TriiipleThreat (talk | contribs) |
→American Israel Public Affairs Committee: new section |
||
Line 973: | Line 973: | ||
The page has been locked and the original POV sentence has been retained. Therefore, I would like a POV tag placed on this article until a proper substitute sentence is placed. Thank you. <small><span class="autosigned">— [[User:Dimestore|Dimestore]] ([[User talk:Dimestore|talk]]) 13:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC) |
The page has been locked and the original POV sentence has been retained. Therefore, I would like a POV tag placed on this article until a proper substitute sentence is placed. Thank you. <small><span class="autosigned">— [[User:Dimestore|Dimestore]] ([[User talk:Dimestore|talk]]) 13:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC) |
||
== [[American Israel Public Affairs Committee]] == |
|||
A new editor is making some very problematic changes to the lede of [[American Israel Public Affairs Committee]]. Specifically, he's adding information to a reference that doesn't appear on the website referenced (that: "AIPAC traces its history back to 1951, the date its founder left the employment of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs in New York." and is replacing some general lede-appropriate summary information with a very specific reference to an FBI file that is mentioned elsewhere in the article. I am particularly disturbed that the editor chose to include a quote about an allegation made against the organization while leaving off the part of the quote that stated the allegation was "unsubstantiated". Here is his latest edit. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&action=edit§ion=new]. [[User:GabrielF|GabrielF]] ([[User talk:GabrielF|talk]]) 19:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:34, 21 April 2011
Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context! | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Furry fandom
NPOV dispute about sexuality in the Furry fandom article. My claim: two Master's theses (and a third academic paper deemed un-citable by a furry wikipedian) assert the emphasis on sexuality of the furry identity and in the furry community. These verifiable, highly reliable sources are being rejected on the basis of personal anecdotes by self-identified furry wikipedians. In general the article's NPOV is compromised by such editors who revert edits about the sexual nature of the fandom.
- The two Master's theses:
- Morgan, Matt (2008-03-25). "Creature Comfort: Anthropomorphism, Sexuality, and Revitalization in The Furry Fandom".
- Eric Stephen Altman (May 2010). "Posthum/an/ous: Identity, Imagination, and The Internet" (PDF).
- A third academic paper, deemed "personal essay":
- Cameron Lindley Cross (2006). "On the Fringe of Queer" (PDF).
Somewhat related to this NPOV issue, bad references and original research that puts the fandom in a positive light remains unchallenged. -Furry-friend (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- All the policies work together. While doctoral dissertations are generally considered reliable sources, master's theses are not usually given that status. Undergraduate papers don't count at all. NPOV requires that we include all significant views with weight according to their prominence. But views which are not found in reliable sources need not be included at all. I suggest that the theses, if used at all, should be kept at arm's length, more to show the level of academic interest in the topic than for their actual contents. Will Beback talk 19:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Why aren't master's theses usually regarded as reliable sources, and why don't undergraduate papers count at all? Suppose some undergrad scribbled something, backed it up reliably, and got aced by a professor who passed it on to another professor, who also thought it a good paper... — Rickyrab | Talk 02:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- I don't understand this approach. Other, much less reliable sources are given prominence in the article. The very first sentence which defines the fandom is taken from a small newspaper. How is it that one non-academic article from a newspaper takes precedence over two other Master's theses? -Furry-friend (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Do you know the writer of the newspaper article?Slatersteven (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it's in the article -Furry-friend (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Are both theses making completely novel claims about the sexuality aspect? If they are you are out of luck, but if they aren't I'm sure there are usable sources in the reference sections. Just be sure to actually read the sources before you use them.Griswaldo (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- I must wonder again why I'm "out of luck" while most of the article cites press, non-academic publications, and even user-edited website. -Furry-friend (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Because, MA theses are not considered reliable sources. Hence any novel claims made in them are unusable. Non-novel claims can be sourced elsewhere. What is it you don't understand about MA theses not being reliable? This is the consensus here. You can try the RS/N but I assure you you'll get the same answer there. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- So I need a PhD thesis or a widely-cited MA thesis to stand against personal anecdotes and newspaper articles? Or will a newspaper article be enough? -Furry-friend (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Personal anecdotes which haven't been published in reliable sources should not be included either. But otherwise you're correct. Will Beback talk 21:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. I will suggest using a newspaper article as a source and see how it goes. -Furry-friend (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Personal anecdotes which haven't been published in reliable sources should not be included either. But otherwise you're correct. Will Beback talk 21:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Even though I recognize the proper Wikipedia policy on this issue, I'd like to note that I think it's absurd. Were the conclusions of these research theses made as personal anecdotes in a newspaper article, they would be considered more reliable and more worthy of being cited. -Furry-friend (talk) 13:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Perhpas it has something to do with editorial oversight.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- So I need a PhD thesis or a widely-cited MA thesis to stand against personal anecdotes and newspaper articles? Or will a newspaper article be enough? -Furry-friend (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Because, MA theses are not considered reliable sources. Hence any novel claims made in them are unusable. Non-novel claims can be sourced elsewhere. What is it you don't understand about MA theses not being reliable? This is the consensus here. You can try the RS/N but I assure you you'll get the same answer there. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- I must wonder again why I'm "out of luck" while most of the article cites press, non-academic publications, and even user-edited website. -Furry-friend (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Do you know the writer of the newspaper article?Slatersteven (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't understand this approach. Other, much less reliable sources are given prominence in the article. The very first sentence which defines the fandom is taken from a small newspaper. How is it that one non-academic article from a newspaper takes precedence over two other Master's theses? -Furry-friend (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
As one of those who was involved in the discussion, I will offer my input. Furry fandom does include a degree of adult material and sexual aspects, and there is already a section of the article that addresses this. The consensus up to this point has been that this section gives that aspect of the fandom an appropriate level of coverage. Furry-friend is trying to use the master's theses to claim that the current degree of coverage is not sufficient and has been trying to make changes to other sections of the article, including the lede, that would give the impression that sexuality is a more pervasive and inseparable element of furry fandom.
Of the two papers he cites, I have been unable to access the Morgan thesis due to restricted access. Myself and at least one other person have raised issues with the Altman thesis, or at least the manner in which it is being cited by Furry-friend. For example, he employs a definition of what a furry fan is that in actuality applies only to a specific subset of furry fans. That may be well and fine within the scope of Altman's thesis if that's what he wishes to address, but what Furry-friend is attempting to do is to turn it around and use Altman's conclusions based on this sub-group as applicable to furry fandom as a whole. There were other issues brought up in the discussion.
The issue was raised that some of the more active contributors to the article are members of the fandom (myself included) and whether that would disqualify us as having a neutral point of view on the subject matter. My response to that is that I'm not trying to push my opinions, but rather to keep the article consistent with my observations, and I believe the other involved fans are doing likewise. In other words, I would characterize our actions as exercising editorial discretion rather than POV-pushing. I don't know the extent of Furry-friend's involvement in either furry fandom or anti-furry. It seemed interesting that his prior experience as a Wikipedia editor was just enough to get past the semi-protection against newly registered users (the article is semi-protected indefinitely due to past vandalism). There's no rule against people who have personal experience in a subject contributing to articles about that subject; it is my understanding that when handled appropriately, the improvement to accuracy and completeness more than outweighs any potential neutrality issues. If this weren't the case, then we might, as an extreme example, have the reliability of Neil Armstrong, if he were to contribute to articles about the Apollo moon landings, being questioned by moon landing conspiracy theorists on the grounds that his point of view is biased. --mwalimu59 (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Haha, so you are to the furry fandom as Neil Armstrong is to the Apollo moon landings? Jokes aside, that still qualifies as original research and personal anecdotes. The "specific subset" you are referring to is nearly 80%. Since other internet surveys are included in the article, I'm going to go on a limb and cite it. As much as I don't like self-selecting samples, I'm going to cite it as apparently internet surveys hold more credence than Master's theses. -Furry-friend (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- If I may add my personal anecdote, there is a backlash by furries about the prominence of sexuality in the furry community which, Morgan concludes, stems from shame, which is perfectly natural when discussing sex, and non-mainstream sex in particular. I believe this is amplified by the unflattering portrayals of furry sexuality in the media. This backlash is what leads to the NPOV issue in the article. Anecdotally, the vast majority of fursonas I have encountered are sexualized or hyper-sexualized. Non-anecdotally, I can point to the sources I cite in the article, which time and again note the prominence of sex in the fandom. Morgan argues sexual empowerment through furry iconography is what defines (or redefines) the individual in the furry fandom. -Furry-friend (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- I took a look and that paper seems to have been self-published by the film student who wrote it. If so, it would not be an acceptable source. Will Beback talk 20:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- I realize this, however the other article editors have no issue with similar surveys. Two wrongs don't make a right, but perhaps an experienced editor can take out all of the unacceptable sources in the article, starting with original research. I avoid doing so because it will undoubtedly create conflict. -Furry-friend (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- The WP:verifiability policy applies to all articles. I don't know which sources you're referring to. I suggest you discuss the issue on the article talk page and if community input is needed start a thread at WP:RSN. Will Beback talk 22:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- You're free to remove unreliable sources from the article (especially when they don't cover trivial facts). But so far you have shown more interest in adding sources (both reliable and unreliable, you don't seem to make a difference there) that suit your point of view rather than actually improving the article. --Conti|✉ 22:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oh please. Why don't you remove all the internet surveys yourself and see what happens. -Furry-friend (talk) 08:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- That is not a helpful response. Try again? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oh please. Why don't you remove all the internet surveys yourself and see what happens. -Furry-friend (talk) 08:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- I realize this, however the other article editors have no issue with similar surveys. Two wrongs don't make a right, but perhaps an experienced editor can take out all of the unacceptable sources in the article, starting with original research. I avoid doing so because it will undoubtedly create conflict. -Furry-friend (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- I took a look and that paper seems to have been self-published by the film student who wrote it. If so, it would not be an acceptable source. Will Beback talk 20:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Due weight and numbers of sources
Just moved this over from WP:RSN, since I figured here was more appropriate. This is Gibraltar again, I'm afraid.
