguments for and against, but on balance, go for it on the basis of the first source you list. Let's drop all the bad faith accusations against other editors. If there are other good sources, particularly statements by the Greens themselves, that establish a position outside the left-right continuum, then we should consider those carefully too. It's a fairly close judgement call and subject to reconsideration. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the contribution. I can't see how it is a 'close judgement call'. The precedent is there. The evidence is there. Why should their be one rule for all the other Australian parties and global greens parties and one rule for the Australian Greens? Welshboyau11 (talk) 20:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Because we might be wrong in relation to the other parties. Go with what the sources say. Consistency isn't the main consideration in the encyclopedia, whatever people may tell you. I'm in the UK, and while it's pretty clear that the UK Greens actually are on the Left, they studiously avoid saying they're on the Left. And they have a spectrum of opinion inside the party. The French Les Verts are Left because they have posts in the Socialist Party's government, but the American Greens would not like to be called Left. Politics is awkward like that, just is. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Taking your POV into account, the sources clearly back the term left-wing. It's really not complicated. Welshboyau11 (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
You have been asked not to focus on editors, and specifically to not accuse others of having a POV. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
It's not an accusation. POV stands for Point of View. Everyone does have a point of view. I didn't know that was offensive. But HiLo said the change couldn't be made because the Greens are 'new politics' and 'shouldn't be labelled with old political spectrums'. That is not a Neutral, non-biased view. Welshboyau11 (talk) 23:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Welshboyau11 has a major problem. Everyone else here has a biased POV, and he is the only purely objective editor here. If only we were all perfectly rational like him. Just drop the personal bullshit from your argument, admit that you too have a POV, and you might get somewhere.HiLo48 (talk) 21:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Never have I attacked anyone personally like you just have. Never have I used foul language or said people have 'major problems'. You did make, in my opinion, a statement that was not neutral. You said the Greens are 'new politics' and 'shouldn't be labelled with old political spectrums'Welshboyau11 (talk) 23:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
A simple question. Are there sources that state directly that the Australian Greens are left wing? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Several. See above. Here are three out of many more: *Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade: http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/sys_gov.html

Welshboyau11 (talk) 23:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC) I think the consensus so far from Independent editors is to go with the change. No Independent editor has completely opposed the change, whilst Anthonyhcole agrees and Itsmejudith is leaning in favour. Let's keep discussion going though. Welshboyau11 (talk) 23:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

"I think the consensus so far from Independent editors is to go with the change"? HAHAHAHAHA, that is your most hilarious statement so far! Timeshift (talk) 23:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
What Independent editor here has specifically opposed the change then? Boy you can be awful. Welshboyau11 (talk) 23:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Can you please describe to me what you think an independent editor is, who they are, and why only their opinions count? Timeshift (talk) 00:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I brought this matter here, because you clearly have your mind made up. In your opinion, their should be one rule for all other parties in Australia and the world, and one for the Greens. Your opinion is also that we ignore the 8 or so sources. I brought this matter here to seek other opinions. The Independent editors not involved in this dispute are Anthonyhcole and Itsmejudith, both whom have expressed support in varying tones for my proposal. Anthonyhcole said he 'regreftfully agrees' with me, whilst he does not like infoboxes. Please listen to others and be prepared to give an inch, and move from your prefered position, and be open to compromise. I am. Welshboyau11 (talk) 00:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
A second question: Are there sources that state directly that the Australian Greens are not left wing? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Not that I am aware of. Other will have to put that case. No one claims they are right-wing for sure. Welshboyau11 (talk) 00:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Can I take it from your answer that you haven't looked for such sources? If so, your conclusions look suspect to me. This isn't a court of law. We aren't supposed to be 'putting cases'. We are supposed to be writing articles to reflect what mainstream reliable sources say, not Google-mining to meet our predetermined opinions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Certainly not. I did signifcant research to find party policy and descriptions of ideology. I am Welsh, and didn't even know that much about the party until my research. I didn't have a predetermined opinion. I didn't come into this with a view one way or the other The sources I provided certainly are mainstream and reliable and include a Senior Party member and Spokeswoman and reliable sources with information about Australian political parties including a Dept of Foreign Affairs website. Haven't you even looked at the 8 or so sources? Welshboyau11 (talk) 00:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Some of the sources again:

Welshboyau11 (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

"Some of the sources"? All of the sources. You've already posted to us your non-WP:RS opinion pieces. The only half-valid source is DFAT but last updated in Feb 2008 by a changing public service after the election of a federal Labor government, which labels the Libs centre-right, Labor nothing, and Greens left-wing. Surprise there. Here it is before the change of government, without the use of left/right. Timeshift (talk) 00:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
It isn't necessary to provide the same links yet again. Instead, I suggest Welshboyau11 does proper research - which for a significant political party in a large developed democracy would start by looking for academic sources. It took me only a few minutes work with Google Scholar to find an article from what appears to be a respectable academic source discussing the Australian Greens, and making the (then) position of party members clear: "The vast majority of respondents were happy to identify both themselves and most Australian political parties on a left–right ideological scale. On a scale of left 0 to right 10, the members unambiguously saw the Greens NSW as a left wing party with an average of 2.3, similarly they saw themselves as left wing with an average of 2.4". [25]. This is the sort of source that we should be basing articles on, not Google-mined material of dubious merit selected solely to confirm what we already 'know'. That is one reliable source - it isn't the only one though, and if others offer an alternative perspective, we will have to take that into consideration too. Now do the research... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I strongly disagree that the sources are not relevant, such as the article by a Greens senator and the DFAT website. But putting that aside, I have found several books which describe the Greens as left-wing.

