Matt Cassel

Editors can post questions here about whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy, and editors interested in neutrality issues will give their opinion. If you are satisfied with a response, please tag your thread at the top with {{resolved}}.

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

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

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

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

Click here to post a new topic or discussion. NOTE: This noticeboard is intended for advice concerning specific NPOV issues. Please be concise. Post what is wrong with what content where, what you think it should say, and why. This board is intended for NPOV inquiries of a simple nature. For complex issues, please consider an article RFC or mediation. Be sure to provide evidence--links to sources, passages, etc.

Ethnic cleansing of Georgians in Abkhazia

An article is much biased. It has pro-Georgian and anti-Abkhaz POV. Such non-neutral edits are being made by Georgian users Iberieli and Kober. SkyBon^{Talk\Contributions} 13:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Mark Kimmitt

Resolved

 – Mediation in progress. Arakunem^Talk 19:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This page badly needs new eyes on it. It has devolved into a simple "undo" war between two different descriptions of an event, both of which are factually true. The question is over the proper characterization of what happened. The two versions are below. I wrote the first one, and another author (whom I suspect to be a sock puppet for the subject) repeatedly deleted it, finally replacing it with the second version (which I believe to be a sanitized version). Both of us agree that both versions are factually true, but clearly the two versions portray the results of the investigation in a different light. We have been unable to resolve the issue through discussion. Would someone please be willing to read the two page summary of the report cited on the page (you have to skip through some letters first on the .pdf file) and help us to resolve the dispute? I'd be so grateful. The two versions are below:

Version 1

Kimmitt's nomination for Assistant Secretary of State was delayed because of two investigations into anonymous letters sent to the Foreign Relations Committee.[9] [10] [11] Upon receipt of each letter, Sen. Joseph Biden requested that the Inspector General of the Department of Defense (IG) investigate the allegations.[9] [10]

The IG concluded after the first investigation that "BG Kimmitt's leadership style was occasionally inconsistent with the standards expected for senior Government leaders" and that "cognizant management officials should continue to monitor his leadership style."[7] "[W]itnesses described him as a demanding, confrontalional manager, occasionally displaying anger that demeaned subordinates and caused them to minimize their interaction with him. Some witnesses further indicated that BG Kimmitt resorted to threats of job loss or career harm as a 'motivational' tactic and made demeaning comments when criticizing individual work products." [7] "[T]estimony indicated that morale In BG Kimmitt's organization was negatively affected by BG Kimmitt's leadership style, combined with the heavy workload and long hours. Finally, we found that BG Kimmitt's leadership style discouraged subordinates from free and open communication with him.... While some witnesses, to include his supervisors and several detractors, viewed BG Kimmitt as 'effective,' we also found credible witnesses who told us that they obtained other employment to escape the unpleasant work environment." [7]

At Kimmitt's request, the IG also "obtained testimonial evidence that tended to mitigate the adverse impact of BG Kimmitt's leadership lapses. In that regard several witnesses, primarily BG Kimmitt's superiors, emphasized that BG Kimmitt brings superb qualifications and intellect to his position; that he has strengthened the overall performance of his office; and that he operates in a stressful, demanding environment, which could trigger confrontation."[7]

The Department of Defense Inspector General's office, in a separate letter to the committee, also disclosed "a substantiated allegation that Mr. Kimmitt . . . failed to properly safeguard information, in violation of Army regulations," but it did not elaborate.[9] [7] The exact nature of this violation has not been disclosed.

Version 2

Kimmitt's nomination for Assistant Secretary of State was delayed because of two investigations into anonymous letters sent to the Foreign Relations Committee. Upon receipt of each letter, Sen. Joseph Biden requested that the Inspector General of the Department of Defense (IG) investigate the allegations. The IG concluded after the first investigation that "BG Kimmitt's leadership style was occasionally inconsistent with applicable standards", that "several witnesses...emphasized...that he has strengthened the overall performance of his office", and that "cognizant management officials should continue to monitor his leadership style." The IG reported at the conclusion of the second investigation that the allegation was not substantiated and warranted no further investigation, and that the complaint provided no details that would convey creditability to the allegations.[7]

• This dispute is being mediated here. Arakunem^Talk 19:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yamashita's gold

In the Yamashita's gold article, an editor makes dubious claims that several court documents lend credence to their opinion of events. The wording is twisted and skewed, at best, to advance the editor’s point of view. There are no independent third-party sources that support these opinions.

The section is a mish-mash of legal piffle, and the talk-page is a battlefield of redundancy

Yamashita's_gold#Related_legal_action

Talk:Yamashita's_gold#Removing_False_References

Talk:Yamashita's_gold#False_References.2C_Dubious_Statements_and_Personal_Opinions_in_Article

Any help in this matter would be greatly appreciated. The edit warring has to stop, and somebody other than me needs to tell the IP editor they need to cite the proper references to support their opinion(s).

It is hard to have a discussion with an editor who states on the talk page: “I have a law degree and over 15 years of solid experience analyzing judicial opinions. I also have spoken to one of the lawyers tangentially related to the case. I know what I am talking about.”

I posted this over @ the OR noticboard as well: Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard#Yamashita.27s_gold Jim (talk) 23:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

___________

The section in dispute concerns a lawsuit. The best source as to what transpired in the lawsuit are the official statements of the Court -- the official history of the lawsuit. The statements of the Court are clear (to anyone who can read) and are consistent with the contemporaneous news reports (which are also reliable sources). JimBob has some vested interest in the theory that Yamashita's Gold is an urban legend and resists any material that debunks his pet theory. The sources are irrefutable that Roxas prevailed on his claim against Marcos for converting the treasure. 67.120.59.46 (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This is mistaken. Court documents are regarded as a primary source and should not be relied on as a source for WP. We are looking instead for good secondary sources. An example would be the coverage of the court case in serious newspapers and broadcast media. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

"September 11 attacks" article proven to be POV by reliable source.

(1) The overt POV of the September 11 attacks article is a serious and continuous dispute at Wikipedia.

(2) On 9/10/08, "World Public Opinion", a very reliable source, published the results of its comprehensive poll (16,000 in 17 countries) on the question of who perpetuated 9/11: http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/535.php?nid=&id=&pnt=535&lb=

(3) 54% of the people surveyed globally doubt that "al-Qaeda" committed 9/11.

(4) This result proves that the September 11 attacks article violates NPOV. MichiganMilitia (talk) 13:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This arguement seems to hinge on the fact that 54% of the people "doubt" that al-Qaeda was behind the attacks of 9/11. The problem with that statement is that the source only says that 29% believe a group other than al-Qaeda was behind the attacks. MichiganMilitia would have us believe that the 25% that say they "don't know" also do not believe that al-Qaeda was behind the attacks. The source does not support that contention. Nowhere in the source does it lump the people that "don't know" who did it with those said that someone other than al-Qaeda did it. This appears to be an original synthesis of the data by MichiganMilitia to support the position that the article is not nuetral. While this is probably a good source to add a statement somewhere in Wikipedia about the worldwide public uncertainty of who perpetrated the attacks, it does not prove that the article is not nuetral. Jons63 (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

MM has been blocked as an agenda/sock puppet account. Doug Weller (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the following here, from Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. If it belongs anywhere, it belongs here or on the talk page for this project page ... Kenosis (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC):

• Wow, a "brand-new editor" who has waded straight into a policy debate in order to support a fringe POV on the 9/11 articles - that's really unusual! I suppose this is one of the Usual Suspects, blocked until he owns up to which. Guy (Help!) 14:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

No way Guy. Look at those references, they really support his POV. And of course, the very neutral user name adds to my AGF'ing this posting. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Guy, assume good faith. This is just some poor deluded sock soul. . dave souza, talk 15:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I'd probably say the "Don't know" and the like shows ignorance, not necessarily buying into a conspiracy. I'm sure if you asked a worldwide poll of who did the 1995 Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway you'd get a lot more "I don't know"s, but that doesn't mean that there's any real doubt that Aum Shinrikyo did it, just that people, put on the spot, can't remember their name. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Are ordinary people's opinions on subjects they know nothing about relevant? Eg, if you did a survey of Americans, you'd probably find a large proportion of them believe baseball was invented by Abner J. Doubleday in 1839, as stated in American mythology. Does Wikipedia have to treat that as a serious POV, or can it simply point to the mention of the game in the writings of Jane Austen, who died in 1817, & dismiss the views of ordinary people as ignorant rubbish? Peter jackson (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

ORISSA VIOLENCE

The Page is being edited repeatedly to give it a pro-missionary slant. That the National Minority Commission has only members belonging to the minority communities is very relevant as its reports are being quoted at great length to substantiate the anti-Hindu slant. But the fact of NMC membership is being deleted repeatedly without discussion. A church fact-finding committee is being described as National Integration Council committee though the related link itself says otherwise.

The Page is without neutrality of view. The Page is best deleted as it is mere pro-Christian propaganda.

Jobxavier (talk) 05:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Three IDs are being used to slant-edit, presumably by the same editor. The Ids are Gabrielthursday,Recordfreenow and Lihaas.

Jobxavier (talk) 07:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The page Orissa communal violence won't be deleted as this is a notable set of events. The Christian version of the events does seem to be much more prominently represented than any alternative view. The article could do with some more pairs of eyes. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not know User:Recordfreenow or User:Lihaas, and am certainly not the same individual. This kind of unfounded accusation is bedevilling the dispute between User:Jobxavier and myself. I've outlined some problems with Jobxavier's edits on the relevant Talk page. I would appreciate "more pairs of eyes" as User:Itsmejudith suggests. Gabrielthursday (talk) 12:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I also did not see any likelihood of sock puppetry here. Jobxavier, you would need to take such an accusation to the appropriate forum. I agree with Gabrielthursday that HRW is (in principle at least) a reliable source, and that it would be a WP:BLP violation to make any nebulous connection between these events and any prominent individual without a very good source. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Please search 'India'and 'Hindu' in HRW. The anti-India, anti-Hindu and pro-American Baptist POV might be evident.Jobxavier (talk) 03:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not how we judge the quality of sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The Page is under Mediation. However, several POV edits have been made during the past 72 hours.