An editor is currently citing an argument made here (in a mediation case since closed), which judges the due weight of points to be made in an article based on the raw number of sources found in a search of Google Books. The methodology is to search for keywords in books that contain the word "Gibraltar" in the title.
I have three questions:
- Is this a reliable means of judging the appropriate weight to be given to subjects in articles?
- Would it be a reliable means of judging the appropriate weight to be given to subjects in articles, if it was confirmed that all of the sources actually mention the piece of history concerned?
- If it was not done through Google Books, but rather through a count of sources containing the point collated by some other means, would this be a reliable means of judging appropriate weight?
Thanks, Pfainuk talk 18:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- To add to the above, I was about to start a new thread. I am involved in the above discussion so will not comment but add further information.
- It has transpired that two editors who have been arguing the edit they prefer is justified per WP:DUE and WP:V but they do not have access to any sources whatsoever. They are relying upon limited searches of google books, often from google snippets. Having no access to any sources I'm at a loss to see how that can make an argument based upon WP:DUE. 20:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- The question of relying on Google hit counts was a side issue at RSN. It seems appropriate here because establishing relative WP:WEIGHT (or balance) is central to NPOV. And it is an intriguing idea. However, it has been discussed at RSN#Archive 54, where it rejected. Main problem is that Google hits are only on strings of words, and any inference beyond the numerical occurrence of a specific string of words is unsupported. Also, the domain referenced (nearly all the garbage on the WWW) has no particular authority.
- The simple answer to the question posed is: No. The very idea that proper WP:WEIGHT can be determined by any simple numerical or (not so simple?) statistical measure (whether Google hits, or citation counts, or ??) is misleading. Such measures might show how notorious a subject is (i.e., how much it is being discussed), but how much weight any discussion or viewpoint or argument should be given depends in a large part on the quality of the argument, expertise and reliability of the proponents, etc. These have to be assessed by the editor, require some familiarity of the field, may even require expert knowledge on specific points, and in the end are subjective. It appears there is not, nor even could be, any "simple" arithmetical determination of due weight. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. Actually the original question was whether it is reasonable to rely on Google snippets from reliable sources as evidence for the occurrence of a single phrase, and I gather that you might accept this. We are currently trying to follow a bibliometric approach to another vexed question and I take your point that bibliometry cannot be determinative. In fact we have been stuck on a fundamentally subjective issue for two years of argument, and I can't really see any way to solve it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- No Richard that wasn't the original question at all, due weight is argued on the basis of the number of google hits. And as we've seen it isn't a suitable argument at all. What we've now found is that those making this argument, don't have access to sources and the argument pursued for 2 years to the frustration of any attempt to improve the article is one that isn't sustained by policy. Please do not confuse the question and allow outside comment and don't deter it with walls of text as virtually every attempt to elicit outside opinion is. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. Actually the original question was whether it is reasonable to rely on Google snippets from reliable sources as evidence for the occurrence of a single phrase, and I gather that you might accept this. We are currently trying to follow a bibliometric approach to another vexed question and I take your point that bibliometry cannot be determinative. In fact we have been stuck on a fundamentally subjective issue for two years of argument, and I can't really see any way to solve it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- May I point out that this is the NPOV notice board? As to whether due weight can be determined by any "bibliometric" means, I have given you my opinion. Now you both are sliding back into the more general question of reliable source, which seems more appropriately discussed at WP:RSN. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Gibraltar#RfC: Due weight & NPOV in the History section I have started an RFC to gather outside opinion related to this issue. Those who have commented here may care to contribute an opinion. Thanks. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- P.S. I finally found WP:Google searches and numbers (an essay proposed for policy), which states: "One of the biggest fallacies in determining notability of a subject is the results of a Google search...." Yes. Google can be a useful finding tool, and the results useful as a very rough measure of notoriety. But not as metric for purposes of WP:WEIGHT. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- As a side note, I completely agree with JJ. But nobody has used Google search. We have used Google books (not google search) search and then have checked the books one by one in order to see if they were specifically about the issue at hand (and each non-complying source was discarded). In my opinion, this process avoided many of the drawbacks signaled by WP:GNUM I also agree this is not a final criterium, but I would say it is a very strong evidence suggesting notabilityl.
- Please, JJ and other outside editors, could you please give your opinion on this? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hence the third question above. Whether the count of sources, where the weight given to each point in each source is not considered, is appropriate. JJ addressed this above:
- The very idea that proper WP:WEIGHT can be determined by any simple numerical or (not so simple?) statistical measure (whether Google hits, or citation counts, or ??) is misleading.
- It also is patently false for you to say that "each non-complying source was discarded". Your much-repeated thirty-seven hits on San Roque included primary sources, histories of San Roque and a biography of an Austrian general. Many of the books concerned are not available except though Snippet view, which we have already seen cannot be used as a reliable source. It included at least one source that didn't include the words "San Roque" at all. But even if they had been discarded, that is addressed by my second and third questions above. Pfainuk talk 07:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- I have proposed (below) that all discussions on Gibraltar be continued on the talk page. However, it may be useful to try to resolve this discussion here, provided it stays on topic ("Due weight and numbers of sources") and does not slide into other aspects of reliable sources or such.
- It seems to me you all have slightly different takes on what, precisely, the issue here is. Is it a fair statement, and generally agreeable, that the issue here involves a reliance by Imalbornoz (and one or more others?) upon Google or Google Books to either 1) determine the reliability (and therefore the weight given to) individual sources, or 2) determine the proper weight (balance) to be given a sub-topic as represented in the aggregated sources? (And please, no debate yet, just let me know if this is a fair understanding of the situation.) - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Point 2 is what is argued primarily by Imalbornoz and one other. The argument is used for two claims, one based on a Google Books search, the other based on a raw count of quotes provided by others without regard for context. Point 1 is only argued inasmuch as the sources counted for point 2 are not otherwise assessed for reliability (or indeed content). Pfainuk talk 18:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- To put this into perspective, Imalbornoz has adopted this technique for a reason. As we found out during the mediation case here he doesn't have access to sources Diff [1] Regarding Jackson and Hills, I wish I had access to the books. I think Ecemaml has one or both. I think I'll ask him.. Jackson and Hills are named as the primary sources of his edits - he relies on a 3rd party for quotes. Similarly he relies heavily on Google snippets. This is a very misleading way of editing, for example here [2] where even after I pointed out that Chapter III of Andrews p.54 is about the period after Utrecht he continued to claim it supported his edit, though it did give me the clue to find the snippet and technique he'd used. He searched in Google Books here for Shrimpton the Hapsburg Governor from 1705 to 1707, unfortunately Andrews introduced a discussion of the corruption of early Governors by referring to Shrimpton's dodgy deals earlier. (I recently found a copy and can confirm he is incorrect). Then there is this example [3], well I had a look at this list here. He also claims to have compiled a filtered search, in which he personally verified that each text was relevant. However, as Pfainuk notes it contains much irrelevant material, including the Austrian General or simpy San Roque. Sadly I don't think there is any substitute for actual research from reliable sources. At best what we see with these searches is simply the observation of Confirmation bias since the search terms predicate the outcome, and if the editor is looking for terms to support an edit, which is what we see here it is inevitably biased. We look to the sources to dictate the edit, we don't write the edit and then look for sources. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Whoa — a big wave of text just overwhelmed me! Look, I was seeking assent; a simple "yes" or "no" would be an adequate answer. Instead, we have argumentation with supporting points, and the chickens are loose again. You folks are just too ready to dance, but I really need smaller bites. I think you will make more progess if you go slower (por favor!), one small point at a time. (Think in terms of using low-gear, where using a higher gear will either loose traction (spin the wheels) or stall the engine.)