I've found others, if more are needed. Welshboyau11 (talk) 01:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Some of the sources at least look better - but you are still Google-mining, as the links you provide make clear. Stop looking for sources that describe the Aus' Greens as left wing, and start looking for sources that describe their political perspective, to discover how they describe it. As long as your search is designed to 'prove' your assumptions, it is meaningless. We know that some sources describe the Greens as left-wing - that isn't the question. What matters is whether this is the consensus amongst the sources that discuss them, and you cannot find a consensus by looking only for one opinion. If this is too difficult to understand, I suggest you leave the topic to others who understand how to do proper research. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
With respect I think it matters what the reliable sources such as the Encyclopedia of World Constititions have to say, not how they have been located. How do you suggest I find information? Search 'Greens right wing'? The Death of Social Dem wasn't found that way. I've read it. Welshboyau11 (talk) 01:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
It's all subjective opinion, even if/when a source is at the stage of peer-reviewed published works. Absolutes like left-wing and right-wing serve no purpose. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Timeshift (talk) 01:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
"Absolutes like left-wing and right-wing serve no purpose"? Really? Can you provide WP:RS for that, or is it just your own opinion? And what the hell has WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS got to do with it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Once again Timeshift, you are letting your personal opinions get in the way of consistency, consensus, precedent, other editors and reliable sources. Welshboyau11 (talk) 01:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
That is my opinion, that absolutes that left-wing and right-wing serve no purpose, but it is also the opinion of other Australian editors - part of the consensus discussion occurring. OTHERSTUFF is relevant toward the fact that whatever is on other Green articles on wikipedia doesn't dictate what should happen to the Australian Greens. Welsh, stop accusing and bullying. Timeshift (talk) 01:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
How am I bullying? Welshboyau11 (talk) 01:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
The opinion of 'Australian editors' regarding whether left-wing and right-wing serve a purpose is utterly irrelevant. Wikipedia articles aren't based on the opinions of editors, they are based on what reliable sources say. I suggest that both of you take a bit of time to read up on Wikipedia policy, and then do some proper research. Or failing that, find another topic, and leave the article to people who aren't out to impose their own opinions on it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with that. I think the so called 'Australian editors' have this sort of mob mentality which means they can choose what sources to listen to and ignore, they get to choose what happens regardless of evidence, precedent or policy. Just a note, I'm not trying to impose my view. I don't have a view. I'm not enrolled to vote in Australia, which is probably a bad thing in Timeshifts mob mentality view. I don't dislike or like the greens one way or the other. I am trying to look at this objectivley and with fairness in regardess to precedent and evidence. Welshboyau11 (talk) 02:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Whether something should be included or not, due to relevance or something else, is often through an agreement of opinion. This is perfectly valid. Getting back to playing the ball rather than the man, do the Greens refer to themselves as left-wing in a party document? No. Timeshift (talk) 02:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
No it's not. 'Australian' opinion does not matter. 'Australians' don't own the article. It's a wikipedia article everyone is free to edit regardless of Nationality based upon fact. Do the Liberal Party of Australia refer to themselves as 'centre-right' or the Australian Labor Party as 'centre-left'? Not specifically. Welshboyau11 (talk) 02:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
No, Australians don't own the article, I never said that. But Australians are the ones who contribute in article and talk the most, just like would be the case anywhere. But let's just ignore that. Timeshift (talk) 02:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
No, let's ignore your personal and predetermined views, such as deciding 'left-wing and right-wing serve no purpose', depsite that not being the case with Green Party of England and Wales, Green Party of the United States, Scottish Greens and Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, Socialist Alliance (Australia), Plaid Cymru, Respect Party, Scottish National Party and others. Welshboyau11 (talk) 02:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Stop the accusations, and stop ignoring otherstuffexists. Timeshift (talk) 02:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is an essay, and primarily about deletion discussions. --Shirt58 (talk) 03:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
If the consensus of mainstream reliable sources is to refer to a political movement as left wing, the our article will too. Frankly, given the clear failure of both the leading participants in this discussion to understand basic Wikipedia policy, I'm beginning to wonder whether they should be topic-banned for lack of clue... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem here is that "left-wing" is somewhat subjective, especially when contrasted with "centre-left". And the lack of reliable sources in all of this - a public servant's opinion is still an opinion, not a reliable source - is definitely a problem. The Greens also take few economic left positions - as seen by the fact that the Katter party emerged as the key left party in the recent Queensland election (despite its patriarch being thought of by most Australians to be *right* wing.) Also note [26] - not a source, but clearly trying to identify where the Greens sit in "absolute terms", and it's hardly with Vladimir Lenin (or even Mandela, for that matter). Orderinchaos 02:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, look at the books which I have added including Encyclopedia of World Constititions. (See above). Secondly, if other parties around the world and in Australia can have labels applied, why should the Greens be any different? That's a bizaree concept. Welshboyau11 (talk) 02:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
In reference to your second point, again, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You find having free photos in the article a bizarre concept. I'm getting tired of accusations of various bizarity in long-standing content in articles, vetted by many many editors over a long period of time. Timeshift (talk) 02:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Get used to it, then. If something is wrong, I want to fix it. But I will always take it to forums like these where it can be discussed by other independent, non-biased editors. Welshboyau11 (talk) 02:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
How many @#$%&* times do I have to say it? Find academic sources that discuss the politics of the Aus' Greens in depth, and use those to determine article content. If this pointless squabble continues, I'm going to raise this at AN/I, with a suggestion that the behaviour of at least two participants indicates a non-compliance with policy that merits a topic ban. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to hear on what grounds i've done something wrong. Timeshift (talk) 02:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
LOL!! Perhaps saying you're tired of me, perhaps ignoring precedent, consensus and evidence and WP:RS, WP:PRECEDENT Welshboyau11 (talk) 02:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Speaking of opinions and pots and kettles... I never said you and you know it. I said getting tired of accusations of various bizarity in long-standing content in articles. Said by an administrator Orderinchaos above, "The problem here is that "left-wing" is somewhat subjective, especially when contrasted with "centre-left". And the lack of reliable sources in all of this - a public servant's opinion is still an opinion, not a reliable source - is definitely a problem." Timeshift (talk) 02:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
We've moved on from DFAT Welshboyau11 (talk) 02:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I doubt there is much I can add to this, but reading through some academic papers on the issue, it appears the the question of where to place the Australian Greens on the left/right wing political spectrum is non-trivial. Although some commentators are placing them as left wing, the issue is that they aren't necessarily left wing in the traditional sense, as they don't take a left stance on economics. Instead their focus is on social issues. Charnock & Ellis (2004) in "Postmaterialism and postmodernization in Australian electoral politics" place the Australian Greens as centralist with a leaning towards left on the left wing/right wing spectrum (with ALP as left and Liberals as right), but as extreme on the postmaterialism/postmodernism spectrum (in direct opposition to One Nation). Others describe them as left libertarian or left progressive. I guess my concern is that it isn't a simple issue, and seems to relate to a growing lack of suitability of the left/right ideology model. - Bilby (talk) 02:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry bilby, have you read all the evidence and precedent above? Or just using a romantic 'new politics' idea like some other editors? Welshboyau11 (talk) 02:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Look at all the academic sources and books above. Look at the precdent in Australia. Look at the precedent in other Greens parties worldwide. And they do take a left stance on economic. Look at greens.org.au/policies Welshboyau11 (talk) 02:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Welshboy, are you even looking how you're coming across to the average neutral editor around here? Bilby's presented some interesting alternative sources in an entirely calm and rational voice and you appear to be jumping up and down because they disagree with your preferred sources. The "precedent" is not WP:RS, by the way. I could pick out a bunch of issues where the Greens are clearly centre or centre right and we could argue all day about it, and it would be completely pointless (and completely WP:OR). Orderinchaos 08:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is getting lost. I think the issue is whether "left wing" be added to the infobox, on its own with no nuance. There is no issue that I can see whether reliable sources can be used to discuss the political position of the Party. Discussion above shows that the position of members of the Australian Greens is quite nuanced. That should be reflected in the article itself. What I and others are objecting to is the simple minded use of terms in infoboxes to describe complex positions. That is not a matter of sources, but of editorial judgement. So leave that section of the infobox vacant and discuss the political position of the Party in the article itself using reliable sources. --Bduke (Discussion) 03:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