Jobxavier (talk) 19:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The Bachelors

This article The Bachelors has been continually edited by User talk:Contributer67, and one of the links he has added 3 times (which is why I have obeyed the 3-revert rule and not reverted a third time) is [1] which is obviously from The Bachelors camp, whereas a contradictory claim is made by John Stokes at [2] which means the veracity of the claim by Contributor67 cannot be ascertained.

Further more, another contributor, Con Cluskey, who is obviously one of the members of The Bachelors, denies the claim that John Stokes lost the court case denies the accuracy on his talk page User talk:Con Cluskey says there was no court case in Altrincham, which is a complete denial of the claims made by Contributor67.

A reference for the article is given as “Kilmainham & Inchicore Local Dictionary of Biography” I have been unable to confirm the existence nor the contents of this dictionary. Perhaps another Wikipedian can search to see if I have missed something.

Contributor67 has also added to the article the words, “As of 2008, only Con and Dec - the Bachelors are still touring” which again is not true – see the webpage [3]

Can somebody please separate the chaff from the wheat and ensure that it is properly and correctly referenced? --Richhoncho (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

REPLY Contributer67 (talk) 14:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)]

Firstly it has to be said the Mr. Richard Wilcox [Richhoncho] appears to have made it his life ambition to injure Dec Cluskey in any way possible. Ref. his vitriolic and foul languaged comments on various music newsgroups [RMMS etc.]. His maniacal attacks are there for all to see.

He has now turned his attentions to Wikipedia. His contributions to Wikipedia pages can be either thought to be exemplary or verging on manic. He has in the past said that he will desist from editting The Bachelors page. He still does. I believe the term for this is vandalism.

I find it hard to understand the first paragraph of Mr Wilcox above. I have read Con Cluskey's talk page and find it perfectly clear and plain. To the best of my knowledge there was no court case in Altringham. There was, however, a court hearing with the result as Con Cluskey's talk page. The case was never heard due to timing irreguarities in filing documents.

As regards “Kilmainham & Inchicore Local Dictionary of Biography” I am looking at the book now as I type. It is among the racks and racks of historical Bachelors memorabilia which I treasure.

As regards : ~~“As of 2008, only Con and Dec - the Bachelors are still touring” which again is not true~~ there are no tour dates listed on Mr. Stokes webpages. There are two show presentations, both in contempt of the High court of England. I do not feel that this constitutes touring, in the accepted sense. I have tried many times to acquire information on forthcoming tours but as the gentleman is clearly in a precarious situation legally no details are forthcoming. No tour details are posted anywhere and Email enquiries are never answered. Con and Dec The Bachelors are actively touring and the dates are available at www.myspace.com/thebachelorsconanddec . They post details each month of their activities on their website. www.thebachelors.co.uk

As the No. 4 in line expert on all things Bachelors I can assure any reader that all references are checked and correct and all information is precise to the best of my knowledge, having researched the subject to death.

However the page is constantly vandalised to support the claim that Mr Stokes is somehow allowed to use the name Bachelors. The legal documents he signed in his High court action against messrs Con and Dec Cluskey are easily available and in fact are merely a click away http://www.thebachelors.co.uk/johnstokesthetruth.htm . He is most certainly forbidden by law to use the name Bachelors in any way at all.

The page as is, without the constant vandalism, represents the most accurate referenced information about The Bachelors from inception to the present day.

Please help stop this constant vandalism. It is upsetting to all Bachelors fans.

Thank you. I apologise for not being a Wikipedia expert and not being familiar with notation etc.

Contributer67 (talk) 14:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)]

The first thing that jumps out at me is that both sides are using "competing" web sites of The Bachelors as sources (www.thebachelors.co.uk and www.the-bachelors.com). I question the reliability of both pages as sources here, as they seem to be Primary Sources as defined here. The Con & Dec site, and the John Stokes reply on the other site, both have their own POV issues. Are there any external, unrelated, and most importantly verifiable third-party sources related to this disagreement? Such 3rd party sources will hold the most weight when it comes to inclusion on Wikipedia. Arakunem^Talk 15:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply (Contributer67 (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC))

As a contributor only interested in the correct and legally accurate history it has to be said that the john Stokes reply mentioned above was not a reply. The statement on his website is considered to be legally innaccurate and in fact laden with untruths. This fact is verified legally [outside this forum].

The Con and Dec page JohnStokesTheTruth has only recently to my knowledge been uploaded. As a Bachelors expert I can confirm that this page is accurate and all detail on there can be verified from the multitudinous sources available. As an interested party in all things Bachelors I would feel that this page was presented as a rebuttal to the clearly untrue statements on John Stokes' site.

As regards third party sources, surely there can be no better third party source than the High Court Documents signed by John Stokes which are available at http://www.thebachelors.co.uk/johnstokesthetruth.htm. These documents are widely held by interested parties in British show Business. He is precluded by the High Court of England from using the name Bachelors or any colourabloe imitation. therefore it follows that he is in contempt of court in the way his site is titled. He is simply not allowed to use the name in law. It follows that the site is deemed to be illegal and that any links to the site are colluding in a contempt of court.

As Wikipedia is a trusted source I strive to ensure that the law is upheld in this instance and that no assistance is given to lawbreaking. I was recently sent the Wikipedia entry for The Bachelors by an emminent lawyer in London. He was astonished that a link to a patently obvious contempt of court page could be displayed on Wikipedia.

In supplying links to a rogue site Wikipedia does not do itself any favours. My only wish is for Wikipedia to display accurate verifiable and legally correct information and links. It is mainly the links on The Bachelors page that are the problem.

(Contributer67 (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC))

I concur with Arakunem. The two websites are hardly objective, but given the small scope and weight of this dispute to anyone but direct participants, I would doubt very much that there is independent, verifiable information to be had. This dispute is further aggravated by the words and actions of at least one of the participants, who claims continuously (on the article's Talk page, for instance) that his side is right, objective, and a bringer of 'evidential truth.' My personal beef in this is the very description of the two websites (or 'sources,' if that word can even be applied here)--I have attempted a NPOV edit, twice, which keeps being reverted by one of the participants in this dispute, someone with an axe to grind. This participant refers to my edits as 'vandalism'--I wouldn't mind a third editor, or an administrator, to judge that.

Perhaps the solution is to cut this article to a few paragraphs, and mention some of the basic facts of the divorce, but without too much detail. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply (Contributer67 (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC))

>I would doubt very much that there is independent, verifiable information to be had<

There is a mountain of verifiable information.

There is no axe to grind only a wish for correct, accurate information. The many Bachelors fans world wide simply want correctness. In my experience the links to a legally unnacceptable site are distressing to many readers.

(Contributer67 (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC))

As I am being attacked by Contributor67 I would like to point out it was me who brought this to this noticeboard (and told Contributor67 on his talk page so he could have his say), it was me that added much, including references, to the article which has not been removed by Contributor67 which proves, hopefully an independence and integrity to facts. If all I was interested in was attacking the members of the Bachelors I could have quoted more fully from the Ian Whitcomb article (a link I added) - Furthermore I think my record of edits on many other articles will prove beyond reasonable doubt that I am not engaged in "vitriol" as claimed above. Let somebody who is non-partisan edit this article - which is why I was happy to bring the article to the attention of other editors. Like any other WP article I am all in favour verified Non-point of view facts --Richhoncho (talk) 19:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply (Contributer67 (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC))

No attack was intended only, the truth. Mr Wilcox stated that he would desist from editting the Bachelors entry. He still does. And additionally grabs any opportunity to malign Dec Cluskey.

The Ian Whitcomb article on The Bachelors is known to contain many innaccuracies. Attempts have been made to contact him to correct this matter but no reply has been received by anyone.

The article on the Wikipedia page is now accurate and fit for purpose. And the Bachelors community are grateful for the help from other interested parties. The problem is the continual undoing of the edit re. the links.

If the principal is accepted that Wikipedia should not promote sites which clearly tell untruths and are legally off track then my edits of the offending links should be accepted. There is no Point of View involved only the quest for honesty and truth. That would satisfy the many Bachelors fans and would provide the legal profession with an accurate and legally correct Wikipedia entry.

To support the argument that any link, no matter how illegal, should be given is to support the argument that links to paedophile sites should be given on children's entries for the sake of a complete picture.

Or links to burglars on Housing Companies entries?

I simply ask that the links to John Stokes site which is in contempt of court and is passing off as The Bachelors should be permanently removed.

(Contributer67 (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC))

One of the problems is that you insist on repeating that John Stokes is guilty of, and continues to be, contempt of court. The only confirmation of this claim is from your own website, and is disputed by John Stokes on his webpage. No independent, third party reference can be found for the claim either way. Whether your claims are correct or not the references to contempt of court should be removed immediately - see WP:BLP. Likening Stokes to burglars and paedophiles merely shows who is really venting their spleen. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, this is the problem that I mentioned above. Claims such as this need to be verifiable, from a source that is unrelated to the subject. Saying "Con and Dec say <x>, and for proof, see their site" or "John Stokes says <y> and for proof see HIS site" are not reliable sources for the purposes of the Wikipedia article. The standard for dealing with contentious claims like this, can be summarized as Verifiability, not Truth. Especially when dealing with a living person, ANY claim like this MUST be sourced from a Reliable Source, or it MUST be removed. In this case, Contributor67, the claim that Stokes is in contempt of court, can not be cited from the Con & Dec web site. Likewise, John Stokes' denial of this can not be sourced from HIS site. You've got to find 3rd party, unrelated sources in order to include either of those, or we HAVE to remove the claims under WP:BLP. Arakunem^Talk 23:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely agree, Arakunen. It should be also noted that Contributor67 is disputing the facts with himself - the bottom of his webpage says, "Please note that this is a historical site for reference only. This site does not purport to be a promotion of Dec Cluskey and Con Cluskey as 'The Bachelors'. Con and Dec [who recorded every Bachelors' Hit] are familiarly and legally known as Con and Dec The Bachelors." [4]. Copious comments are also on the article's talkpage --Richhoncho (talk) 07:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Political alliances of Peoples Temple

This article was created to appease Mosedschurte (talk · contribs) who was repeatedly inserting POV and, IMHO, WP:Fringe theorist supported content on Harvey Milk. The Milk article has since, and apparently inspired by this content, been subsequently fully researched and rewritten to what looks to be FA status with the same editor again edit-warring to re-insert the disputed content. In Political alliances of Peoples Temple every minute scrap of information all seemingly to discredit the politicians (I believe all are Democrats as well) which likely violates WP:POVFORK has been loosely compiled with little context of why they would be involved with Jim Jones who had enormous political influence through the community work of his church and the volunteers, and votes, he could direct. Each statement by itself is technically true but the synthesis infers that these politicians should be held in some way accountable for the cult's mass suicide/murder in Jonestown. The related articles on Jones and Peoples Temple have also been populated with identical and similar cherry-picked bits from the sources which would also seem to violate WP:RS and/or WP:OR. I've had little sway in reasoning with the two editors there, Mosedschurte and to a much lesser extent Wildhartlivie (talk · contribs). I would very much appreciate uninvolved editors to step in and see if there is a path to improving this article. Mosedschurte has shown, IMHO, resistance to following NPOV policies elsewhere and has yet to understand why this content is sourced and presented poorly presently. Any help appreciated as my input seems to be largely disregarded. -- Banjeboi 20:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. User notified of this thread.[5] -- Banjeboi 20:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: "WP:Fringe theorist supported content on Harvey Milk."