Let's try this again, and I'll simplify the question. Is it a fair statement (i.e., close enough) that the issue presented here regarding numbers of sources is about the use of Google (or Google Books) by Imalbornoz? (A yes or no is adequate, thank you.) - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes Wee Curry Monster talk 23:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes (the use of Google books as one argument -not the only one- of a set that also included qualitative arguments, please see here for example). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 07:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Looking good. Let's wait a tad longer before continuing, in case there are any dissents. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 02:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, but it also applies to Imalbornoz's use of raw counts of sources that are gathered by means other than Google Books (but instead provided by an outside editor), that similarly do not take account of context or weight given to the points by the individual source. Pfainuk talk 17:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay, the preliminary formulation of the issue, as far as it goes, seems generally acceptable. I am leery of Pfainuk's extension, but we will see where this goes. Before proceeding I want to establish certain caveats. First, this is not the reliable sources noticeboard; this is not the place to discuss the criteria or means of identifying reliable sources. We will be discussing that part of NPOV concerning the due WP:WEIGHT or balance to be given certain issues, and particularly a certain use of numbers of sources to determine that balance.
Second, Imalbornoz is not on trial here. He is the proponent of the usage under discussion (and I am curious, are there any others?), and I hope will be a worthy champion of that usage. But we presume he uses it in the belief it is satisfactory, and the discussion here is only on whether the usage is satisfactory.
Now I need some clarification: What is being weighed here? Is it the space or treatment accorded certain sub-topics? Or is it possibly something else, say the weight to be given various sources? Imalbornoz, perhaps you could provide a short explanation? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- It is both the space and treatment of the certain sub-topics. Deph of coverage is excessive and the quantities of text dedicated to certain details are grossly out of proportion with coverage in sources. Related to this, is that sources are not used for the edits, rather Google Book searches used to justify a pre-determined edit; Google Book searches then become an example of Confirmation Bias. Another issue and I appreciate it you wish to cover one at a time, is that this is achieved at the expense of a) not covering signficant events as opposed to details and b) the range of relevant opinions in the literature. The latter can be dealt with later, I merely raise it to register there are multiple issues with proposed methods. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, the number of sources was not an argument per se. The argument was a benchmark of events in the same section of the article. Quite a few of them are mentioned by fewer sources (some of them maybe only by a couple of sources) than the events that WCM and Pfainuk want to remove. So I thought that it was quite unconsistent to remove some facts cited by 37 sources and keep some events mentioned by fewer sources in the same topic area (Gibraltar). Counting the number of sources seemed to me a good objectivization of this inconsistency. Again, this was only one argument (call it circumstantial evidence) among other more qualitative arguments.
- Regarding the text, the factuality of the events is not under dispute. It is the importance of the events for the History of Gibraltar and their due weight in the article that is under dispute. WCM and Pfainuk want to eliminate detail to a point that the events are not actually mentioned because they say they are not important to the topic (the history of Gibraltar in an overview article):
- from
- "there was widespread raping, almost all houses of the town were looted, all churches except one were desecrated and almost all the villagers left -the largest part to a nearby town called San Roque."
- to
- "they [the invaders] were frustrated when, after three days of violent disorder, almost the entire population of the town left citing their loyalty to Philip V, the Bourbon claimant.". -- Imalbornoz (talk) 09:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- I won't comment in detail but no one is suppressing anything and I for one am tired of the constant accusations of suppressing material, see the footnotes for a start, in fact we're arguing for greater detail. The fact of the matter is, its this additional details to address a NPOV issue that is obstructed by the demand to mention a detailed list of crimes to the detriment of other significant events. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- I've prepared a sandpit comparing the two proposed texts here for editors to judge for themselves. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Wow, another deluge of text!!! Okay, for you guys this is relatively short, but you really need to practice on shorter. One step at a time. WCM: your first sentence ("It is both...") would have been adequate, and even the second sentence was not out of line. And if you truly appreciate that I want to take one issue at a time, you would not introduce "another issue" (at least, not yet). Okay? Also, there is a rather serious matter raised by your statement that you are "tired of the constant accusations of suppressing material". I have looked closely at Imalbornoz' statement (and let's not raise up old issues not "in evidence" here), and the only basis I see for your statement would his statements "events that WCM and Pfainuk want to remove" and "WCM and Pfainuk want to eliminate detail...". These appear to me to be very plain, objective statements of fact; I do not see that these amount to any "accusations of suppressing material". Your complaint is a misrepresentation (perhaps only a misunderstanding?) of what Imalbornoz was saying; it is an invalid strawman argument. It is also some what inflammatory, which does nothing to help us. (I hope I will have these comments in place before anyone else comes back at you with a hot retort. Everyone cool it!) Also, and for everyone: supplying alternate texts is a good thing — on the article's talk page. On this noticeboard we should stay focused on the usage complained of.
Imalbornoz: a good start, even if over lengthy. Let me ponder on that for a bit. And everyone stay cool. A slow, considered step forward progresses much faster than rapid fire missteps that have to be retracted. Also, I added indentation above (pushing the boundary of talk page etiquette) to make matters clearer. To the same end, would anyone object to permitting me to freely indent, reduce, emphasize, or even hide your comments in this discussion? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- Eliminate, remove, suppress are one and the same thing and it happens to be untrue. This is not a misunderstanding, nothing is eliminated or removed the content is still there - please take a look. My comments are not a misrepresentation in the slightest but the accusations of eliminating, removing or suppressing are. I have no problem with hiding comments if they're tangential - feel free. But WP:TPG would indicate you should note edit by indenting, reducing or emphasizing.
- Anyway we're dancing around the issue of actual relevance, hit counts in google searches whther in google books or plain google are not a substitute for research of reliable sources but the argument presnted here is that it is. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- JJ, I won't object. Thank you for taking the time to mediate in the discussion. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Of course it would be improper to change any remarks to the point of misrepresenting them, and I hope to avoid that. But with you all's permission I may reduce or even hide extraneous comments, for the purpose of clarifying matters and seeking a resolution satisfactory to all concerned.
- WCM: Quite a bit of the "dancing around" I see here (and on the talk page) seems to arise from your comments, which prompts other editors to respond, and around the houses you go. Keep in mind that not every comment you feel should be said is necessarily useful. I think we should have a side discussion about this. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
After considering the prior comments I have two questions. First: am I correct in understanding that the issue presented here is not the weight to be given to various sources themselves, but rather to the weight the sources (individually or in aggregate) provide regarding the inclusion (or not) of certain events?
Second: is it possible that issue here can be boiled down to selection of alternate texts, such as Imalbornoz quoted above? Not that the example above is the only alternative in dispute, but: is it a representative example of the core issue? (And "yes" and "no" are adequate responses.) - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- No. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 08:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that I fully understand the questions. (Minor reformatting. -JJ)
- On the first, I think the answer is yes and no. The weight given to each source is significant to the point in that Imalbornoz's argument weighs all sources equally, regardless of reliability and content. The weight the sources provide regarding inclusion is significant in that the question is as to whether certain points in the article are given more weight than is due to them based on sources, and whether this ought to be decided based on a raw count of sources or on the weight given to the point by individual sources.
- On the second, the whole point is that we are trying to find an alternative text to that currently in the article. Now, the possibilities for a new text are obviously theoretically endless, but we must be sure that the new text does not give undue weight to any particular point - and particularly the arguments of one side or other in a modern dispute (bearing in mind that this is not an article on that dispute). Pfainuk talk 18:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
So we need some finer resolution. WCM, I want to hear more about your "no", but let's hold off on that until we can sort out Pfainuk's points.