That was what I was getting at, but BDuke worded it better. :) The sources I've been reading take a complex stance, rather than saying "left wing oir right wing", as the distinction isn't nuanced enough. I don't know what the correct stance is, just that it isn't a simple one, so a simple term in an infobox may not be the best approach. - Bilby (talk) 03:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm in firm agreement with both Bduke and Bilby. Orderinchaos 08:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
What a load of crap. We use infoboxes. That's the consensus. There are broad views within the Liberal Party of Australia - Turnbull, Abbott etc. But that does not mean the party overall is not centre-right. Look at all the sources, consensus and precedent. I can say no more. It would be unfair to leave the Greens infobox incompelete and ignore credibly academic sources because of your 'editorial judgement'. I note other Independent editors here agree with me, such as Anthonyhcole and Itsmejudith. Welshboyau11 (talk) 03:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, BDuke worded it perfectly. I'm going to withdraw from this discussion because it's now consuming too much time and energy, and realise that left-wing won't be allowed to be added any time in the near future, the status quo and majority of the article's editors are on my side. Timeshift (talk) 03:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
We have any number of good sources describing the Australian Greens as left wing. They fall within the scope of Left-wing politics, which is based on similarly good sources. It is hardly controversial or disruptive to describe a well-established political party as having a broad political position. Reading the article draws the reader to the conclusion that the Greens are far more closely aligned with the left than the right of Australian politics. What part of the Greens' stated platform could be described as anything other than "left", I wonder? --Pete (talk) 03:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks pete. I couldn't agree more. The sources all say it too. Welshboyau11 (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you realise how funny this is to an Australian - you agreeing with the one-eyed right wing in how to define left. :) Orderinchaos 08:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment This discussion is so unstructured that is hard to comment in the right place, hence starting new indent. For the start I find it very frustrating to waste so much time reading through all this, and I don't think such spamming of discussions should be acceptable. Agree with the initiation of the AN/I, in particular in regards to what I perceive as sustained disruptive editing by Welshboyau11. I agree with above comment by Bduke, which in this chaos I am forced to repeat: "This discussion is getting lost. I think the issue is whether "left wing" be added to the infobox, on its own with no nuance. There is no issue that I can see whether reliable sources can be used to discuss the political position of the Party. [...] What I and others are objecting to is the simple minded use of terms in infoboxes to describe complex positions. That is not a matter of sources, but of editorial judgement. So leave that section of the infobox vacant and discuss the political position of the Party in the article itself using reliable sources." which is consistent with MOS:INFOBOX stating "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." --ELEKHHT 04:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean, frankly. But can people please just look at the evidence here. I've found some more sources:

http://wa.greens.org.au/system/files/private/GI%20webaugust2012.pdf - Greens magazine where they say 'Greens are clearly defined as left-wing'. And here Bob Brown agreeing with the description of left-wing http://greensmps.org.au/content/news-stories/peoples-forum-blogging-live. Welshboyau11 (talk) 04:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