Just to begin with, this is a rather ridiculous charge and the sort of sniping I've tried to avoid. I've never posted a single "fringe" theory, or even just theory, on anything.

In fact, the events are rather non-controversial facts reported in numerous major newspaper articles (NY Times, San Fran Chronicle, LA Times, etc) and the most well respected books on the various topics at hand (e.g., Raven, Gone from the Promised Land, The Mayor of Castro Street, Willie Brown A Biography, Seductive Poison, etc.).

Re: "The Milk article has since, and apparently inspired by this content, been subsequently fully researched and rewritten to what looks to be FA status with the same editor again edit-warring to re-insert the disputed content. "

This is, again, inaccurate. One can see this simply examining the article's history.

The one sentence about Milk's support of the Peoples Temple during investigations was deleted during edits and then re-added. That was subsequently deleted, and then an even smaller 3 line sentence was simply added to the "Supervisor" section.

Re: "In Political alliances of Peoples Temple every minute scrap of information all seemingly to discredit the politicians (I believe all are Democrats as well) which likely violates which likely violates WP:POVFORK"

This is simply false.

In fact, the article goes further into explaining their motivations. Such as the large political pull of the Temple, that Harvey Milk was scared of the Temple, etc.

That they all "are Democrats" is simply a ridiculous charge. Jones (who was a socialist) almost entirely dealt with Democrats and independent socialist activists. Mosedschurte (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Mosedschurte has a solid track record of red herring misdirects and obfuscating policy concerns with verbosity. They are an an WP:SPA that edits only on articles involving Jim Jones and tries to inflate the connections to Jones on biographies. See George Moscone, Donald Freed, Willie Brown (politician) and Angela Davis, for some examples. They exhaust opposition with verbal gymnastics and voluminous posts all while avoiding the real problems of original research, synthesis and undue weight thus also violating NPOV. If something wasn't a significant part of one's life, it plainly doesn't belong in an encyclopedia bio about them and should be treated NPOV in other articles per WP:Fork and WP:UNDUE. I'm quite familiar with the material on Harvey Milk and the section on Milk is completely unbalanced and undue as if Milk was strongly aligned with Jones. Instead reliable sources have affirmed that Milk's only involvement was limited to routine work as a politician like speaking at a church and writing thank you notes. You wouldn't know it by reading the voluminous and cherry-picked minutia and extensive quotes. Based on the complete mischaracterizing of Milk's involvement I have no confidence the rest of the article is accurate and sources vetted to correctly portray their content. -- Banjeboi 20:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

While I don't necessarily agree with all of Mosedschurte's edits and choice of sources, the plain fact is that support for Jim Jones/Peoples Temple by these various politicians and public figures is an encyclopedic topic. Agreed, not everything a politician does is significant or encyclopedic -- supporting non-controversial legislation, for example, or cutting the ribbon on a new freeway overpass -- but support for, and involvement with, a figure like Jones and Peoples Temple was, at the time, the focus of widespread public and media attention, as shown by the sourcing in the article(s). (In Milk's case, it was clearly not limited to routine work, as the cited letter to President Carter shows.) Asserting that Peoples Temple "wasn't a significant part of [Milk's, et al.] life" is, given the historical record, an unsupported, conclusionary opinion. --MCB (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not calling for the article to be deleted but that it needs cleaning up and Mosedschurte seems either incapable or unwilling to do so. As for the Carter letter? It's a primary source: a letter allegedly written by Milk, that is hosted on a website that also appears to deal in conspiracy theories. As such, a primary source (presenting the danger of WP:OR) and also hosted on a website that would not be consider reliable, it is doubly inappropriate as a source. It's also mischaracterized as has been pointed out to Mosedschurte at least three times. I've come here after Harvey Milk was rewritten doing a rather exhaustive search on sources which has shown very little notable connection. There were significant connection to the mayor and Milk was a trusted ally but the rest is puffery and relies on cherry-picked statements out of context to give the Milk section, at least, undue weight. I have little confidence the rest of the article is NPOV and RS. -- Banjeboi 22:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. After further dealings with Mosedschurte who seems to have done the vast majority of work on this article I see no reason to believe that this article will be cleaned up for neutrality in any meaningful way. Further I concur with Itsmejudith's talkpage suggestion that instead merging the article might be the elegant solution thus preserving anything meaningful in the parent Peoples Temple article, which itself is full of NPOV problems, but is more likely to contain NPOV from spiraling too far out of control. -- Banjeboi 13:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I give up, I don't want to go through any of this anymore and I really don't want to see this article until it's completely rewritten. Good luck. -- Banjeboi 20:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and proposed the merge back into Peoples Temple. It would be good if everyone would contribute to the discussion on the article talk page. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort but this {{SPA}} seems to enjoy the process of arguing too much for my taste. My initial foray into this world of all Peoples Temple nonsense only concerned Milk and my concerns were spot on. Mosedschurte has introduced identical or similar content that was thrown off the Milk article into this one and Tim Reiterman's and similar sections inflating the prominence of this suicide cult onto at least four other biographies. I know it will all be eventually removed but it's doing nothing but adding stress for me to deal with them. They enjoy it, apparently, and I'm in no mood for endless circular arguments and a protracted effort to clean-up all their work. If an effort to quickly merge doesn't take hold I would suggest send it to AfD a hopelessly POV fork or coatrack concern. It has an added benefit of a set deadline and more formal structure. If you go that route I'll participate there. -- Banjeboi 22:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Update The article has been redirected to the main article on the Peoples Temple - however Peoples Temple in San Francisco has largely taken its place with many if not most of the same issues intact. -- Banjeboi 18:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Shell To Sea

Shell To Sea

This page badly needs a neutral viewpoint added and seems to be chiefly edited by members of the campaign involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustycrusty (talk • contribs)

I've spent a bit of time at it, think it's much better now! Thanks! Fin©™ 12:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Alert!--Phil Gramm

This article has some recent inappropriate additions.

Taken care of now. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hovhannes Katchaznouni

The user Adoniscik and me were in a edit war. I warned him that he needs to put neutral sources for his controversial claims. He evades my ideas and reverted ALL my edits until now, puting his own article with non-neutral sources several times again and without any negotiation of neutrality. He claims that "his sources are right" when his claims are revisionistic and use sometimes denialist sources like happened years before in the Armenian Genocide article. (His claim is to promote a book that has been cited to support marginal arguments, such as the claim that Ottoman Armenians deserved their fate). Here are his reverts of my all edits [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. The same happens with his "friend" or sockpuppet Arsenic99 [11] [12] [13] [14]. Notice that I am NOT counting the before continuous edit war between us and the former continuous vandalizers [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]. My version of the article is more or less neutral and warns about that the authenticity of the book is not clear. --Vitilsky (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Leaving aside Vitilsky persistent personal attacks, I forward editors to the discussion at WP:AIN#Hovhannes Katchaznouni. In short, Vitilsky's interest in neutrality is a ruse. There is nothing controversial about the claims I have made and supported by a veritable wall of sources. It is downright amusing that he challenges me to provide neutral sources given the fact that he has yet to produce one. All he has is shoddy OR. If you read through the talk page, you will see that Vitilsky's position has flip flopped regularly. Initially he refused to admit even the possibility that the booklet could exist. He found that position difficult to stand behind so he revised his line to saying that the booklet is a forgery or something. Not a shred of support for that claim, and his canvassing isn't as successful as he'd hope. Isn't it telling that Armenian historians don't see anything controversial about the booklet? --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 19:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Leaving aside your strange paranoia and denial of your lies, I answer to your last question: No. PD: Which historians? --Vitilsky (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

That's precisely the question you are obliged to answer. Who debates its veracity? --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 04:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Fathers' rights movement

I am hoping for some pearls of wisdom from experienced editors about the Fathers' rights movement article, and in particular, how we can navigate some of the difficulties about writing from a NPOV about it, given that the sources that we have are mainly from two sources: articles, books, journal articles by academics in the field, such as [22], [23] [24] and books, articles etc by members of the fathers' rights movement, (and in fact largely one member of the FRM, Stephen Baskerville) such as this one [25] To wit....

1. If multiple academic sources suggest an analysis (for example of the composition of the movement) and this view is not contradicted by any reliable source, is specific attribution (to the academics) necessary or desirable? Is personal disagreement about the truth and/or bias of the sourced statements by WP editors enough to require attribution?
2. How does one cope with the academic and other mainstream sources saying one thing, and the movement itself saying another? This problem is exemplified in the lead paragraph: academic sources (and even some FRM sources) state that it is a "social movement", but some in the FRM itself would prefer it to be known as a "civil rights movement". This point is currently being argued in the lead. More globally, how much weight (if any) do we give to what to the mainstream academic view in the article?
3. How does NPOV work when one source (Baskerville, a father's right activist) is being used almost exclusively in sections, and yet this is being introduced by "Members of the fathers' rights movement state...."? This issue is particularly acute in these sections of the article. [26][27][28]

Thank you for your help and insight here.--Slp1 (talk) 23:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Baskerville is a leader of the fathers' rights movement. He is a former President of the American Coalition of Fathers and Children. In some cases, the attribution reads "members of the fathers' rights movement state...." In some cases, the attribution reads "members of the fathers' rights movement including Stephen Baskerville state...." In some case, the attribution reads "Stephen Baskerville, [a former President of the American Coalition of Fathers and Children] states.... In my opinion, the level of attribution should be based on the judgement of the editors and based on consensus.