Pfainuk, on your second point it seems to me that you have only stated generalities. Of course the possibilities are endless, and we must avoid undue weight. What I am asking is whether, out of those endless possibilities, two statements could be taken, representative of each point of view (perhaps the from/to versions quoted by Imalbornoz), and the issue here reduced to determining which is "best". Is that clearer?
Re your first point, I think you are saying that the weight of a source — essentially how much impact it has — may vary depending on reliability, etc. Which is correct. But the means and criteria of determining what the weight of a source should be is a matter for WP:reliable sources, and not appropriate here. I am hoping that is not part of the issue here, that you all have (at least potentially) some degree of consensus regarding the weight to be accorded the sources, and the issue here is the application of those weights to determine an adequately balanced point of view. Is that clearer? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- JJ the issue for discussion here is very clear, it is the claim that you can establish WP:DUE on the basis of hit counts whether it is in Google Books or simply Google. We seem to be diverging away from that considerably. Can we focus please. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Slow down, wait your turn! I am trying to keep a very tight focus, which right now is on Pfainuk's elaboration of certain points about this claim. I promise you we will get back to the other stuff, but if we try to discuss everything all at once we will choke. Let's take one bite at a time, chewing slowly. I am going to carefully consider the following remarks, and also what I might usefully say; this will take at least overnight. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Sorting out my points, therefore:
- The weight of each individual source - how much impact each one has - is a part of the equation here because the methodology used to create these counts gives all sources equal weight. The reliability of the sources, along with the context (if any) that the point is mentioned in and the weight given to the point by the source are assumed to be either inherent in the search or to be irrelevant.
- Such an assumption is necessarily a part of the argument being made. It is impossible to create the kind of purely quantitative measure that Imalbornoz is arguing is the sole possible means of establishing weight from sources without ignoring all qualitative factors - including reliability.
- But this applies also applies in cases where the reliability of the sources is accepted by all parties. The argument in these cases still relies on a raw count of sources, with qualitative factors excluded. There are many ways in which an individual source can give more or less weight to a point, including the amount of detail given, the positioning, whether it is emphasised and whether it is highlighted as important by surrounding text. Imalbornoz's argument deems all of these factors to be irrelevant compared to the number of sources used, which is argued to override all other factors.
- Is it an argument between two such texts? Not necessarily. It has been proposed that the points that are currently given undue weight as compared with reliable sources be given a more appropriate weight by putting them in references or by dramatically increasing the length of the paragraph to compensate. Problem is, Imalbornoz continues to argue that his counts of sources entirely override the weight actually given to the points by the sources. Pfainuk talk 21:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- I think Pfainuk has not seen my previous (very brief) comments, so I will repeat one of them below:
- "Yes ([the problem in discussion is about] the use of Google books as one argument -not the only one- of a set that also included qualitative arguments, please see here for example). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 07:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)"
- I hope it is clear now. Thanks. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- I think Pfainuk has not seen my previous (very brief) comments, so I will repeat one of them below:
- I don't actually see any qualitative arguments in that this is due weight from that link. There's a statement that it's due weight because you say it is, and a claim that other editors are editing in bad faith, but no actual qualitative argument. Certainly, there is nothing that would render any part of my comment above inaccurate. Pfainuk talk 17:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Pfainuk, thank you, that is a clear and well reasoned explanation. However, you are getting ahead of me — that was about the methodology, which I haven't gotten to yet. From your remarks it appears you are not taking issue with the degree of reliability of the sources (authors) themselves, but with how that and other factors are used to weigh or balance a point of view (regarding certain events); this is effectively affirmation of my first question.
As to my second question, well, I don't want to hear a rebuttal to an argument I have yet to hear, and I don't want hear objections of any kind. What I want to hear is this: given that the issue here comes down to an issue of some text (as most WP issues do) either including details of a certain event, or not including such details, is the issue here really about the use of certain means or criteria (e.g., the "methodology") of selecting between these alternatives? (NOTE: it could be about a lot of things. What I am trying to do is scrape off all the side issues that will only distract us.) - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- I am taking issue with the reliability of some of the sources that are used to generate these numbers. In many cases I also dispute their relevance and/or the claim that they even verify the points concerned. This is, to some extent, beside the point, since even if I did accept all of that, I still wouldn't accept that it is appropriate to ignore the weight given to each point by the sources in favour of merely counting them.
- Is it about text? Well, when it comes down to it, practically everything on Wikipedia is about text or images, and in that sense it is about text.
- The text currently says:
“ | On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. The terms of surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings. By 7 August, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and fled to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain. | ” |
- It is argued (among other things that are less relevant to this discussion) that this gives undue weight to the specific acts of violence that took place and to one of many verifiable reasons why the townspeople left; it is also argued that it gives undue weight to San Roque. These arguments are made based on the weight given to these points by individual reliable sources, on the basis of factors similar to those I listed above. That the weight given to these points by the current text is very much greater than that given by individual reliable sources on the subject has never (to my memory) been disputed.
- It is further argued that the points being given such undue weight are exactly the points that have been argued by Spain in support of her position in the modern dispute, and that for us to give undue weight to these points thus takes Spain's side in the dispute. For these reasons, texts have been proposed with the aim of reducing the weight given to these points.
- In defence of the existing text, it is stated simply that these details "must be mentioned" or that they are "very notable and relevant", generally without further comment or argument. When pressed, those defending the existing text argue that due weight must be determined by a simple count of sources (through Google Books for San Roque; by other means for the details of the violence), and refuse to acknowledge or accept any other means by which sources can be used to determine appropriate weight (such as the weight given to points by individual sources). They also accuse editors who favour change of trying to hide facts that they are embarrassed about. Pfainuk talk 22:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well stated, but you are broadening the discussion, which makes it too difficult to get a handle on it. I will address your points, but hopefully to lay them to rest, not to expand the discussion. (And my apologies for so much text.)
- First: this is not the place for discussion of the reliability of sources. I am hoping that we can get this discussion focused on the methodology raised here, and not the particular inputs. Think of it like algebra, which studies the process of calculation, not whether specific inputs are "correct" or reliable measures of anything. Sure, the purpose of algebra is eventually to produce a result, whose validity (just like here) will depend on the actual inputs. But that is a different question! The question raised here is about the process (the methodology), and I think you will agree that if the process is invalid there simply is no reason to use it at all, irregardless of the inputs (sources). So let's back away from any questions of reliability or authority or such; those are for later, and likely elsewhere.
- As to due or undue weight of specific text, yes, that is, at the highest level, the issue here. But we know that! You are again raising generalities. More particularly the issue here is how to determine proper weight, and specifically the validity or adequacy of a certain means that has been used for making that determination.
- You also raise the issue that choice of text will favor or disfavor one side or another in a political dispute, and that we shouldn't favor Spain. Well, I don't know that we should favor Great Britain, either, or even the local residents. But considerations of who will be favored are an extremely poor way to resolve such a situation. Anticipations of who might eventually be favored should not color matters of fundamental importance, and even warrants drawing a "veil of ignorance" as to the ultimate beneficiaries to avoid such considerations. For any editor to consider "whether this helps my side or not" is inherently non-neutral, and not admissible here.
- Finally, your statement that others "accuse" is in itself an accusation. As I told WCM above, in this discussion I see no accusations of "trying to hide the facts". I realize that you all may have past (or even current!) history in this regard, but please: get over it. You all may have traded a few verbal punches before, but ask yourself: did any of those do any good? And what good would they do now? I hope that instead of "getting even" we can focus on getting ahead. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
If all that is adequately resolved I would like to ask again: is the issue here really about the use of certain means or criteria (e.g., the "methodology") of selecting between alternative text? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- JJ I believe you have misunderstood Pfainuk's point. There are a range of opinions expressed in the literature but the article does not reflect these. Instead it promotes a single opinion that reflects a modern national narrative. That is the problem, it does not present a NPOV by failing to reflect the range of opinion in the literature.
- Secondly, one of many issues is that this is justified on the basis of hit counts in Google Searches. The claim is currently that this is superior as the searches are "structured". He misses the point that the searches are structured to justify a point, thereby resulting in Confirmation Bias. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- My apologies if I have misunderstood anything (I hate that!), as distinct from ignoring what might not be relevant here. I would say that if there is a range of views on some aspect of the topic then the article should mention that. (Perhaps not going into detail on each view, but at least mentioning that a range of views exists, and perhaps pointing to any notable views.) And while that may be a valid issue in this article, should it be part of this discussion? I say no, that we should focus on the narrow bibliometry issue, in accord with the title of this section and the three questions Pfainuk originally posted.