You appear to be under the impression that referencing is the sole criteria for inclusion. Try to understand what ELEKHH and other editors are saying. I mean, if I can reference that 'Australian Greens' contains 16 letters, then should I include that just because I could reference it? Timeshift (talk) 04:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
What else needs to be done then? I belive based on a primary source, this edit should be made, if not based upon the evidence of The Encyclopedia of World Constiutions and other books Welshboyau11 (talk) 04:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
What wikipedia policy says that editors can wilfully exclude material they don't like? Welshboyau11 (talk) 04:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I know my Dolce & Gabbana from my Deleuze & Guattari, so could be considered one of those post-structuralist "everything is relative, there are no facts" types. (Or, as Shakespeare and Marlowe co-wrote, "for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so".) Nevertheless. The sky is blue. The sun is shining. The Australian Greens are a left wing party. The sources say so, too.--Shirt58 (talk) 04:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Just because not everything is relative, does not mean that everything is black or white. Most academic sources do not discuss The Australian Greens in simplistic left-right terms, as has been pointed out above.--ELEKHHT 04:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. What's happened in Australia, and in some cases elsewhere, is that the economic and social left have split in Australia. The economic left resides in some sections of the Labor Party, the various socialist minor parties and, curiously, in the new Katter's Australian Party, while the social left resides in different sections of the Labor Party, in grassroots activism and in the Australian Greens. To say that the Greens are "left wing" in an absolutist way ignores the relative silence of their spokespeople and even of their policy on economic issues other than health, education and housing, and also ignores their inability to "split" the working class left vote from the Labor Party as the NDP successfully did with the Liberal Party in Canada, to name one example of which I'm familiar. There are reasons for this silence - the vast majority of their members, activists and MPs come from privileged backgrounds, and the "leafier" suburbs of major cities contribute disproportionately towards their national vote. Being wedded to trendy, high-profile issues such as gay marriage and refugees, which creates a public perception that they are left-wing, does not actually mean they *are* in an absolutist sense left-wing. Orderinchaos 09:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Ironic that Welshboyau11's latest source above has the subtitle "political divide is more about colour than about left-right differences" yet he drops it here as a proof that is a good idea to label The Greens as "left wing" in the infobox. And now even started spaming my talk page while claiming "I am honestly not trying to 'spam'". Now that I already wasted too much time, I do withdraw from this hopeless "discussion". --ELEKHHT 04:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
That's true. It does say that. We could mention that in the article. But it also does say that 'The Greens are clearly left-wing'. I didn't realise demonstating sources was spamming. My mistake. Welshboyau11 (talk) 04:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
My suggestion. We say Left or Left-wing in the Infobox. Then in the main article state 'The Australian Greens are considered to be to the left of the Australian political spectrum, although they reject this terminology' as a compromise? Welshboyau11 (talk) 05:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm prepared to give something. It would be nice if other would also. Welshboyau11 (talk) 05:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
To have left in the infobox or not to have left in the infobox. Seems a pretty black and white decision there, so i'm not sure about that. Timeshift (talk) 05:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Good to see you're open to compromise as usual, my friend. Welshboyau11 (talk) 05:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Not your particular style of compromise, no. Timeshift (talk) 05:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
What your idea? Winner takes all and this farce continues despite the books, encylopedias, sources, precedent, etc, etc? Welshboyau11 (talk) 05:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
It's not a crime to support the status quo like many other editors. Timeshift (talk) 05:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
You are criminally biased though. And only about half the editors support you. Welshboyau11 (talk) 05:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I beg to differ. And then there's the AN/I. Timeshift (talk) 05:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Don't take it out of context. That's about you too. And your comments on nationality look really dumb and arrogant now. Welshboyau11 (talk) 06:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Talk about taking things out of context lol! Timeshift (talk) 06:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

This is an appalling thread. In the time I've been out today it seems that Welshboyau11 has decreed that the opinions of myself and several other editors don't count because we are not independent, are part of a mob mentality, and our thoughts are irrelevant. And one of us is "criminally biased". LOL. Anyone starting here with an attitude like that has no hope of ever changing my mind. I think a relevant Wikipedia policy here is WP:Assume good faith. HiLo48 (talk) 07:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. This whole thread has been an unfortunate reflection on Wikipedia - especially seeing how some of our more intellectually rigorous editors who normally stay out of these debates and who haven't attacked anyone have been treated simply for holding an opposing view to Welshboyau11. Even if he was right, his behaviour speaks for itself and polarises the discussion. Orderinchaos 08:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and now Welshboy's taken to rank abuse of his opponent on his own talkpage, including lame insults formed from Timeshift's Wiki handle and calling the guy a fascist and a racist. :/ Clearly he has a lot to learn about how to engage on issues productively here. Orderinchaos 09:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, he certainly got carried away, and I was going to say that there's been nothing from Welshboy now for a couple of days, but then I looked at his Talk page. We have, from this morning...
"Mind your own business Timeshit - I haven't been well. I reply soon. Get of my talk page and get a life outside of the screen world. Try and do some good for someone instead of being arrogant and awful and thinking you own wikipedia." (Note the spelling of Timeshit.)
and (also directed at Timeshift)
"At least I'm not a fascist like you - you simply delete everthing I write on your talk page - how open. By the way. If you think I've given up you're in for a shock. I'll take this all the way to Jimmy Wales if I have too. Now go away, racist."
I know it's his own Talk page, but there's a threat there, and a very silly bit of name calling. (Racist?) Not a good look. HiLo48 (talk) 09:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Apparently i'm racist because I said that Australians tend to form consensus on Australian pages as would other countries, because that's where the edit interest tends to come from. Yeah, go figure. Timeshift (talk) 10:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Resorting to epithets is usually a sign that someone has lost the argument. Orderinchaos 11:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, thank you for that insight, both of you. You've managed to refute the extensive and well considered thoughts of many editors with "axiomatically obvious" and "no-brainer". Did you actually read what anybody else said? HiLo48 (talk) 00:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps they had a look at the sources and the precedent? That would be unusual. Welshboyau11 (talk) 01:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
There is needless POV-driven fighting going on over an axiomatic assertion of fact. The Greens are a left wing party. One doesn't need sources indicating the sky is blue to state the sky is blue. Carrite (talk) 02:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Did you actually read what anybody else said? HiLo48 (talk) 02:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
He deleted my contribution to his talk page (which dealt specifically with some of the sources) without reply, and called someone names when they queried the absence of a reply. So I'd say it's WP:IDHT territory. Orderinchaos 11:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Leave it blank. The infobox is for facts, not disputed opinions. While the relative position of political parties along a left-right axis is usually straightforward, their absolute position is not. TFD (talk) 18:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment It may be of interest that the OP has been blocked as a sock of an indef-blocked editor. Orderinchaos 01:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Help needed with Coatrack tag on Faithful Word Baptist Church

A coatrack tag has been added to Faithful Word Baptist Church, a very small church that has been labelled as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. In looking for what any and all reliable sources stated I was only able to find so much and mainly tied to several news incidents:

  • The hate group designation from the Southern Poverty Law Center
  • The church's pastor, in a sermon "Why I hate Barack Obama," that he prays for the death of the president
  • KNXV-TV noted the day after the sermon a member of the church "showed up outside of the Phoenix Convention Center toting an AR-15 assault rifle" and a pistol when President Barack Obama spoke.