The fathers' rights movement is a "rights movement" and it is also referred to as a social movement. It would be highly biased to only include the view of some scholars who have described it as a social movement. The current lead is not misleading in any way, and the statements are clearly supported by sources.

Reliance on "scholars" in this article, especially without attribution, is not NPOV because "scholars" are not necessarily neutral. Law professors have been cited as scholarly sources. Some sentences include no attribution, while others do. In my opinion, the need for attribution should be based on the judgement of the editors and based on consensus.

For example, the article was recently expanded to include the sentence "some fathers' rights activists...viewing feminism as an enemy." (Am I the only person who sees the term "enemy" as a strong word for scholars to use?) There are many different forms of feminism, and so the statement is misleading and relies on a prior phrase "original goals of feminism" to fill in missing detail.

The section is additionally misleading because members of the fathers' rights movement view those who oppose a rebuttable presumption of shared parenting as opponents, regardless of their views with respect to how specialized or equally capable men and women are as parents, and feminist organizations currently oppose the enactment of laws to create a rebuttable presumption of shared parenting.

Further, a source for this section clearly implies that these categories of fathers' rights activists are artificial constructs "for analysis purposes." The background and history section is being used to add artificial constructs of scholars. These artificial constructs are not necessary to the article and are unrelated to the background and history of the fathers' rights movement. Most of all, the section is unclear to readers. Michael H 34 (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

In these series of edits, I replaced three uses of the term argues or arguing. What is wrong with the use of the word state as in "members of the fathers' rights movement state..."? [29] Michael H 34 (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Crossroads of Chiropractic - Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves

There is ongoing dispute over at Talk:Chiropractic#At_the_crossroads..., regarding the phrasing of "Chiropractic is viewed to be at the crossroads of mainstream and alternative medicine", or "Chiropractic crosses the boundaries of mainstream and alternative medicine:"

WP:ASF states that "There are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions.", and that "When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion.".

This case very clearly expresses an opinion (how can it be a fact that a profession is at a crossroads?). However, other editors have stated that "It is an undisputed fact if no serious disagreement is presented."

The most recently proposed text phrases it as an opinion, yet does not attribute this opinion to anyone. Is this appropriate? If there is no dispute over an opinion (such as stealing is wrong), does it become an undisputed fact that does not need any attribution?

DigitalC (talk) 01:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems WP:ASF was taken out of context by the above comment. Please read the entire policy. Reliable sources agree with the proposed text at chiropractic talk. QuackGuru 06:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I have read the original policy, and for you to assume that I haven't is not assuming good faith. Nothing above takes WP:ASF out of context. - DigitalC (talk) 09:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Not completely clear as to what the issue is here, but I'll have a go. Explicitly noting that particular content is an opinion is helpful when there are significant differences of opinions; the scope of the content, its credibility, context, etc., becomes clearer. However, when there isn't as much differences, such a construction can have a deleterious effect. Taken to the logical extreme, such language actually becomes weaselly, having the effect of undermining the content which doesn't deserve undermining. E.g., "It is the opinion of astonomers that the earth is round." --that can certainly be sourced, but it's poor writing. So,... is there any significant contention about that statement? On the face of it, it appears reasonable, other than that "crossroads" is somewhat of an essaylike word. Is there an approximate synonym that would be true to the source(s) yet read better? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 13:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is continuing at chiropractic talk. See Talk:Chiropractic#At the crossroads. No evidence has been presented this is an opinion, Therefore, we shoud assert the text rather than add uneeded attribution to the article. There are more instances throughout the article where text is being attributed when there is "no serious dispute" to the well referenced text. QuackGuru 19:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at Chiropractic#Evidence basis. Here is an example of uneeded attribution: what is considered by many chiropractic researchers is not under any dispute. All the references are in agreement with the referenced text. Per WP:ASF, all the unecessary attribution throughout the article should be removed until evidence of a dispute is presented among reliable sources. QuackGuru 20:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, WP:ASF states "There are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions.". This is one of those cases. It is not a "fact" that Chiropractic is at a crossroads, because this cannot be objectively measured, nor can it be falsified. DigitalC (talk) 09:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:ASF: By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a matter which is subject to dispute." No objection or dispute exists among reliable sources. Reliable sources agree with chiropractic is at a crossroads. QuackGuru 18:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This edit added unnecessary attribution and my response to the edit is here. QuackGuru 05:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• It may not be clear from the above comments, but there is a longrunning dispute at Chiropractic over whether some claims need in-text attribution. If reliable sources agree about a particular proposition, then by the standards of WP:ASF, it's not necessary to add qualifiers to them; for example we need not add a qualifier like "astronomers say" to the claim "the earth is round". However, other editors have been adding these qualifiers to Chiropractic, using the argument that even if all reliable sources agree about a claim, the claim is an opinion and therefore needs the qualifiers.
• Here is an example of these qualifiers (in italics) in Chiropractic #Evidence basis:

• "Evidence-based guidelines are supported by one end of an ideological continuum among chiropractors; the other end employs what is considered by many chiropractic researchers to be antiscientific reasoning and unsubstantiated claims, that have been called ethically suspect when they let practitioners maintain their beliefs to patients' detriment."

All reliable sources agree that straight chiropractors (the "other end" of the "ideological continuum" that is being talked about here) use antiscientific and pseudoscientific reasoning, and there is also no serious dispute among reliable sources that this behavior is ethically suspect when it lets "practitioners maintain their beliefs to patients' detriment". However, the italicized qualifiers give the reader the mistaken impression that there is serious doubt about this part of the text.

• Invariably these qualifiers have been added to claims that are critical of chiropractic. This raises an obvious NPOV issue about the practice of adding these qualifiers in Chiropractic.

Eubulides (talk) 16:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

There are two threads here, the "crossroads" thread and this "ideological continuum" one, but I suspect the same reasoning will be applicable to both. While I might be somewhat wary of the universal "all" in the straight chiropractors analysis, if it is still a vast majority of reliable sources, the qualification would serve to weasel the statement more than to helpfully qualify it. Same would go for the crossroads content, although in this case the motivation for being weaselly seems less useful. There is a gray area of sourcing where it is not clear what is best, but I am not convinced either of these are even that. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Population Connection

Resolved

The article on the organization Population Connection is little more than an advertisement by the organization (it even tells readers at the end "You can learn more about Population Connection on the website...". It is desperately in need of cleaning up, because right now it is not NPOV. 76.173.189.236 (talk) 19:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. It had been entirely re-written recently by user:Popconnect, a single-edit editor and presumably a member of the group. I've reverted it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Mark Kirk

The article uses a very deceptive selection of his congressional actions, and is misleading voters about one of the closest and most-funded Congressional races in 2008.

It boasts that he won an award from the League of Conservation Voters, portraying him as a pro-environment candidate. It neglects to mention that the same League of Conservation Voters also gave him a "F" grade last Congressional Session.

His position on Iraq is described solely as, "In May 2007 Kirk was the leader of a Republican delegation, of 11 congressmen, who explained to Bush his actions, in respect to Iraq, were hurting the Republican party." The article again neglects to mention the fact that Mark Kirk co-sponsored and was selected by Bush to help author the House Resolution to invade Iraq in 2003. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.94.125 (talk) 06:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Corvus cornix_talk 23:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage

A user claims that it is not a "claim" but scientific fact that children need to be reared by a mother and a father; this user also adds citations to articles that make these claims in general, with no specific reference to same-sex marriage in order to illustrate the argument against same sex marriage. I think this raises clear NOR and NPOV concerns. Edit dif and talk page and talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

If they persist, list them at WP:AIV. Corvus cornix_talk 23:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Gibraltar

Hi,

Gibraltar tends to be a topic that stirs up a lot of heat. I've noticed a series of POV edits being added to Gibraltar articles:

Telephone numbers in Gibraltar, Gibraltar, History of Gibraltar

Sees to spilling out into WikiSource as it appears that one of the documents has been moved? See [30]

The comments on the user page, cause me some concern as they appear to indicate a desire to insert a Spanish POV see User:Ecemaml/Gibraltar. And the comments on Talk Pages seem to indicate that the temperature is rising again see Talk:History_of_Gibraltar and User talk:Asterion.

The topics are on my watchlist, I'd appreciate any advice on how to stop the dispute escalating between the parties. Justin talk 23:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, Justin, don't forget to show the diffs with alleged POV editing and explaining why, if the problem is apparently POV editing, you revert an edition on the grounds of being too technical. It seems other thing.

And for your information, Justin, from here:

“ Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. ”

Which is the problem with "a desire to insert a Spanish POV"? The NPOV orders to enter "fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources"? I intend to include the Spanish POV whenever it's not present, if relevant, or if distorted, with proper attributions (that is, I don't aim to present a POV as a fact, as currently happens in many articles) and sources. It seems as you wish to delete the Spanish POV and, you know, that's against the NPOV. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC) PS: and BTW, the only diff you quote (this), is related to this and this. I assume that I can name the articles in wikisource in the way I consider more accurate, can't I?

As I explained in my edit summary, your edits were adding too much technical detail on the teleophone article that made it difficult for the average reader to understand the article. That was all.

On the Gibraltar article, the opening lines took a great deal of effort to achieve a consensus, as I politely requested in my edit summary to avoid further conflict it would help if you were to discuss proposed changes on the talk page first.

On the history article, my concern was for the change of names to have POV implications, names have proven to be highly contentious in the past.

What I find most disappointing is that rather than take my suggestions, you appear to have edit warred to insist on your changes. Really as an admin on the Spanish wikipedia, you really should be setting an example rather than indulging in disruptive behaviour.

From my experience, when i hear someone talking about wishing to see "a POV represented" and quoting NPOV policy, it is precisely because they wish to promote a particular POV via wikipedia.