- In your second point you touch on this possible issue of balance as being "justified on the basis of hit counts", which is pretty much what I think this discussion should be about. Our determination of whether that the method used is valid (or not) will bear on this other issue, and is antecedent to it; therefore it should be resolved first. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, it is high time that there is clear guidance as to whether this method is acceptable practise. If I may open by offering my own opinions as to why it is not. A) Bibliometry is not nor should it ever be an alternative to researching a topic from valid sources B) "Structured Searches" in Google Books are not a reliable way to establish WP:DUE as they are inherently unreliable due to Confirmation Bias. C) Finally, due to the very nature of Google Books, the full text is not available so it is impossible in most cases to establish context. At best Bibliometry may have a role in indicating occasions of WP:UNDUE but not should never be relied upon as the sole reason. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC) [Reduced by JJ.]
- Thank you, WCM, but your comments are premature; we are not to that point yet. At this point I am trying to address Pfainuk's comments, and hoping that he is agreeable that the discussion here might be narrowly constrained to the use of this bibliometric method in determining the proper balance of alternative text.
- Pfainuk, is this agreeable? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- The question as a whole is as I described in the previous section. If you want to narrow this discussion down to the questions I asked at the beginning - that is, whether counting sources a given point while disregarding the weight given to that point by those sources (where the counts are generated either through Google Books or by some other means) is an appropriate means of establishing the weight to be given to that point - that's fine with me. Pfainuk talk 21:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes? I do want to narrow this discussion to the original questions, but I am concerned that we may have a subtle divergence of view; your statement just above is unclear. I think you are referring to a way the basic "methodology" (which is not yet in evidence) can be tweaked by factoring in another consideration ("the weight given to that point by those sources"); I would deem this within the purview of this discussion. Alternately, possibly you want to consider whether the results of this methodology are contradicted by other, independent considerations. I would say that any such contradiction should be evaluated, but only after we determine the validity of the methodology. Does that work for you? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I'm still not 100% on what you mean. Are you suggesting that we broaden the question to discuss the weight given to each point by sources? I don't have a problem with that. Obviously, you can't delve into the results until you've decided what weight to put on things.
A question on weight
How much weight ought to be given to a source which although published in a peer reviewed journal has since has received little to no citations, and which the author himself says is a new way of looking at things? The source in question is "Phillip Deery. The Terminology of Terrorism: Malaya, 1948–52. Journal of Southeast Asia Studies, Vol. 34, No. 2 (June 2003), pp. 231–247." and it is used to support an edit which claims the use of the term communist terrorists during the Malayan emergency was propaganda. The majority of sources I have read do not say this, so is giving one paper which does breaking WP:UNDUE? Tentontunic (talk) 22:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- You answer your own question when you say it has received little or no citations. A single paper giving a completely alternative viewpoint to the majority of the literature that is 8 yrs old and has received little attention since is a WP:FRINGE opinion even if it is published in an otherwise reliable source. Journals do publish fringe theories to encourage debate. Being somewhat familiar with the history myself I would agree with your assessment that this is giving undue weight to a fringe opinion. Hope this helps. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- I have to ask since I dont have acess was there a rejoinder to it? Those are always very illuminating. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- When posting a request to this board you should refer to the source, providing a link where possible, and explain what claims it is used to support. For example:
- In Communist terrorism, the following passage is referenced to Philip Deery's article, "The terminology of Terrorism: Malaya, 1948-52", Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, Vol. 34, 2003:[4]
- "In 1948, an anti-colonial guerrilla war, the "Malayan emergency", started between Commonwealth armed forces and the Malayan National Liberation Army. The insurgents were led by the Malayan Communist Party and their their actions were labeled at first as "banditry" then later as "Communist terrorism" in British propaganda."
- It appears that this description in the source is presented as factual and is supported by sources. The author does not say that this is "a new way of looking at things", merely that he seeks "to throw some new historical light on the use of political language during the early years of the Emergency" by "charting the shift in the language used to depict Communist insurgents in Malaya". But the Wikipedia article does not report that part of the article.
- TFD (talk) 05:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- No you're confusing fact with opinion, that is the opinion of the author, which you present as fact. Not acceptable usually. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- See WP:NPOV: "Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion." There is consensus that propaganda was used on both sides during the Cold War and also that it was used by the British government during the Malyan Emergency. See for example 661 hits for "malayan emergency"+propaganda at Google books. If you can find any serious sources among these that take a different view, then I will change my mind. TFD (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sigh, see [5]. It is actually referred to above. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Totally different issue. Tentontunic claimed that the connection made by Deery between the use of language and propaganda during the Malayan Emergency was "a new way of looking at things". In fact the topic has been addressed in hundreds of books. Does that make the connection correct? No. What makes it correct is that it is a consensus view. If it is not then it would be possible for Tentontunic to find sources challenging this view. TFD (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Um -- saying that a view which others have not seen fit to decry therefore makes it "consensus" is an interesting sort of argument. Thus if a person wrote an article connecting Gnarphism with Daphne du Maurier, and no one thought enough of it to refute it, then that opinion becomes "consensus"? Nope. Consensus requires affirmative acceptance of the view by others. Ignoring a fringe view does not make the fringe view into the consensus view. Collect (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- I did not say that, the papers author did. Were is your source that this is a consensus view out of curiosity? Tentontunic (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Totally different issue. Tentontunic claimed that the connection made by Deery between the use of language and propaganda during the Malayan Emergency was "a new way of looking at things". In fact the topic has been addressed in hundreds of books. Does that make the connection correct? No. What makes it correct is that it is a consensus view. If it is not then it would be possible for Tentontunic to find sources challenging this view. TFD (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sigh, see [5]. It is actually referred to above. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- See WP:NPOV: "Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion." There is consensus that propaganda was used on both sides during the Cold War and also that it was used by the British government during the Malyan Emergency. See for example 661 hits for "malayan emergency"+propaganda at Google books. If you can find any serious sources among these that take a different view, then I will change my mind. TFD (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Collect, there are hundreds of books that discuss British propaganda during the Malyan Emergency and none that I could find that challenge this view.[6] The British themselves called it propaganda, as is documented in Emergency propaganda: the winning of Malayan hearts and minds, 1948-1958.[7] TFD (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Tentunic, you appear to apply a different standard on whether we can refer to "propaganda" used by the British during the Malayan emergency and whether we can label the insurgents "Communist Terrorists". TFD (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Explain please? Were have I applied different standards? Tentontunic (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- You believe that we can call the Malayan insurgency "Communist Terrorism", despite the fact that this terminology does not have the support of academic consensus. Yet you object to using the term "propaganda" in reference to the British during the Malayan Emergency because "The majority of sources I have read do not say this". What makes your position especially bizarre is that you are arguing to use jargon that was abandoned 40 years ago. TFD (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- I believe noting, the sources I have read say communist terrorists, they do nto say they were called this as a propaganda exercise. They were called terrorists becasue they engaged in terrorist activities. And of course they were communist. And as for jargon which was abandoned 40 years ago? Malaya's Secret Police 1945-60: The Role of the Special Branch in the Malayan Emergency Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (15 Dec 2008) ISBN 978-9812308290 what is the date this book was printed? And there are hundreds more the same. Tentontunic (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- You believe that we can call the Malayan insurgency "Communist Terrorism", despite the fact that this terminology does not have the support of academic consensus. Yet you object to using the term "propaganda" in reference to the British during the Malayan Emergency because "The majority of sources I have read do not say this". What makes your position especially bizarre is that you are arguing to use jargon that was abandoned 40 years ago. TFD (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Explain please? Were have I applied different standards? Tentontunic (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Tentunic, you appear to apply a different standard on whether we can refer to "propaganda" used by the British during the Malayan emergency and whether we can label the insurgents "Communist Terrorists". TFD (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
The source was discussed on WP:RSN and it seemed to be resolved there. It was suggested that weighting was not a question for that board but one for this one. However, it seems that there is still disagreement about the reliability so I am taking it back there. We will try and resolve reliability there, alongside other sources used in the article, and then any weight issues can come here. I hope that people already involved in the discussion will refrain from commenting and some further uninvolved people will give opinions. My opinion, already expressed on RSN, is that this is a normal academic source. It's a paper in a good journal. I see no sign whatsoever of fringe status. If anyone wants to pursue the line of argument that the source is fringe, then we could also ask on the fringe theories noticeboard. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Malaya's secret police deals extensively with British "propaganda" during the Emergency. For example, "This directive [No. 16] ... deals with propaganda.... General Briggs played a significant part in arranging for the government's information and propaganda services to become.... propaganda was the responsibility of the Department of Public Relations...." (p. 155)[8] Also, "The High Commissioner suggested... that such emotive terms as 'war', 'enemy' and 'rebellion' should be avoided, and names such as 'banditry' 'thugs', 'terrorism' and so on be used instead. The true meanings of these euphemisms needs to be understood by the research scholar, for a literal interpretation of their meaning would lead to ill-foirmed conclusions that the British colonial power... was not faced with an outright war.... I was not until...1952 that the British colonial authorities decided to replace the term 'bandits' with 'communist terrorists'."[9]
- Your source says that CT was a euphemism used as part of British propaganda. That is what the article should reflect.