I'm interested in getting the coatrack tag removed as I feel it indicates we are somehow suppressing or adding information that is not about the group. In asking the editors who support the tag they are convinced this is a coatrack but have been unable to show anything has been added that doesn't belong or that anything is missing. It seems to be a circular discussion so some uninvolved opinions would be appreciated, at least by me. If it is a coatrack what is the way forward to improving it, if it really isn't then what is the path for removing the tag? Any help appreciated. Insomesia (talk) 02:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I share Insomesia's frustration with these badges of shame and the unclear rationale behind them. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Riley Schillaci

Riley Schillaci (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I nominated this article for speedy deletion [27] due to the fact that Rschilla (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) (WP:SPA?), who appears to be the subject of the article, created this article as a promotional tool and has maintained ownership, even making legal threats (diff) in response to non-promotional edits made to the page. Apparently, Goodvac (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) disagreed that the article was non-neutral and contested the speedy (though s/he did nothing to address the apparent COI or the lack of references in the article, nor the apparent lack of notability. I started to remove the most blatant unsourced and non-neutral material, but then there was literally nothing left to stand. Goodvac calls my assertions baseless, so I thought I'd see what the folks here at NPOV/N think. Looking back into the article's history, I have no doubt others will see the same promotional, COI and ownership problems I see. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 15:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth — clearly not a candidate for speedy, nor for PROD, nor would it end in deletion at AfD. Adequate sourcing showing. Pretty much run of the mill cleanup needed. Take it to the talk page and work it out, would be my advice. Carrite (talk) 02:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Carrite, I would tend to agree with you, based upon what the article has looked like since 3 September, but I suspect you didn't look at this version. I would consider the matter closed at this point, because as the article went through AfD, many improvements were made to tone and referencing, producing a much more encyclopedic and less promotional article. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 00:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Watchtower Bible School of Gilead

I feel that User:Jeffro77 may not be willing to see that his edit here, which reverted my edit here, is POV. His argument is that my edit is wordy, but I think that it's better to err on the side of wordiness than to keep that statement POV. I need some feedback on this from an outside source. I might even be willing to seek some middle ground to help me find a way to make that statement less wordy, because I do admit that my edit there was on the wordy side. Thanks. Lighthead þ 04:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Is this a historical page? Why is nobody responding to anyone? Lighthead þ 19:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I suspect that nobody has responded because it seems a rather minor issue, possibly best discussed on the article talk page rather than here. Personally, since we provide a link to Organizational structure of Jehovah's Witnesses#Ministerial servants, I can see no reason to refer to deacons at all. As our article makes clear, the role of a deacon varies greatly between denominations, so the analogy tells the readers little anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
The reason I didn't bring it up there is because I sense that Jeffro77, the ruler of that wikiproject for lack of a better term, is not willing to reason around that. I brought it up there as you suggested, so let's see what he says. Thanks. Lighthead þ 21:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
The matter is trivial, as has been indicated at the article's Talk page. It is self-evident from the existing wording and link that deacon is a commonly used term, and that JWs use a different term. Further clarification seems unnecessary. No other editors have objected to the current wording, and nothing has prevented other editors from commenting.
The tedious claim about being "the ruler of that wikiproject" needs no further comment other than that Lighthead may need to review WP:AGF and WP:NPA.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
In response to AndyTheGrump's suggestion, I think there is some benefit in indicating the corresponding commonly used term, but I agree that it may not be essential. In any case, it doesn't warrant further elaboration as has been suggested. It's quite disappointing that Lighthead came here before even attempting discussion at the article's Talk page, which seems a little like canvassing.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