I would be delighted if my first impressions are incorrect and your intentions are to enhance the encyclopedia and indeed will happily redact this report. In the mean time I'd still appreciate some advice from experienced Wiki editors as to the best course of action. Justin talk 00:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

UNINDENT

Added a link to this page on each of the named articles above. Justin talk 00:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

As I've told you by three times, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. If you feel that a given paragraph is too technical, feel free to rewrite or ask for explanations. However, a full reversion of text that is not related to such a "too technical issue", with four different sources, two from the Spanish government and two from the UK document is called, in any wikipedia I've edited in, vandalism.

Well, I asked for a link to the consensus. Finally I found it (not thanks to your help) and curiously the position of the UK government is simply not considered. If you think it's not neutral, please, explain it in the talk page, explain why it's affected by the consensus and, anyway, move it to other place within the article, since it contains sourced and attributed information.

On the history article, you should analyze the whole of the history. The name was initially included by me (I hadn't uploaded the text to wikisource yet and eventually I decided to use a more accurate name, may I) and I can't see the POV implication in saying that the Spanish authorities surrender in 1704. If not Spanish, what were they?

What I find most disappointing is that rather than including any suggestion, you've simply dismissed several hours of work by simply reverting (easy, isn't it?) Being an admin in the Spanish wikipedia, I know this: "It does not entitle users to revert a page three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique". However, you're right. After you broke the 3RR with futile arguments in Telephone numbers in Gibraltar, I shouldn't have done the same. I'm autoblocking me here for one day.

I don't know which your experience is, but my experience here is quite old (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gibraltarian). Fairly showing a POV is not promoting a POV. And preventing a POV to be shown on the grounds that someone decides what a NPOV can easily led to MPOV.

Justin, you haven't provided the diffs on my alleged POV promoting. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Again for the record, see my 00:38 posting to your talk page. And as always with Wikipedia your contributions are not lost but can be retrieved from the history if necessary. Thank you for the clarification on the history article though, I'd been through the edit history and simply couldn't figure it out properly. I see now that you'd simply created a different article on WikiSource - it isn't always easy when things are posted across multiple projects to see how it was put together. And there is no need for the drama of a block, as I've just commented on your Talk Page I have no intention of reporting the 3RR violation; though a self-revert would be appropriate. Justin talk

It is not a case of a Spanish POV and another view, this is a simple case of an editor making something up. The Spanish refusal to implement the Gibraltar IDD code dates back to the restoration of telephones (1982?) and the matter was only resolved last year.

• User:Ecemaml has been trying to provoke an argument about Gibraltar.

• After reverting his personal POV that Nothing prevented Gibraltar from expanding its numbering plan which not even the Spanish Government share that I tried to start a discussion [31] which he asked for but he ignored and continued edit warring

• He refers to the 'banned user:gibraltarian' who he used to goad in this way who was equally as insistent in pushing his POV and like User:Ecemaml refused to discuss anything and was abusive. It is well known that that user is not myself although he accuses me of that

• Yes he is an admin on the Spanish wikipedia where he is used to getting his way by protecting articles which he has edited to enforce his erroneous POV [32] as it was HIS opinion that the Gibraltar airport was not part of Gibraltar !

• After a number of attempts to remove a reference to an agreement on my website, he [33] copied and pasted it to Wikisource to remove the link.

Sadly this seems to be a deliberate campaign to stir things up and provoke edit wars particularly including provocative statements of his opinion like unfortunately, Gibraltar is not Spain [34]

This behaviour does not help in creating an encyclopedia, and some of his comments and behaviour are very aggressive towards other editors, with threats like:

As long as you don't want to show the Spain's POV I'll go on, with my poor English, including it, whether you like it or not. And thank you by recognizing that you have something to do with Gibraltarian.[35]

I am not that user and do not even know his name. --Gibnews (talk) 01:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I would add that there was a long long /long/ discussion about these things, discussions I believe were pointed out to Ecemaml. Rather tha breaching 3RR and tossing around petty accusations of vandalism, Ecemaml might be advised to use the talk page to discuss the edits. 'Bold -> Revert -> Discuss'. Not 'Bold -> Revert -> Slam undo until the cows come home'. --Narson ~ Talk • 11:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely - whether the texts belong there or not, revert warring over them doesn't help. There is no reason not to use the talk pages. Pfainuk talk 15:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be over. There has been no evidence shown that the wording on the existing article is either factually inaccurate or POV perhaps someone not directly involved in the dispute could remove the headers added by the Spanish editor. Since the Cordoba agreement, Spain recognises the Gibraltar IDD code like everyone else in the world, and is no longer involved in telephone numbering in Gibraltar --Gibnews (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

histrionic personality disorder

the definition of this disorder should not be categorized by sex,there is no link to differences regarding gender associated with this disorder

example of text

In females Women with HPD are described as self-centered, self-indulgent, and intensely dependent on others. They are emotionally labile and cling to others in the context of immature relationships. As well, they over-identify with others; they project their own unrealistic, fantasized intentions onto people with whom they are involved. They are emotionally shallow to avoid distress and have difficulty understanding themselves or others in any depth. Selection of marital or sexual partners is often highly inappropriate. The majority of the time their partners will have symptoms of personality disorders, equal to, or far worse than their own. Women with HPD often tend to enter into abusive relationships with partners who increase the abuse as time wears on. Pathology increases with the level of intimacy in relationships, which is exactly the same for males. Women may show inappropriate and intense anger masking their internal battle between the quest for intimacy and avoiding pathology. Women with borderline tendencies often form entirely negative convictions towards the male gender and treat them like pawns as a defense mechanism concealing their own inadequacies. They may engage in self-mutilation and/or manipulative suicide threats as one aspect of general manipulative interpersonal behavior.[2] In males Males with HPD usually present problems of identity crisis, disturbed relationships, and lack of impulse control. They have antisocial tendencies and are inclined to exploit physical symptoms as a method of false control. These men are emotionally immature (although they tend to believe the exact opposite), dramatic (although many are adept at covering it up), and shallow (although they tend to believe their feelings are so deep that no other single person could ever understand). Men with HPD may dwell on their own emotions and create a false sense of reality, effectively convincing themselves of whatever they need to believe to feel comfortable in their relationships. HPD males with antisocial tendencies shift between periods of isolation and those of extreme social conquest (each shift can last a matter of days to periods lasting several years). They may require isolated retreats in order to obtain a comfortable level of understanding and acceptable functioning. HPD antisocial males are dependent upon no one in particular, but crave the dependence of others. Although males often have chameleon-like social skills (similar to HPD females), they tend to have trouble keeping lengthy friendships afloat as their paranoia (real and imagined) may eventually lead to a near complete and permanent disposal of all interpersonal relationships at a given time, effectively eliminating any emotional responsibility and accountability. They tend to genuinely search for intimacy (many believe in "the one") while remaining unable to regulate their perceived level of intimacy for any given interpersonal relationship, making it very difficult to build anything other than turbulent relations. Males with HPD may believe in the supernatural, such as fortune telling or telepathy, including the belief that there are many hidden messages and notions in public works that are specifically meant for them. When HPD antisocial males believe they are being manipulated, they may morph into sociopathic relations with their perceived enemies, yet remain overtly loyal to perceived friends. HPD men are oftentimes intensely driven by their quest to conquer life, despite having no real sense of direction or control, resulting in frequent changes of overly passionate interests. [2] Both men and women with HPD engage in disinhibited behavior, such as promiscuity and substance abuse.[3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icevixen17 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Indo-Aryan loanwords in Tamil

I am developing this article and I use an authoritative and comprehensive published lexicon to cite the existence of borrowed words in Tamil language

Some people who dont accept the lexicon's authority (since it contradicts their POV) are threatening to delete my work and have extensively tagged my article with "citation necessary" tags. Kindly help. ­ Kris (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Find citations from reliable sources. qed. Corvus cornix_talk 23:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Henry Kissinger Biography

I question the overall neutrality of the Henry Kissinger biography and therefore its validity. It is of particular importance to present biographies of political figures as objectively as possible. Most of the article is biased, and in places it's unrestrained adulation. Earlier, in the introductory description, the word hero was used to describe him. It is not libelous to state facts about the man, and it's important to do so, since he is participating in a current presidential campaign as an advisor. Links to informative factual sources should not be censored, nor should other facts about him. Political figures, by the way, are not protected by the libel laws of private citizens, and the biographies of political figures shouldn't be written, or seem as if they're written, by the man's publicist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inwol (talk • contribs) 11:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Tommy Tutone and other (alleged) one-hit wonders

The Tommy Tutone page features the following passage in the introduction:

Although they are frequently remembered as a "one-hit wonder", they actually had another top 40 hit on the Hot 100 with "Angel Say No" in 1980, predating "Jenny" by a couple of years.

This kind of statement occurs in many pages which discuss alleged one-hit wonders. It seems to be written from the point of view of a fan who wishes to defend their favourite band from being labelled as a one-hit wonder. One problem is that "one-hit wonder" is not clearly defined, which allows it to be used when writing from either point of view. The fact that "Angel Say No" reached Number 38 would not prevent me from thinking of Tommy Tutone as a one-hit wonder, but others would argue that two top-40 songs does preclude that status.

A separate issue is that the assertion that a band is a one-hit wonder usually involves weasel words, as is the case in the extract shown above. I suggest that "one-hit wonder" is a subjective term that is difficult to define and interpret. As something which invites POV, I propose that claims and counter-claims as to one-hit wonder status should be avoided in articles about bands and musical artists, and their songs.