- TFD (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Actually no it does not, at least on p13. No mention of propaganda on that page at all. They even got an official legal definition. and on p158 it does not say that they were called CT`s as part of a propaganda operation. It talks of keeping morale up. Tentontunic (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- I raised this again at RSN. The notion that "journals publish fringe theories to encourage debate" is not in line with WP:IRS, where academic research articles are treated as sources of high quality. Does it need also to go to FTN? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Actually no it does not, at least on p13. No mention of propaganda on that page at all. They even got an official legal definition. and on p158 it does not say that they were called CT`s as part of a propaganda operation. It talks of keeping morale up. Tentontunic (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
If you wish to post at FTN go ahead. This is about weight, how much weight ought to be given to an article which has next to no citations and sank without trace? You have already said you believe it reliable, that is not the issue here, it is weight. Tentontunic (talk) 20:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- I will only post at FTN if someone wants to say that it is fringe, as above. Your challenge still is really about reliability. I am alarmed at your formulation "next to no citations and sank without trace". As I already said, very many academic articles are uncited. It does not equate to "sank without trace". You do not seem to be very familiar with the norms of scholarship. I hope we will get some more comments on RSN about reliability. If this source is judged reliable for the article, and some other sources on the same topic are also judged reliable, then we will be in a position to weight them against each other. As you know, where there is a disagreement of scholarly opinion we should reflect both sides. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- In fact the source is used to represent a view that is found in hundreds of sources and is the consensus of writers. Tentontunic, the source Malaya's secret police, which you provided is quite clear and I have no idea why you are writing "no it does not, at least on p13" when I clearly typed out what appeared on that page. Here it is again, and anyone can check it: "The High Commissioner suggested... that such emotive terms as 'war', 'enemy' and 'rebellion' should be avoided, and names such as 'banditry' 'thugs', 'terrorism' and so on be used instead. The true meanings of these euphemisms needs to be understood by the research scholar, for a literal interpretation of their meaning would lead to ill-foirmed conclusions that the British colonial power... was not faced with an outright war.... I was not until...1952 that the British colonial authorities decided to replace the term 'bandits' with 'communist terrorists'."(p. 13)[10]
- Itsmejudith, there is no disagreement in scholarly opinion.
- TFD (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Do you read past what you need? Perhaps you ought to look at why they avoided terms such as 'war', 'enemy' and 'rebellion' it was to stop insurance premiums going up. There is noting in that book which says the British called them terrorists as part of a propaganda campaign. Tentontunic (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- It says, "At the outset of the Emergency, the British colonial government attempted to downplay the seriousness of the situation so as not to affect public morale. The government was anxious to ensure, too, that commercial insurance rates were not affected...." IOW the government had more than one reason to mislead the public. So what? The first casualty of war is truth. TFD (talk) 21:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Exactly. It does not say communist terrorism was used as part of a propaganda campaign does it? Thank you. Tentontunic (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- You appear to be unaware of what propaganda means, and I suggest you read up on it. It is essential that the articles we edit do not repeat propaganda without attribution. TFD (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Exactly. It does not say communist terrorism was used as part of a propaganda campaign does it? Thank you. Tentontunic (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- It says, "At the outset of the Emergency, the British colonial government attempted to downplay the seriousness of the situation so as not to affect public morale. The government was anxious to ensure, too, that commercial insurance rates were not affected...." IOW the government had more than one reason to mislead the public. So what? The first casualty of war is truth. TFD (talk) 21:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Do you read past what you need? Perhaps you ought to look at why they avoided terms such as 'war', 'enemy' and 'rebellion' it was to stop insurance premiums going up. There is noting in that book which says the British called them terrorists as part of a propaganda campaign. Tentontunic (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
You will both do better to allow for external opinion if you do not deter it with walls of text, with tendentious arguments between yourselves. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, the whole point of these boards is to get an outside perspective, not to perpetuate their disagreement in yet another forum. FWIW, TFD appears to be applying his personal viewpoint and saying this is "propaganda", that's synthesis. --Martin (talk) 21:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Martin funnily enough I arrived at the same conclusion regarding WP:SYN, however, I declined to comment at the time as it seemed doomed to be ignored. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- The word "propaganda" is clearly a judgemental word in context - intended to imply "but anything propaganda is clearly false" or the like. Unless multiple reliable sources use the term "propaganda" in a discussion, the use is undue weight at best, and likely far worse with regard to how we treat the readers (the ultimate customers for the article). We must always be cognizant that pushing WP:TRUTH is contrary to WP policy. Collect (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Nonsense. That governments, especially in violent conflicts, use propaganda, is an entirely unsurprising and ordinary (as in "not extraordinary") fact. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- The sources say it was propaganda, the British government called it propaganda and unlike the U.S. there are no historical revisionists who say otherwise. We go with the consensus of historians - there is not even a fringe element with a different view. If I am wrong, please present a single source that differs. TFD (talk) 03:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- "At the outset of the Emergency, the British colonial government attempted to downplay the seriousness of the situation so as not to affect public morale." -- This is almost though not quite the same as saying that the British colonial government used propaganda. It would be reasonable, though a bit weak, as a source for the claim that they used propaganda. But if I understand the situation correctly this is not the question here: TFD quoted this from a source which Tentontunic claims contradicts the claim about propaganda by not mentioning it. It does no such thing. In fact, as TFD pointed out correctly, it supports the claim, although the other source is still better for that purpose. Hans Adler 09:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- "Almost" = "close but no cigar." If the important word "propaganda" is not directly used in a source, it has attained sufficient current notoriety as a term as to bar it being used as a paraphrase. Collect (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- You might want to read the discussion thread before commenting. The word propaganda is directly used in the source and was acknowleged by the British government. TFD (talk) 05:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Do you never tire of being wrong? Were exactly within the book does it say the term communist terrorism was used as british propaganda? It does not. That is what this is about, were they called communist terrorists as propaganda? If deery himself says this is a new way of looking at things then how much weight ought to be given to it? That is the question at hand. Tentontunic (talk) 09:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- I said "the word propaganda is directly used in the source". Please see the excert from the source that Paul Siebert has kindly reproduced below. Before posting again, remember that other editors can compare your comments with the text below. TFD (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- No you said Malaya's secret police said the term communist terrorist was in this book and that this book directly supported Deery. In that it was a term coined by british propaganda. Admit you are wrong and that this book does not in fact say communist terrorism was coined as british propaganda. Tentontunic (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- I said "the word propaganda is directly used in the source". Please see the excert from the source that Paul Siebert has kindly reproduced below. Before posting again, remember that other editors can compare your comments with the text below. TFD (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Do you never tire of being wrong? Were exactly within the book does it say the term communist terrorism was used as british propaganda? It does not. That is what this is about, were they called communist terrorists as propaganda? If deery himself says this is a new way of looking at things then how much weight ought to be given to it? That is the question at hand. Tentontunic (talk) 09:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- You might want to read the discussion thread before commenting. The word propaganda is directly used in the source and was acknowleged by the British government. TFD (talk) 05:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- "Almost" = "close but no cigar." If the important word "propaganda" is not directly used in a source, it has attained sufficient current notoriety as a term as to bar it being used as a paraphrase. Collect (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- "At the outset of the Emergency, the British colonial government attempted to downplay the seriousness of the situation so as not to affect public morale." -- This is almost though not quite the same as saying that the British colonial government used propaganda. It would be reasonable, though a bit weak, as a source for the claim that they used propaganda. But if I understand the situation correctly this is not the question here: TFD quoted this from a source which Tentontunic claims contradicts the claim about propaganda by not mentioning it. It does no such thing. In fact, as TFD pointed out correctly, it supports the claim, although the other source is still better for that purpose. Hans Adler 09:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
@Martin. I would say, the aim of this board is to get new arguments, no matter who will provide them. So, let me summarise what I have read. Firstly, the source, (Deery) clearly says:
- "The article therefore aims to fill a partial historiographical gap in studies of both the Malayan Emergency and the Cold War generally. I have chosen the Emergency as a case study since it clearly shows the British government grappling with this issue of political terminology within the broader context of anti-Communist propaganda."