1)... thing that I do agree with you about is that it is an interesting factoid, but that it's not exactly all that important to include the information regarding deacons. As regards my comment of ruler, while I do feel that you dominate all aspects of that Wikiproject (there is no way I'm not going to accept that he doesn't), it probably wasn't the nicest thing to say about you, and it especially wasn't the right place. And so I essentially retract that comment. The only reason I said that, though, is because that was the reason that I brought up this issue here. I feel like it would have been pointless and going through the motions, and my view of the matter would have been shot down there no matter what. Do you deny that? That was my point about him being the so-called ruler. And that's why 2) I believe that I wasn't canvassing because I'm not the type of person that goes through the motions and wastes time. I don't believe in ritual for the sake of ritual, which I think that Wikipedia tends to veer to way too much of the time. And by the way, would I be canvassing if I accept your viewpoint on that edit as I do now after you explained it on that article's talk page? It doesn't seem so does it. You shouldn't be so quick to accuse people of things, Jeffro, unless you're absolutely sure about it, much less be so quick on the draw to cite guidelines (and yes, they are guidelines and not canon and/or policies), when you think that somebody is overstepping their boundaries. Lighthead þ 06:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, why would I be canvassing if I said in my second to last statement that I would bring it up on that talk page to see what you would say? I do whatever I do, and whatever I feel like because I personally know that I'm not canvassing and will never do anything sneaky. There will always be evidence to the contrary. Lighthead þ 07:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
1) That's a pretty messed up retraction, but I suppose it will have to do.
2) It's not clear why you immediately came to this noticeboard before attempting to discuss anything at all at article Talk. Nor is it clear why you're continuing to challenge the matter here. This leaves the impression that you're seeking a wider audience for your complaint rather than actually seeking resolution.
3) Breathe. You still haven't clearly outlined what you consider the issue to be. You have stated, without any actual discussion that saying JWs have a different term for deacons somehow inappropriately conveys some POV. But you haven't really indicated why you think it's a problem, so it's not really clear what kind of response you're expecting here. The article in question parenthetically states that a particular position of authority in a religious organisation has a different common name used by other groups. The point is of interest from the perspective of the group's organisational structure, but it is a fairly mundane point that does not require special elaboration. If you disagree, you should indicate why. Ideally, you should do this at the article's Talk page. Once you've stated your opinion, if there is not agreement, you could raise a third opinion request, or an WP:RFC.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
To be perfectly honest I didn't know the proper protocol of leaving the comment at the article's talk page. This is the first time I have left a comment on this noticeboard, or perhaps any noticeboard. (I may have left a comment at Reliable Sources a long time ago, because that page is on my watchlist.) But if I wasn't purposely canvassing, then I don't know what the problem is. Why would I suggest to leave a comment on the article's talk page, after leaving one here, if I were canvassing? Quite simply, you're not taking your own advice and assuming good faith. About the edit, I don't know why you can't understand that I'm done with it. You've explained your point, and it was a good explanation. This is the third time I've said that in different words. As regards the retraction, my point about the retraction is that I shouldn't have said it in those words (and I admit, in the words of the last edit to this page, as well), but I think that you do leave your personality on each of those articles. Those articles are heavy on criticism against JW's. It's not NPOV to have so many articles that comprise a Wikiproject be so strong in reiterating a crticism. And just because they're sourced, doesn't necessarily mean that they're true. This statement on the main article, Jehovah's Witnesses for example: Not only is their disfellowshipping announced from the platform, they are also condemned as ‘mentally diseased’ or ‘apostates’... A disfellowshipping is announced from the platform, but the reason for disfellowshipping is never known unless that person were to tell you, themselves; or if there were crosstalk (which can happen anywhere). I know all this from personal experience as a Jehovah's Witnesses. An elder can get his elder privileges stripped if he were to leak why that person was disfellowshipped. What do you have to say about misrepresenting those articles in such a way? I take that last statement back. I can see how an outsider would see that as a derogatory statement. I personally don't. But I think that the general tone is harsher than on other criticism pages. And I personally feel that criticism pages in general are POV. Lighthead þ 00:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
You claimed that I am supposedly the 'owner' of the page, and subsequently suggested that I am supposedly 'responsible' in some way for the content there. Neither of those things is true. Most of my edits relate to copyediting and refactoring existing information.
The top of this noticeboard states quite clearly, "Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page." If you are not familiar with the purpose or protocol for a particular noticeboard, perhaps you should read what the page actually says.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
When did I say owner and responsible? I don't remember saying that, or even believing that. Where did I say that? I just glanced at what I said and I don't see it. I'll take a look again. I said ruler, but I admit that that was a rude comment that I shouldn't have said. And I also admit that I didn't read that at the top of this page. I just shot through with my comment on here; which I shouldn't have done, I admit. But the reason I did it is because I didn't read that, not because I had some hidden agenda. Lighthead þ 23:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
You claimed that I am some kind of 'ruler' of the article (well, not just the article, but supposedly an entire WikiProject), which is meaningless if you didn't intend some kind of ownership and responsibility. The distinction you're making is just semantics. You still haven't articulated what you consider to be the actual POV issue. If you still consider there to be a problem, you should do so at the article's Talk page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I actually don't have an issue anymore. I wrongly assumed by looking at one edit, w/o looking at the linked article (my fault as well), that you were making all or at least most of those articles POV. The linked article, that is, on the Criticism page. I have to admit, I let my emotions rule my head. And to be perfectly honest, I have no way to know one way or the other whether you are being POV or not on the original item mentioned because I don't have access to those books. And as my life is supremely busy, I don't have the time to hunt them down. But I'm gonna take your advice, and assume good faith, and assume that you're not misquoting that book. Besides, I'm 100% sure that there's somebody out there that's tried to prove your point wrong, looked at the books, and realized that it is properly referenced and not misquoted. That was the reason that I called you a ruler, which I never should have done in a million years. I said that because I stupidly assumed, based on wrong information, that you were doing that with most if not all the articles. I realized it was stupid when I wrote it, but I went ahead and wrote it because I was angry. I'm sorry. I'm better than that. And like I said, I have no issue anymore. And next time I will bring it up on the article's talk page. I'm sorry for acting like a bull in a china shop. I've realized from this experience that religion can be a very sensitive topic, and I fell into that trap. Lighthead þ 23:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, though I don't really follow your explanation. The edit in question doesn't have anything to do with a quote, and doesn't make reference to a Criticism page. The text in question links the word deacon to the deacon article. If you're referring to some other edit on some other page, I can't even be sure that it was one of my edits you were originally concerned about.
I would suggest next time taking a few deep breaths and then re-reading what has been written (or reverted) before responding. Then if you still think there's a problem, start a new section on the article's Talk page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh, my bad. Actually the edit in question, is the one that I struck out in this section. I figured you knew what I was talking about this whole time. I was over the deacon edit at that point. I probably jumped over to a whole different topic at that time. It's one of the first criticisms mentioned on the main Jehovah's Witnesses article. The one that says that the organization accused those disfellowshipped as being mentally diseased and apostates in the 2010 WT. Actually the article of The Guardian that links to that reference is in the Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses article. But BlackCab clarified for me that you guys didn't want to link to that article in the main JW article for fear of overlinking. So in the criticism section for that same statement in the main article, you only let stand two references for books that I guess you could say argue against the Witnesses. I can't think of a better way to put it. But anyway, I think you should reread my comments at this section with this new understanding. It might make more sense to you what I was talking about. I actually mentioned that criticism edit on your talk page as well. You might want to review there, too. Yeah, I actually will take it easy and try to breathe more, and not be so paranoid. And especially not make myself look like a fool! I think I had this vision of you that was totally blown out of proportion. I think I need to have a more realistic view of people. Thanks. I think it also has to do with not editing on Wikipedia as much for as long as I've been here; in other words my lack of experience here, as I mentioned previous. But yeah, I will try to relax and not see demons hiding in the closet, next time. :) Lighthead þ 01:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
The other ('criticism') thing had already been struck out before I ever saw it, so there wasn't really much reason for me to make the connection. BlackCab's exaplanation should indeed be sufficient. I'm not aware that there was a particular preference as to which of those references was kept, but just to limit it to only a couple of references rather than every available reference. It would have been much clearer if you had raised your concerns at Talk:Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses (which is on my WatchList though my participation is not required) in the first instance. It can be very confusing when others have to make guesses about tangents, especially when they have other things going on in 'real life'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I realize that that can be confusing. As to Talk:Criticism, there where a lot of things that I did wrong regarding this whole issue that I brought up here. But yeah, it actually is worth reminding to not bring anything up here, unless. Lighthead þ 05:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