I am not in dispute with anybody over this. The reason I am posting is that I have seen statements like the one above on many Wikipedia pages. I would like to receive some expert opinions before editing them. Thank you, Labalius (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you and other editors interested in popular music establish a definition of "one-hit wonder" to be used in all such articles? In this particular article, could using a footnote resolve the difficulty? Itsmejudith (talk) 11:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Waitahora Wind Farm

This article is about a proposed wind farm project. Local resident Stuart Christopher Brown is a member of an opposition group and a new editor to Wikipedia. He has made several edits to the article which, in my opinion, lack WP:NPOV and verification. It appears Mr Brown is very genuine in his opposition to the project, and has some valid points. However, I don't think this is justification for relaxing Wikipedia guidelines. (Actually, I think he would present a more persuasive case and win more converts if Wikipedia guidelines were followed.) Any suggestions on how this can be tidied up? Thanks. Pakaraki (talk) 06:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Refer the newbie politely to WP:V and WP:COI. If he finds it difficult to take the policies on board then you could go to the conflict of interest noticeboard. You can remove any unverified controversial statements and ask for page protection if necessary. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Timothy Evans

The article has been tagged as POV, and I have tried to remove what I feel were the most blatantly POV statements / paragraphs. However, a principal contributor keeps re-adding them. I would like to know if there is consensus in that these statements should be removed.

The case is one of the most serious miscarriages of justice that has occurred in Britain.

There are several things that I feel are wrong about this statement.

1. It's a declaration of fact, when there is no agreement on whether or not Evans is guilty or innocent, and thus a miscarriage of justice even occurred. 2. How do you quantify how serious a "miscarriage of justice" is? If the ultimate miscarriage of justice is the execution of an innocent person, then there are still hundreds of people (in Britain alone) that would no doubt have suffered an equal injustice. 3. Finally, assuming that miscarriage of justice was a quantifiable matter, "one of the most" places it on an arbitrarily long or short list, with no idea of it's absolute or approximate position to the top.

The case was one of the first major miscarriages of justice perpetrated by British Courts after the end of the second World War and was followed by many more, such as the cases of the Birmingham Six, and the Guildford Four, among numerous others. If the lessons of the Evans case had been heeded by the authorities, then many more injustices would have been prevented.

Again, there is the assertion that a miscarriage has definitely occurred. Also, "numerous" and "many" do not give any idea of quantity, so the significance of this crime as a miscarriage in relation to others is unknown. Assuming the "lessons" that the last sentence refers to are the alleged improper handling of evidence or poor police profiling, you cannot say that "many more" injustices would have been prevented, since no reference is give as to how many injustices have occurred due to improper forensic work, nor to injustices that have occurred when proper handling and investigation was conducted.

inclusivedisjunction (talk) 08:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

With the first statement, it is the kind of thing that a commentator may have stated. If you can find a source that has said this, keep it in and attribute it. The second statement is perhaps off-topic as it is about miscarriages of justice in general and not about this case. However, it could stay in if it can be attributed, for example to someone who has written a book about the case. Neither statement should stay in without a source. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

"perpetrated by British Courts"? Is this really correct? It implies it's definitely the courts that are at fault, not the police, or just bad luck. Peter jackson (talk) 11:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it should come out. Then if someone finds the connection between this affair and later controversies made in a reliable source, then they can find an appropriate way to summarise and attribute it without implying that WP blames the British courts for anything. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Tasaday

For many, many months now, there has been something of a dispute/revert war over this page and issue is still ongoing. The Tasaday were a group 'discovered' in the Philippines in 1971, and were believed to be a previously uncontacted stone age tribe, but they were supposedly exposed as a hoax in 1986. The view that they were a hoax still dominates much reports, but many are apparently still disputing this, and thus the ongoing conflict, which has reduced in intensity but is still going on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesFox (talk • contribs) 00:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest two ways to work towards improving the article and gaining consensus. One is to start adding inline references for everything. Some books are listed at the end which would seem at at first view to be highly reliable sources. They need to be used to the full. The second approach is to decide on a basic structure for the article, and I would suggest that it should be chronological. The lead para was informative I thought, and followed what you present in your post: 1) people "discovered", written about, 2) idea that their existence was a hoax, 3) counterclaim that they are not a hoax, 4) continued discussion. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Christian Zionism in the United Kingdom

A stub, so I am inclined to be broad minded. But it is written like a speech or personal essay and I am concerned that the whole thing violates NPOV. Or maybe it is just parts that can be removed. I'd appreciate others' judgement, identifying NPOV problems and dealing with them. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

POV and antisemitic, with its equivocating about the "Jewish lobby". Merge with Christian Zionism if there is anything to rescue. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the definition, which said it was part of the Christian Right, and some of the named people some of whom certainly didn't seem to be part of the Christian right, and deleted them all to be on the safe side. Doug Weller (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Agatha Christie's Poirot

I realize that a low importance article on a television series seems a little insignificant among such great topics as the Kosovan war, nevertheless there is a battle being fought on the above page regarding one user's (Grakirby) addition of facts regarding recurring characters and recurring actors in different roles. It seems that one particular editor, UpDown, is extremely unhappy and is repeatedly accusing the additions of containing POV and therefore being unacceptable. Hence my posting here. For the very very long and polemic discussion see the discussion page section TRIVIA (should you be brave enough).

I have referred this for a third person non-partisan view on the apposite WP page and the response was from 2 separate users to leave the additions in but this is not accepted as a consensus by the aggrieved party who is still deleting daily and tagging the page as having excessive intricate details. Thank you for your time.--Septemberfourth476 (talk) 13:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a good article, and you all deserve a cup of tea and a slice of cake for working on it so assiduously. My view is this. First: "achieved notoriety" is not the right wording, even if it were spelt correctly. Fame and notoriety are different things. How about "actors who appeared in the series in minor roles and who later became well known include X, Y and Z"? Now, strictly speaking you should have a third-party source for such a statement. Moreover, it is a hostage to fortune because you could be descended upon by fans who want their relatively unknown heartthrobs included in the list. But honestly, it is not a big deal for this article at the moment. The point is sourceable to the rolling credits on the episodes themselves. Second: these aren't intricate details. They don't make it difficult to read the article. Sure, they are only of interest to people who want to know lots about this TV series. But that is a core audience for this article. Those who don't want to read everything can stop after the lead. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Landmark Education

• Landmark Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article was turned into a corporate PR piece. Various tendentious editors have been protecting it in that state for several years. Several of those accounts have now been blocked as sock puppets. Can we get some uninvolved editors to look at the article and help bring it into compliance with WP:NPOV? I suspect that more socks may appear and start edit warring. It will help considerably if uninvolved editors watchlist the article and check all edits. Jehochman ^Talk 15:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Watching it. And wow, you're not kidding! Arakunem^Talk 14:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Adam Kennedy (eco-scientist extraordinaire)

Resolved

 – Deleted. Arakunem^Talk 14:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's really the title... There is an assertion of notability buried in the self-promotion, so I didn't think it appropriate for speedy. That title's got to go though... Arakunem^Talk 15:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Already moved to Adam Kennedy (scientist) by User:Nancy. Quite right too. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

U 552

This page is the subject of an on-going, 2 year old dispute over content. The original version of this account in 7 July 2006 was the subject of an edit war from September 2006 to January 2007, and again in September 2007 to March 2008. It was edited by myself to this [36] in October 2008 with the agreement of the original editor.
It has been changed repeatedly to this [37] by an anonymous editor using a variety of IP addresses:

• 71.75.217.133 (Sept 06-Jan 07),
• 75.181.159.63 (Sept 07-Mar 08, and now Oct 08)
• 75.181.143.239 (today : 7 Oct 08).

The content added is highly POV, and editorializing. There has been no response to repeated requests for discussion of the issues. The allegation in the edit summary that the original account is “completely inaccurate and extremely biased” has not been substantiated at any point.
Your input would be welcomed. Xyl 54 (talk) 07:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Buddhism#RfC

Issues including NPOV. Peter jackson (talk) 09:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Turkey

In the article, I have re-edited the religion section, because I thought it was biased and only looks at the point of view of secularism or kemalism of the country, therefore I believe that section does not provide a neutral point of view for the readers on Wikipedia, because nothing is mentioned about the conservatism present in Turkey, for example the rise of Islamist-governments and the headscarf controversy - which is banned, but worn by many. I have then added this information about the culture clash between both of these ideologies, with reliable sources and is an important information which should be available in the article based on the impact of Religion in the country.

Furthermore, I have also added the Kemalist ideology to balance between both of these concepts. But in the article it is reverted by two users: User:Turkish Flame and User:Ayça Leovinus (<Part of the 37 Wikipedia sockpuppets of Shuppiluliuma), their reason mainly given: No Islamist ideology allowed on the article, and only favoring secular information, but I have provided two balanced information for the article section, so I believe these two users are reverting my edits due to based on their own ideologies, but not caring about how information is provided for Wikipedia users, and that is what I have done by editing the section, providing a neutral point of view, but however these users are trying to hide these facts and informations, which I think is not a valid reason to revert my edits. Please review this, Thank you!!! My neutral revision :[38] against this:[39]

Many biased reason's against my edit: There is no place for your islamist agenda in wikipedia..., I know that it tickles your Islamist nerves., The top paragraph entirely for religion, the bottom paragraph entirely for secularism., especially when you are the "dedicated Islamist" of Wikipedia?, You are not making a "summary", you are only removing the parts that you dislike due to your Islamic ideology, Mr. Bangladeshi Islamic fanatic in England, why don't you "get a life" and leave Turkey to the Turks - who definitely know their country much better than you do?, Enough - go see a doctor, You are not making a "summary", you are only removing the parts that you dislike due to your Islamic ideology - Note the word Islamist mentioned in these quotes by User:Ayça Leovinus.

My reason's for edits: I have shortened the section because: the section looks cluttered and unorganized; various info moved to subs; reducing article size (not removed secular), Balancing and adding information (ie Kemalism, political situation), fixing info, now clear according to NPOV, good edit (AGF, NPOV), My revision: shortened sentences, and transferred to related articles, adding few relevant political sit., reducing article size (previous cluttered and unorganized) now), re edited section, added more comprehensive populations of Christians and Jews, and fixed Kemalism, with sources, entry referenced, based on NPOV, balanced of view. Conservate and secular present, not only secular, this should not be hidden., NPOV version: providing info based on two sides of point of views, not only one, but two present in society. Secularism/Kemalism, Conservatism/Headscarf - Note no insults given to users, but giving suitable reasons for the edits.

Mohsin (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I have re-edited it again for a more neutral perspective: [40] Mohsin (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Osho Rajneesh - Selective sourcing

There seems to be an issue with the dependence upon Judith M. Fox's book in this article. I question why of the 350 odd citations, 100 (including ibidem's) are taken from one 54 paged "booklet". Some sections in the Osho article depend almost entirely on Fox. This would appear problematic considering the abundance of material available on the subject.

In light of this observation, I am seeking an opinion as to whether or not this issue warrants the placement of an appropriate tag, or tags, to highlight this concern.It is essentially one editor, Jayen, who is responsible for the weighting issue arising from the use of this source.

Notable also, in terms of questioning the quality and reliability of the source, is the fact that the book in question is published in conjunction with an Italian organisation called CESNUR, owned by one Massimo Introvigne; who seems to have a reputation for his stance against so called anti-cultists, or cult-apologists.

Generally, I have found that there is resistance to the inclusion of material that questions offically endorsed appraisals of Osho Rajneesh; despite numerous valid sources being offered, for example Talk:Osho#Review_of_sources_covering_the_move_to_America & Talk:Osho#Medical_condition_as_possible_pretext_to_enter_America__-__source_review.

The officical view, that endorsed by individuals sympathetic to the Osho movement, is always presented as the primary version of events, with all other perspectives sidelined as secondary. This is not a neutral presentation of verifiable sources.

Another observation is that the weighting of Fox's assessment of Osho's teachings gives it primacy over the views of other scholars, such as Carter, Metha, Urban, Mullan, etc. all of whom have written on the nature of the subject's teachings. Instead some of their views are relegated to one small section entitled Assessments by scholars of religion. This simply adds to the imbalance.

Semitransgenic (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

According to my analysis, the article lists 201 different source locations. Of these, 35 (not 93) are pages in Fox. However, it is true that some of these pages have multiple citations. Overall, the article has, according to my reckoning, 347 individual source citations. Of those, 98 are to Fox. So there would seem to be some potential justification in raising the question of undue weight. To check if this is borne out by the facts, let us look at what is actually cited to Fox, taking each citation in turn, from the beginning.

• Fox p. 9 (3 cites) is used for the number of Osho's siblings and the occupation of his father, his going back to live with his parents aged 7, and his youthful flirtations with politics.

• Fox p. 10 (2 cites) is used to source Osho's criticising Gandhi and socialism, and his speaking against Brahminism.

• Fox p. 12 (1 cite) is used to source that sannyasins wore a locket with his picture.

• Fox p. 11 (1 cite) is used to source that his sannyasins did not live an ascetic lifestyle.

• Fox p. 15 (1 cite) is used to source that the number of Western visitors increased.

• Fox p. 16 (1 cite): the arrival of Western therapists in the ashram.

• Fox p. 17 (6 cites): the Ashram beginning to offer therapy groups, these becoming a major source of income, there being Dynamic Meditation at 6 a.m., Osho holding a spontaneous morning discourse, the way therapies were chosen, the fact that therapies allowed violence and sexual contact between participants.

• Fox p. 18 (3 cites): daily meditation and therapy programme in the so-called "buddhafield", visitors having darshans, "madhouse" carnival atmosphere in the ashram.

• Fox p. 20 (1 cite): some individual sannyasins engaging in drug running and prostitution.

• Fox p. 47 (1 cite): sannyasins discussing planned drug runs or prostitution activities with Osho and Osho giving his blessing.

• Fox p. 21 (4 cites): alternative commune locations in India sought, Saswad castle commune started, tensions with the Desai government, Osho entering a period of silence.

• Fox p. 22 (4 cites): Sheela becoming the new secretary, back problem and move to US, Sheela claiming it was for health reasons, Sheela being keen to go to the US.

• Fox p. 26 (1 cite): Osho's AIDS warning.

• Fox p. 27 (1 cite): Osho ending his period of public silence.

• Fox p. 50 (1 cite): lack of evidence linking Osho to Sheela's crimes.

• Fox p. 48 (1 cite): allegations that Osho was addicted to nitrous oxide.

• Fox p. 29 (1 cite): Osho returning to his ashram in Pune in 1987.

This covers the first 33 citations to Fox. As the article grew, I used Fox as a convenience cite for several reasons: Her book is short and contains the essential outline of Osho's life. Second, it is, unlike FitzGerald or Carter, strictly choronological, making it easy to find things. Third, having been written quite recently, it is one of the few books that covers all of Osho's life, from his birth to his death. Fourth, along with FitzGerald, Fox was one of the first sources I bought for working on this article.

There is nothing cited to Fox in the above that could not just as easily be cited to Carter, FitzGerald, Joshi, or Gordon.

CESNUR is an organisation of mainstream scholars of religion. According to this Oxford University Press publication, CESNUR is a recommended source of objective information on new religious movements. The same publication also mentions that Massimo Introvigne lectures at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross in Rome.

"Judith Fox (= Judith Thompson, = Judith Coney) holds a doctorate in the sociology of religion from the London School of Economics, University of London. For more than twenty years, she has researched new religions, culminating in such books as The Way of the Heart: A Study of Rajneeshism and Sahaja Yoga. She edits a series on new religions from Curzon Press." [41] Jayen466 16:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This is misleading, count the total number of individual cites attributable to Fox.

Cites in the teachings section are almost entirely from Fox, particulary the first sub-section, and it is mostly Fox that is being paraphrased.

Her work The Way of the Heart: A Study of Rajneeshism was not a culmination of 20 years research, as claimed above, it was written in 1986.

Fox is not a practicing academic and does not currently hold a research position at a university.

Fox's Osho Rajneesh publication appears to hold many biases and is not a neutral source, I would point to the first paragraph of page 9 as a good example: where she essentially states that Rajneesh was the reincarnation of a man who lived 700 years ago.

Semitransgenic (talk) 17:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• This is misleading, count the total number of individual cites attributable to Fox. I did count them. It is 35 out of the 201 numbered notes, or just under 100 individual citations out of the roughly 350 individual citations overall. It is not 93 out of 201, as you claimed.
• There are indeed many cites to Fox in the teaching section. This partly reflects the fact that she devotes a whole chapter to a complete outline of his teachings and gives the best overview. Other sources tend to have scattered references to various aspects of his teaching here and there, and to focus on particular points. But the various aspects that Fox describes of his teachings can be found in accounts by others as well. (For the record, the Teaching section has 76 citations, of which 48 are to Fox. Note that every sentence sourced to Fox has a separate citation, even where these are 3-sentence units, and that each primary source quote that is given in Fox and is reproduced in this article has a separate, double citation to both Fox and the primary source.)
• Bromley disagrees with you about the neutrality and objectivity of CESNUR, and he is a leading scholar of religion. It is true that Fox reproduces a legend about Osho's former incarnation; I did not think (and still don't think) that section is encyclopedically relevant to our article. Jayen466 17:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• I am not sure whether a scholar working at a university or not is necessarily relevant to this discussion, but according to this page, relating to an Oxford University Press publication of hers, Judith Fox taught at the University of London in 2000 at the time her book on Rajneesh was written (the copyright is 2000). (She married or divorced or something, hence the name change. But she is also generally known as the leading scholar on Sahaja Yoga.) Jayen466 17:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This is misleading, count the total number of individual cites attributable to Fox. I did count them. It is 35 out of the 201 numbered notes, or just under 100 individual citations out of the roughly 350 individual citations overall. It is not 93 out of 201, as you claimed.

go to the reference section, look at the cites, count the ibidem's. Semitransgenic (talk) 17:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, Fox is not the only source with ibidems. If you count her ibidems, you also have to count the ibidems for the other sources. Jayen466 18:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe she was cited here as an academic at one point or another; that is generally someone with a track record of peer reviewed, university endorsed, research.

The question relates more to the neutrality of the Signature publication - it's usability as a reliable source, and the degree to which it is being depended upon, in light of the fact that it is essentially a 54 page booklet, and that other sources are largely ignored, relative to the disproportionate coverage given to Fox's views - than to her academic credentials Semitransgenic (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned above that her book on Sahaja Yoga was published by Oxford University Press. Judith Fox/Coney/Thompson has a twenty-five-year history of contributing to peer-reviewed journals, including on this specific topic. Jayen466 18:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

But this is not an article about Sahaja Yoga. Semitransgenic (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I honestly can't see what you're getting at, Semitransgenic. As far as I can see from a quick survey, Judith Fox has a degree in Religious Studies and Anthropology, an M.Sc., a doctorate in the Sociology of Religion, she taught at London University's Study of Religions Department, previously produced a book on the subject of this article (as yet unreferenced here) with Paul Heelas, (The Way of the Heart: The Rajneesh Movement, mentioned e.g. here in [Aveling), she contributed a paper entitled Recent changes in Rajneeshism to the Journal of Contemporary Religion, and contributed a chapter covering Osho to this 2000 State University of New York Press publication. We cite few, if any, authors in this article who have a longer track record of researching Osho than Fox has. And the cites above, like the number of his siblings, the ashram earning money with therapy groups, some of his disciples engaging in drug running and prostitution, Osho giving morning discourses, Osho talking about AIDS, etc., are not Fox's views, but facts reported by her, and by many other authors. I'll grant you that much of the teaching section is sourced to Fox, but that is because she gives the most complete and best-structured overview. Jayen466 22:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I looked no further into Fox's background than what is immediately available via google, and there is very little for one Judith Fox. The name change since 1986 was not apparent to me becasue I viewed the credit to The Way of The Heart on the 2000 work, for a woman of the same name. The question of the publisher and its reputation is beyond the scope of the discussion, and I don't have time look further into allegations relating to CENSUR accepting funding from various NRM's with public image problems.

Obviously, it's not possible to get wider feedback here on the tone of her Signature publication but I personally find it questionable, relative to the range of sources available on the subject. It does not feature the type of writing I would expect from someone with academic training, but then again this is far from being an academic standard source, not that it is a requirement, but there are a number of academic publications on the subject that could be referred to in place of Fox.

The issue that needs to be addressed is the fact that almost one third of the citations stem from one persons assessment of the subject when there are a number of commentators to consider, this is not in keeping with provisions for a summary of sources.

I do not accept your claim that she gives the most complete overview and this runs contrary to the summary of sources requirement, she provides her overview, other commentators have offered views on his teachings but they are corralled into a short sub-section entitled Assessments by scholars of religion.