In fact it would have been better if I would have researched that link rather than wildly assuming what that edit was about. And yeah, I actually did strike it out right after I made that comment about criticism. So I can see how that was doubly confusing. Lighthead þ 05:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Michael Porter

This article reads like a cross between a fanzine and a vanity puff-piece; particularly in sentences like "In 2000, Michael Porter was appointed a Harvard University Professor, the highest professional recognition that can be awarded to a Harvard faculty member." My intrinsic respect for "Harvard Professors" forbids me to speculate that the whole article may be an elaborate practical joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.198.220 (talk) 21:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Whatever POV or puffery issues this article may have, Michael Porter is probably the most highly respected professor at any business school in the world. The article is not a practical joke. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
The article is too resume-like, a common problem in academic biographies. He's a very well known economist and this biography doesn't do a good job of telling us why. The best way to rectify that would be to put in some information about his arguments in The Competitive Advantage of Nations and elsewhere, and to refer to positive and negative reviews of his works. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Use of the word "Journalist"

The issue is the use of the word "Journalist" to describe the subject of the article "Nick Christensen (journalist)." The living subject of this biography is a public relations staffer for the Metro regional government in the Portland, Oregon, metropolitan area.

While it's common for journalists to leave their profession and become publicists or media relations persons for government agencies, it's misleading to wikipedia readers for them to refer to themselves as a "journalist" after having done so.

For just one example, see the online job search page http://www.simplyhired.com, which clearly distinguishes "In-House Writer" from "Journalist." For another, in the wikipedia entry for Jay Carney, Mr. Carney is referred to as having previously been a journalist but currently as White House Press Secretary. This is consistent with wikipedia's treatment of other people working in press relations on behalf of political entities.

To my knowledge, there is no other example of a government public relations person being presented in Wikipedia or anywhere else as a "journalist."

I have twice attempted to use broader, more accurate language ("public relations staffer") and another editor --perhaps the subject himself, or an associate --immediately reverts.

This may seem an academic or petty issue, but there is an important role served in society by journalists. A person charged with creating a favorable public perception of their employer is the very opposite of a journalist. Peezy1001 (talk) 04:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC) I am not an experienced editor but have made contributions over the years where I saw an opportunity to improve Wikipedia. I believe that Wikipedia should be a reliable source of objective information, not a venue for counter-factual spin. I would like the wikipedia community to address the meaning of "Journalism" and whether a person paid by a government agency can qualify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peezy1001 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

How do reliable sources describe this guy? (eg, do recent news stories call him 'journalist/reporter' or 'spokesman' or similar?). They're going to be the best guide to how he should be referred to. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
By the way, using the rather negative term of 'PR flack' in relation to this person as you're insisting on [28] is unacceptable. Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree. You can identify someone as "a spokesperson" or "press secretary" or "publicist" or some such, but 'flack' is both too slangy and too connotative. A "journalist" should be a third-party source; "staff writer" or "in-house writer" can describe someone who works within an organization or body on either a paid or volunteer basis. In terms of identifying someone's career, it seems to me that the career as a whole should be considered, on the grounds that Nick-D outlined. In an infobox, people may have more than one occupation: there's nothing wrong with 'journalist, press secretary'. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Goldcorp

Article is subject of long term efforts by COI accounts to use it as a press release, with occasional counter-attempts to add negative content, not always adequately sourced. I've copy edited for neutrality, and though I think it's in a good place now, don't expect that to last long. Further eyes and adding this to watchlists would be appreciated. Thanks, 76.248.149.47 (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Green tickY I toned down some of the unsourced puffery in the intro, and I think it's okay now. —Cupco 01:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

108.28.53.169

Could someone with more energy and patience for it please take a look at Special:Contributions/108.28.53.169? He seems to primarily do NPOV edits. Thanks. —Kerfuffler 22:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I sampled a handful of the most recent edits and didn't see anything even vaguely troubling. Got specific diffs? —Cupco 01:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Censorship in Islamic societies

More eyes on this article would be appreciated; it is being used as a coatrack for various incidents of non-censorship and censorship unrelated to Islam by users who refuse to attempt to gain consensus. I'm arguing that relevance is a necessary baseline for inclusion in the article, but making Muslims look bad appears to trump this fairly self-evident necessity. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Presently at AfD, some of the concerns have been addressed. —Cupco 01:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Disco Demolition Night

Please see the RfC regarding racism and homophobia. Thanks. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 00:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Use of scare quotes in article title

A user added scare quotes to the bolded article title of orgastic potency. This was done to emphasize that the article is about a fringe topic. However, I don't see the relevance nor the propriety in using this extreme level of emphasis to underscore such a point. To me adding scare quotes to the article title seems much over the top in efforts to denigrate the subject, rather than to present it in representative context with respect to its scientific and otherwise standing as well as notability. I attempted to undo the adding of scare quotes, but this was promptly reverted by another user. I'm seeking advise from this noticeboard on the correct application of WP policies and guidelines to this conflict. __meco (talk) 08:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It's kinda academic...the entire article needs to be deleted - it violates (at least) WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE and WP:MEDRS. SteveBaker (talk) 13:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Rochester Police Department

Rochester Police Department (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I just reverted a substantial amount of blanking [29] at this article it seemed too extensive of modification to do with no explanation. However, the IP may a point in that ~2/3's of the article is related to specific criticisms and incidents. I am bringing it here for broader discussion to see if there is consensus that the article needs to be rewritten for neutrality. VQuakr (talk) 00:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The balance of the article has been extensively discussed. See the sections entitled "Tension between police force and activist groups" and "Response from another editor" on Talk:Rochester Police Department. The section in question is Rochester Police Department#Alleged misconduct which as a topic is necessary for complete coverage—it just needs to be less one-sided. The rest of the article is relatively mundane. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 00:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