In summary what we have is undue weight given to a concise and sympathetic little booklet which reads like it was written by someone who is unashamedly a fan and perhaps once a follower, not that either of those facets are in themselves problematic, it is the credence that this 54 page book has been given here that is the problem. Semitransgenic (talk) 23:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The Teaching section sets out to give a description of his teaching. People's views on the teaching are treated in the Reception section. That is fairly standard practice. Jayen466 16:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think perhaps you may be choosing to miss the point. By my understanding of the matter, there is no codified set of 'teachings' attributable to Osho. Fox is simply one of many who have written on the subject, but the weighting is leaning heavily in her direction, becasue in your view her perspective is definitive. You can run around the issue but it is very plain. Semitransgenic (talk) 17:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there something that prevents the use of alternate sources to provide greater diversity in references cited for the reader? I appreciate that certain sources will simply be easier to use and somewhat valuable as a reference because they provide a clear overview of a subject. However, we should avoid being overly reliant on a single source, especially in such a potentially contentious article. It can lead to claims of bias and undue weight, which are often legitimate concerns. If the material can be cited to a wider variety sources, diversifying the citations a bit will be of benefit to the article and the editing climate. Vassyana (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll look for some alternative citations then and drop them in. FWIW, I don't believe Fox is or ever was a follower. But when it comes to describing Osho's teachings, I don't think it is inappropriate to use a sympathetic source. For example, to describe Islamic beliefs, we use Islamic sources, not Christian ones; to describe the beliefs of Scientology, we actually use primary sources – pages off their website – rather than Operation Clambake. I think this article already does quite well ín using scholarly sources and restricting primary source quotes to those quoted by scholars. Cheers, Jayen466 23:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Right-wing politics edits by user:Valois bourbon

He seems to have undertaken a very biased re-editing of this article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Right-wing_politics&diff=prev&oldid=241469606

could someone take a look? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.171.61 (talk) 09:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit war at Varg Vikernes

Some anonymous ip has continued a NPOV issue at this article, that I though had cleared already. Within the right wing/neopagan underground apparently some people are of the opinion that the subject of the article is a 'writer', whereas, according to the few reliable sources, such a description would not be appropriate. It goes back to a discussion from August 2007 [42], when someone was of the opinion that Varg Vikernes was not only a musician, but also a writer, composer and an atheist; and consequently I had to explain that someone who considers 'Jesus to be an Aryan' can hardly be described as an atheist. I only did not get through with explaining, that, according to the reliable sources, Vikernes just does not qualify as a writer. Two months ago an anonymous ip had already vandalised my user talk page with a racist comment in relation to this issue ( see this diff). Zara1709 (talk) 17:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't look like a writer. Who are the books published by? Are they available through Amazon? On any bestseller lists? Their existence may be a notable part of his biog, but their status needs to be clarified. When they are listed, make sure that further editions and translations of the same thing form one entry, not several. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

His books are extremist underground literature. One of them was published by Cymophane, some publisher with which he is somehow himself involved and can be ordered at a far right web store [43] (note the link to a book by Savitri Devi on that page, who proclaiming Adolf Hitler as an avatar of the Hindu god Vishnu.) The other book was afaik self-published with money from Vikernes' mother. This certainly aren't bestsellers, and are not listed at amazon.com (the only thing you get there is secondary literature about him: [44]). However, if you want to look for his music, at amazon.com they still sell it [45]. Zara1709 (talk) 18:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the article should just note "He has authored some self-published books on ... (name subjects)." Itsmejudith (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably I should have been more specific in my initial comment. In the foregoing version this was included as: Vikernes "wrote several pamphlets on Germanic neopaganism." The controversy is about the question whether he should be listed as a writer by occupation in the template at the side of the article: diff, which I oppose because it would give a wrong impression. Zara1709 (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

After I took a closer look at the IP adresses involved (apparently they all belong to the same person who vandalized my user talk page), I have decided to resolve this as vandalism to save the community the effort. If you think that his is inappropriate, please, just leave a note at Talk:Varg Vikernes. Zara1709 (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

first of all, where on the history of edits[46] do you find me vandalizing anyone's page? this is a college library computer, I don't know, nor care, what others have done on wikipedia with the computers here. second, I have enough info to call him a writer and list his writings (something that zara has also vandalized). Thrid (and this is off subject) I believe that a man named Jesus existed, does that mean I'm not an atheist. No, I don't believe in god(s) and neither does he [47], so technically he is a athiest... it does seem a little weird that zara keeps bringing up points that have nothing to do with Wikipedia's guide lines or whether or not he is a writer. I'm not a vandal (neither in the internet sense nor am I a member of any eastern germanic race). I just want the info to be complete. I don't care if she removes the part that has Occuption(s): Writer. I'll even remove it if it helps. But he has written these books, their are on more than racism and neopaganism, and listing these writings are solely to give the full info, nothing more. Now I think I'll just sit and wait for the proof that I have ever vandalized anyone's page. 172.163.184.165 (talk) 05:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop lying. The chances that two people whose computers are in the same ip range care so strongly about such a specific topic are considerably slim. But now, since you have found this discussion page, you know that even it we all assume good faith here your edits are simply bad. You appear to be a fan of Vikernes writings, and there is nothing I can say against this. But to the greater public, Vikernes simply isn't a writer. You'd have to accept that. Zara1709 (talk) 06:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright, this is what I wanted. Zara has kept my constructive edits and changed the wording from "wrote several pamphlets" to "authored several writings", I agree that mythology mentioned is covered (at least in Varg's case) with "neopaganism" and I thank Zara for keeping the edits we could reach an agreement on. As far as the things you mention. His writings do seem to be that of an atheist (a religious one albeit) but the sources are... well, inconclusive, more info will surface after he has served his time. As for composer, I've always defined a composer as someone who writes in musical notation for publication, which I have no reason to think Varg is such. So with that I thank zara and apologize for the warring. Next time I'll discuss the problem first, once again I'm sorry. As far ass the ip check, the computers in this school are unable to go to several sites (or download from some) due to everyone acting like idiots (we have several neonazis and neopagans, me not incuded, I'm not even a fan of his writings, I'm just fascinated by extremist) (I can't download "home of the underdog" because of this) so If someone did say that about your mother I stand by that it wasn't me. I will take everyone's advice and create an account the next time I decide to edit. I consider the problem resolved, once again sorry for my newbie-ness, and thank you for compromising zara, I would like to make one statement about wikipedia, their needs to be guidelines on what an occupation is define as far as wikipedia is concerned, or maybe I just didn't see it. well, goodbye everybody. 172.164.211.91 (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

James Hansen

The specific section with NPOV problems is "Trials for fossil fuel chiefs". Briefly, Hansen has called for putting fossil fuel company executives, including the CEOs of ExxonMobil and Peabody Coal, on trial for "high crimes against humanity and nature", on the grounds that these and other fossil-fuel companies had actively spread doubt and misinformation about global warming. I added a reply from a Peabody Coal spokesman, that if everyone who disagreed with Hansen were jailed, "the jails would be very, very big." , citing "Big Coal Fires Back Over James Hansen’s Criminal Complaint" at the New York Times.

The ensuing discussions (and edit war) are documented at Talk:James Hansen#7.4 Trials for fossil fuel chiefs. Briefly, three editors object to including the Peabody Coal reply, on grounds of WP:WEIGHT. Three editors support the addition (or something similar) on grounds of WP:NPOV. No consensus emerged, nor does one seem likely. Hence an outside review is requested.

Hansen is a controversial figure, and his WP biography has been very contentious in the past, so an overall review of the article's compliance with NPOV would also be helpful. Thank you, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Semitransgenic

Please see current spiteful dispute I am having with Semitransgenic at Tellus Audio Cassette Magazine and at the Noise music page. See talk pages at both. Thank you Valueyou (talk) 16:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The user's issues with me started here: [48]. Persistently ignoring guidelines despite numerable efforts to communicate plainly and clearly how things work around here. User also appears to be engaged in sock/meat puppetry, appropriate check requests have been filed. Association with known sock puppeteer and a sock puppet account has been established. Semitransgenic (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

NOT SO! Note date: 15 August 2008. That dispute was well settled and Semitransgenic knows that. Semitransgenic is attempting to distort the current dispute as stated below by fishing in the past.

The issue is this: after a month of work I greatly improved the noise music page - providing wiki with an outstanding noise music page with extensive footnotes, some lacking only page # which I can provide in the near future (as previously explained a # of times), free of WP:OR & WP:SYN that stood - more or less - for a couple of weeks. Semitransgenic then imposed a WP:OR deadline on my providing those page #s and when I challenged that arbitrary deadline Semitransgenic falsely accused me of sock-puppetry with the creator of the Tellus Audio Cassette Magazine - an outstanding wiki page started by Tellus archivist who has entered his resistance to Semitransgenic's dictates. (see talk page at Noise music) I strongly condemn Semitransgenic's tactics as he is doing it again at Tellus Audio Cassette Magazine

this is a misrepresentation of facts. The article has never been free of WP:OR WP:SYN, tags were at one point removed because an assurance was given that citations would be forthcoming. At least six weeks on and there is still know sign of them, hence the continued presence of the tags. In this regard, nowhere has deviation from standard policy been applied by user semitransgenic, despite the vocal protestations of user Valueyou et al. There was no arbitrary deadline applied, and in light of the nature of the information submitted to the article, deletion may have been a more appropriate approach, yet user semitransgenic instead simply commented out the problematic citations and reinstated the requests. Semitransgenic (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

More evidence of Semitransgenic abuse: he has seen the results of the investigation into his charges of sock/meat puppetry here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Tellus_archivist) and knows (see his contrib page) me to be innocent of them -- yet he repeats them here. The result of his harassment was: "Clerk note: I've indefblocked Taxisfolder as an abandoned account but there is no overlap in activity or block evasion, so Valueyou is left alone. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC) I ask for disciplinary measures to be taken. He is a bully. Valueyou (talk) 16:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Distortion of facts. Wknight94 conclusion following 'checkuser' was (clerk) Abandoned account blocked but current one is not per lack of WP:SOCK abuse. One account was switched for another). Semitransgenic (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The findings were that "Taxisfolder was an abandoned account". Valueyou (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

was referring to users edit comments. Semitransgenic (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)