New RfC

Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 14:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Eurabia

Eurabia, an article covering the idea that Muslims are overtaking Europe, has been compared to several anti-semitic conspiracy theories, among them the Zionist Occupied Government and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Two sources making such a comparison are as follows:

  • Simon Kuper (September 9, 2011). "The end of Eurabia". Financial Times. Very popular political ideas are usually ones that can be explained over a beer in a bar, or at worst in a pamphlet. Marxism had the 23-page Communist manifesto; anti-Semitism had the rollicking forgery Protocols of the Elders of Zion (Ye'or's book reads like the Protocols badly rewritten about Muslims)
  • Carr, Matt (2006), Race & Class, 48 (1), Stripped of its Islamic content, the broad contours of Ye'or's preposterous thesis recall the anti-Semitic conspiracy theories of the first half of the twentieth century and contemporary notions of the 'Zionist Occupation Government' prevalent in far-right circles in the US. {{citation}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

The article, and its lead, had included that the theory has been compared to these two anti-semitic conspiracy theories. That has been removed from the lead as "fringe". Does the inclusion of the peer-reviewed article in Race & Class or the article in the Financial Times qualify as "fringe"? nableezy - 17:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I think your wording [30] might need tweaking a little, but I can't see any reason why inclusion of this fairly fundamental criticism of what is in itself firmly a 'fringe' theory in the lede should in itself be problematic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
agree with andy.-- altetendekrabbe  18:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
The articles are fine but cherry picking quotes are problematic. Comparisons are problematic in general. They assume you know two subjects. The comparisons there don’t shed light because they don’t specify where the analogies hold and where they don’t. When they are removed from the article, they leave the reader with nothing but a crude Reductio ad Hitlerum argument. It would be better to explain the authors criticisms directly rather than by such comparisons. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me, but what? Cherry picking quotes? You mean reading sources and providing quotes from that directly back the content in question? nableezy - 18:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
No, I mean taking quotes out of context to the point of absurdity. Eurabia conspiracy theory claims that there is a conspiracy between European governments and Arab governments. 19th century anti-Zionist conspiracies don't involve a conspiracy between European governments and Jewish governments. Israel didn't exist! If the analogy holds we need to know in which sense the authors (who are indeed worth quoting) see the analogy. If we know that we don't need the analogy. Jason from nyc (talk) 19:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Taking Jason's point into account, a solution would be to use both these sources but not to editorialise about them. Perhaps a section entitled Comparisons with other ideologies or Comparisons with other conspiracy theories. Then just "Simon Kuper in the FT said..." and "Matt Carr in Race and Class said...". Get that right and then consider whether to include in the lead. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
That's a sound approach. I afraid it would require original research as the secondary sources are limited in this regard. I could be wrong; I'll let others correct me if that's the case. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
"19th century anti-Zionist conspiracies" (Jason from nyc) The "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and "Zionist Occupation Government" are 20th century antisemite conspiracy theories. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
The Zionist Occupation Government page currently begin by "Zionist Occupation Government or Zionist Occupied Government (abbreviated as ZOG) is an antisemitic conspiracy theory which holds that Jews secretly control a given country, while the formal government is a puppet regime." Bat Ye'or eurabian thesis is barely that Muslims/Arabs secretly ("The public ignores this strategy", "Europeans live within Eurabia’s constraints, few are really conscious of them on a daily basis, beyond a somewhat confused awareness.") control Europe, while the formal governments and the EU are puppet regimes. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
The very first sentence reads: "Eurabia represents a geo-political reality envisaged in 1973 through a system of informal alliances between, on the one hand, the nine countries of the European Community (EC)which, enlarged, became the European Union (EU) in 1992 and on the other hand, the Mediterranean Arab countries." There was no Jewish nations in 1903 when "Protocols" were written or during the 1920s when it was widely read. Your point is that there are similarities (Jews/Muslims in secret pulling the strings) and my point is that there are differences. My only point is that comparisons work to some degree and fail otherwise. Unless this is made clear, one is painting with too broad a brush leaving the reader wondering how far to push the comparison. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
These throw-away comments have no place in the lead where they would be given undue weight. What you can do is moving the stuff to a subsection related to Littmann's theory because these comments have actually been made in reference to her 'conspiracy theory', not at all to the totality of the Eurabia theory. Your point, however, shows the need to separate Littmann's political Eurabia 'conspiracy theory' more clearly from the demographic/assimilationist aspects of Eurabia as expounded by other thinkers. Littmann has no monopoly on the term and neither do her critics have. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I think that is right. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

4 3 other sources are comparing Eurabia with anti-semitic conspiracy theories and are currently mentionned in the Wikipedia article:

  • Marján and Sapir
  • Arun Kundnani
  • David Aaronovitch
  • Johann Hari

(follow the link for the exact quotations and references). Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

gunpowderma has an anti-muslim pov and is being disruptive on several islam related pages. we don't editors who are whitewashing conspiracy theories.-- altetendekrabbe  00:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ James D. G. Dunn Jesus Remembered (2003) ISBN 0-8028-3931-2 pp. 141-143
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Cradle110 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b William L. Lane in Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome edited by Karl Paul Donfried and Peter Richardson (1998) ISBN 0802842658 pp. 204-206
  4. ^ R.T. France, The Evidence for Jesus, Hodder & Stoughton (1986) p. 42.
  5. ^ R. T. France. The Evidence for Jesus. (2006) Regent College Publishing ISBN 1-57383-370-3. p. 42
  6. ^ Van Voorst, page 33
  7. ^ [31]* [32]* [33]
  8. ^ James Antle, Michael Cohen and Jim Geraghty, Paul Ryan's speech to the RNC: panel verdict (30 August 2012). The Guardian.
  9. ^ [34]
  10. ^ Karen Tumulty, Paul Ryan promises GOP ‘won’t duck the tough issues’ (30 August 2012). The Washington Post.
  11. ^ US Elections, Paul Ryan Republican speech 'contained errors' (30 August 2012). BBC.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_35&oldid=1142501288"