- "In fact, the Malayan Races’ Liberation Army (MRLA), the military wing of the MCP, was a guerrilla force. It was similar to, for example, the Communist movement in China during 1928-45, the Huks in the Philippines from 1946 to the mid-1950s and the Vietminh in Indochina from 1941. Although historians have readily discerned the strategies of guerrilla in these rural-based rebellions and insurgents have often identified themselves as guerrillas, it was rarely a term used by authorities at the time. Guerrillas are proud to be called guerrillas, but to call them ‘bandits’ is to link them with criminality. A guerrilla is not a bandit; as Eric Hobsbawm points out, ‘banditry has next to no organization or ideology, and is totally inadaptable to modern social movements … [It] was and is inefficient in every way … [and] is incapable of effective guerrilla organization’. This obviously was not the case with the MRLA."
- * *
- "The hybrid term ‘Communist terrorist’ accomplished two objectives. ‘Terrorist’, like ‘bandit’, sought to deny the MCP political legitimacy while ‘Communist’, as A. J. Stockwell noted, ‘located the emergency firmly in the Cold War’. The use of the term ‘terrorist’ was, of course, intended to demonise the MCP. Terrorists’ lack of legitimacy stems from their incapacity to effect change. Due to the disparity between the political aspirations of their resort to violence and the means at their disposal, they are forced to operate clandestinely, out of weakness, so the actions of the MLNA ‘terrorists’ – sabotage, intimidation, murder – were the tactics of the weak against the strong. From a position of weakness, their use of available resources was economical: insurgency is cheap, counterinsurgency costly. In this sense, ‘terrorism’ was more accurate and appropriate than ‘banditry’. Even in the 1950s – before Palestinian plane hijackings, Irish Republican bombings or Italian Red Brigade assassinations (and certainly before ‘9/11’, which unleashed a flood of inconsistent etymological analyses) – ‘terrorist’ was one of the most misleading words in the English language. Universally accepted definitions were and are elusive; there is not one terrorism, but a variety of terrorisms. Walter Laqueur recently remarked that although the search for definitions will continue, ‘any attempt to find a common denominator, a formula as suitable for Irish 19th century terrorism as for narco-terrorism in Columbia or al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, is bound to fail’."
In other words, the author clearly states that the major goal of the article is to analyse the British anti-Communist propaganda, using Malaya as an example. Then the author gives an example of the propaganda term "Communist terrorism" and explains the reason for its invention and usage. Therefore I see neither original research nor synthesis issues here. The sources is reliable (highly reliable), according to the conclusion made on the WP:RSN. However, taking into account that this noticeboard is devoted to the neutrality issues, please, explain, does anybody see any problem with presenting this view as mainstream? Are there any other reliable sources that claim that the term was not propaganda?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Do you have any other which says it does? Of all I have read none have said communist terrorism was coined as part of a propaganda exercise by the british. This is not about reliablilty, it is about weight. Tentontunic (talk) 17:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- I do not know who coined it. The source states that it was used by British propaganda (which is not the same), and the "Communist terrorism" article also says the term was "used", not "coined". However, I would say, it would be an oversimplification to reduce everything to just anti-Communism. Thus, Nicholas J. White (Capitalism and Counter-Insurgency? Business and Government in the Malayan Emergency, 1948-57 Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 32, No. 1 (Feb., 1998), pp. 149-177) argues that Britain had other serious reasons to avoid using adequate terminology:
- "In the event, no scheme was needed: the commercial insurers (and the agency houses who represented them in Malaya) continued to offer cover, but at much enhanced premiums. Both the imperial and colonial governments went out of their way not to provoke the guarantors. For example, the Cabinet's Malaya Committee was careful to ensure in May 1950 that the changed official description of MCP insurgents from 'bandits' to 'communist terrorists' would not have an adverse effect on the insurance market."
- "At a meeting between Creech Jones and the RGA in August 1948, businessmen voiced concern that the insurance companies which offered protection against 'riot or civil commotion' might rule that the situation in Malaya amounted to 'rebellion or insurrection' and consequently would reject claims arising from strikes and terrorist activities. To safeguard the interests of its members, the RGA requested that the Malayan authorities desist from using words such as 'rebellion' or 'insurrection' in public statements and official documents. It was made plain that if this approach failed the government would be asked to meet all claims for loss of life and property. The commercial insurance market in Malaya was split between London and New York under so-called reinsurance arrangements. A view had to be taken on both sides of the Atlantic as to the exact status of the situation in Malaya. Neither the imperial nor the colonial government, however, was prepared to define the precise nature of the emergency."--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well neither of those sources say it was used as british propaganda either, or am I missing something? So you have one source which says these people were called communist terrorists as a part of british propaganda? That`s it, out of hundreds of sources? So back to that question of weight? Tentontunic (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- I do not know who coined it. The source states that it was used by British propaganda (which is not the same), and the "Communist terrorism" article also says the term was "used", not "coined". However, I would say, it would be an oversimplification to reduce everything to just anti-Communism. Thus, Nicholas J. White (Capitalism and Counter-Insurgency? Business and Government in the Malayan Emergency, 1948-57 Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 32, No. 1 (Feb., 1998), pp. 149-177) argues that Britain had other serious reasons to avoid using adequate terminology:
- Do you have any other which says it does? Of all I have read none have said communist terrorism was coined as part of a propaganda exercise by the british. This is not about reliablilty, it is about weight. Tentontunic (talk) 17:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- One good source is sufficient. You yourself should conduct this research - using Google books it`s real easy. Fueridi for example wrote, "The representation of the Malayan guerrillas as criminals required a careful control over the vocabulary of prpaganda, with endless debates on which words to use to characterize them. In the end the term `bandit was dropped in favour of `communist terrorist`. (p. 214)[11] BTW unlike the U.S. where Vietnam still hits a raw nerve, the British are fully able to accept their history. TFD (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Another source:
- "To this end, the British were prepared to direct propaganda that met these needs, hence they played down the external support of the communists so as to portray them as isolated, weakened, and therefore within the easy control of the British and local militia.32 They also tried to label communists as “bandits”, suggesting to the masses the clear and present threat to their financial and economic well-being. This term was to be further reified through social practices, and between February and April 1950 an “Anti-Bandit Month” was organized, mobilizing 420,000 people to work with security forces in an anti-insurgent operation. The “month” saw the mass issuance of publicity materials, radio talks, and speeches while participants helped conduct road checks and assist in squatter resettlement. 33 In one of the official Anti-Bandit Month publications, for instance, the image of the communist as a bandit was given characteristics that spoke to different ethnic communities in various ways. In general, the “bandits” were seen as hindering education, the conduct of trade unions in Malaya, and they were also seen to disrupt the financial livelihood for the Chinese, subvert Islam for Malays, and were identified as having become outcasts in India for the Malayan Indians.34 Following criticisms by the British Foreign Office on the myopic nature of “bandit”, the term was gradually phased out and replaced by “Communist terrorist”."(L Yew. Managing plurality: the politics of the periphery in early cold war singapore. International Journal of Asian Studies, 2010, 159-177)
- I believe this source will also be useful for the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- And another source which does not say communist terrorist was used as part of a british propaganda campaign. It would appear to me that Deery`s paper ought to be given no weight at all. Tentontunic (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- And the source clearly links the use of "bandits" as being the "propaganda" in an effort to minimize the fact of "communist terrorism" which was the non-propaganda term! The British sought to minimize the problem and used "propaganda" per your own quote to say "bandit". Thanks for making clear that the "communist terrorist" was not the propaganda term! Collect (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- The term "Communist terrorism" is found in the article just one time, in the phrase quoted by me. This phrase states that this term has been applied to communists by the British Foreign Office to replace myopic "bandits". Therefore, I simply do not understand what do you mean: the source does not state that the use of "bandits" was a part of "propaganda" in an effort to minimize the fact of "communist terrorism", it states that the word "bandits", which was later replaced by "Communist terrorism" was used to fight against "guerrilla" (this term is used by Yew to characterise the insurgents). Please, avoid circular arguments in future. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- It is not a circular argument. We have here before us a question of weight, what weight ought be given to Deery`s paper? Given the lack of sources which say communist terrorism was used as part of British propaganda then what weight ought be given to the one source you have found which describes it as such? The answer is of course, none. You have been given ample time to produce a few other sources which back Deery`s paper. All you have provided do not. I would ask you stay on topic and not go off on a tangent. Does any of the sources thus far presented by you (three by my count) state that the term communist terrorism was applied as part of a British propaganda campaign? Tentontunic (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Re: "Given the lack of sources which say communist terrorism was used as part of British propaganda" This statement is false. We have at least two sources that state that it was propaganda, at least one source that states that it was dictated by financial and political needs and no sources that question these claims. Since the search was not exhaustive, I cannot guarantee that other sources do not state the same, however, since the sources already provided by me are quite sufficient, I see no reason in providing additional sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- It is not a circular argument. We have here before us a question of weight, what weight ought be given to Deery`s paper? Given the lack of sources which say communist terrorism was used as part of British propaganda then what weight ought be given to the one source you have found which describes it as such? The answer is of course, none. You have been given ample time to produce a few other sources which back Deery`s paper. All you have provided do not. I would ask you stay on topic and not go off on a tangent. Does any of the sources thus far presented by you (three by my count) state that the term communist terrorism was applied as part of a British propaganda campaign? Tentontunic (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- The term "Communist terrorism" is found in the article just one time, in the phrase quoted by me. This phrase states that this term has been applied to communists by the British Foreign Office to replace myopic "bandits". Therefore, I simply do not understand what do you mean: the source does not state that the use of "bandits" was a part of "propaganda" in an effort to minimize the fact of "communist terrorism", it states that the word "bandits", which was later replaced by "Communist terrorism" was used to fight against "guerrilla" (this term is used by Yew to characterise the insurgents). Please, avoid circular arguments in future. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- And the source clearly links the use of "bandits" as being the "propaganda" in an effort to minimize the fact of "communist terrorism" which was the non-propaganda term! The British sought to minimize the problem and used "propaganda" per your own quote to say "bandit". Thanks for making clear that the "communist terrorist" was not the propaganda term! Collect (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Anyway, the Malayan Emergency is long over, and Collect and Tentontunic are the only two people who are insisting that the British did not use propaganda. I suggest they read about the war. There are two very good novels about it as well: The Virgin Soldiers and And the Rain My Drink. It was a bit like Vietnam, but with one difference - we won. Maybe that is why the British are less sensitive about accurately portraying the history. TFD (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Cannot agree. Reading fiction is hardly useful in this case. I would summarise the thread as follows. Whereas most Cold war time sources use the name "Communist terrorism" for Malayan emergency, recent publications in peer-reviewed journals (I mean the publications specifically devoted to the subject, not the publications that just briefly mention the subject and use a traditional name for brevity) describe emergency as a guerrilla war or anti-colonial insurgence. Therefore, in the absence of alternative viewpoint, I suggest to treat the works of Deery, Yew and White as mainstream. --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Your inability to provide a source to back Deery`s claim that communist terrorism was used as part of British propaganda quite simply means you may not use him at all. Using Deery is WP:UNDUE as was pointed out right at the start of this section. Tentontunic (talk) 07:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- I provided two reliable sources (in addition to two sources that are already in the article) that confirm the fact that the term "Communist terrorism" in a context of Malaya reflected the essence of those events incorrectly, and were dictated by political and others motives. Two of them (Deery and Yew) explicitly use the word "propaganda", saying that the CT came from the British authorities. Another sources Stockwell, also confirm the idea that the usage of the term "communist terrorism" served to put the uprising into the context of the global Cold war. If someone believes these sources do not support these claims, they may ask for a third opinion on WP:RSN.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- No other source has been provided to support the claim that communist terrorism was used as a part of british propaganda. Tentontunic (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- I provided two reliable sources (in addition to two sources that are already in the article) that confirm the fact that the term "Communist terrorism" in a context of Malaya reflected the essence of those events incorrectly, and were dictated by political and others motives. Two of them (Deery and Yew) explicitly use the word "propaganda", saying that the CT came from the British authorities. Another sources Stockwell, also confirm the idea that the usage of the term "communist terrorism" served to put the uprising into the context of the global Cold war. If someone believes these sources do not support these claims, they may ask for a third opinion on WP:RSN.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Your inability to provide a source to back Deery`s claim that communist terrorism was used as part of British propaganda quite simply means you may not use him at all. Using Deery is WP:UNDUE as was pointed out right at the start of this section. Tentontunic (talk) 07:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Cannot agree. Reading fiction is hardly useful in this case. I would summarise the thread as follows. Whereas most Cold war time sources use the name "Communist terrorism" for Malayan emergency, recent publications in peer-reviewed journals (I mean the publications specifically devoted to the subject, not the publications that just briefly mention the subject and use a traditional name for brevity) describe emergency as a guerrilla war or anti-colonial insurgence. Therefore, in the absence of alternative viewpoint, I suggest to treat the works of Deery, Yew and White as mainstream. --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Anyway, the Malayan Emergency is long over, and Collect and Tentontunic are the only two people who are insisting that the British did not use propaganda. I suggest they read about the war. There are two very good novels about it as well: The Virgin Soldiers and And the Rain My Drink. It was a bit like Vietnam, but with one difference - we won. Maybe that is why the British are less sensitive about accurately portraying the history. TFD (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
as the latter statement belongs to the WP:RSN I posted the question there.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- One good source is sufficient. You yourself should conduct this research - using Google books it`s real easy. Fueridi for example wrote, "The representation of the Malayan guerrillas as criminals required a careful control over the vocabulary of prpaganda, with endless debates on which words to use to characterize them. In the end the term `bandit' was dropped in favour of `communist terrorist`. (p. 214)[12] BTW unlike the U.S. where Vietnam still hits a raw nerve, the British are fully able to accept their history. In order to write a neutral article we must recognize the consensus of informed writing and not use Cold War terminology that has been long abandoned even by the British government, who acknowledge that it was propaganda. (Mind you they called it "good propaganda" at the time, as opposed to the bad propaganda of the "CTs". TFD (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- No, one source is not sufficient. It is giving undue weight to one paper which the author himself says is a new way of looking at things. If no other sources can be provided to back Deery`s claim the communist terrorism was used as part of british propaganda then it is a question of weight, not reliability. Tentontunic (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- No, the issue is RS - are peer-reviewed articles published in Academic journals RS. Deery in fact does not say that viewing the term CT as having been developed as part of British propaganda as a "new way of looking at things". May I suggest you show the article to one of your teachers and ask if they agree with your reading. In any case, I have just provided you with a second source that (Fueridi) that says the same thing. And of course any reasonable reading of the source you provided would come to the same conclusion. Furthermore you are unable to find any alternative account for the use of the terminology. OTOH if you believe there are insufficient sources to write this article, then I suggest you list it for deletion. TFD (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- No, one source is not sufficient. It is giving undue weight to one paper which the author himself says is a new way of looking at things. If no other sources can be provided to back Deery`s claim the communist terrorism was used as part of british propaganda then it is a question of weight, not reliability. Tentontunic (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- One good source is sufficient. You yourself should conduct this research - using Google books it`s real easy. Fueridi for example wrote, "The representation of the Malayan guerrillas as criminals required a careful control over the vocabulary of prpaganda, with endless debates on which words to use to characterize them. In the end the term `bandit' was dropped in favour of `communist terrorist`. (p. 214)[12] BTW unlike the U.S. where Vietnam still hits a raw nerve, the British are fully able to accept their history. In order to write a neutral article we must recognize the consensus of informed writing and not use Cold War terminology that has been long abandoned even by the British government, who acknowledge that it was propaganda. (Mind you they called it "good propaganda" at the time, as opposed to the bad propaganda of the "CTs". TFD (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
No it is a question of weight, this is not the RSN board, just in case you had missed that. I have yet to see a source which says communist terrorism was used as part of british propaganda. This is a question of weight. The uninvolved editors who have commented seem to agree that no weight ought be given to deery`s paper. Tentontunic (talk) 16:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- The question is in the relative weight. Although no alternative viewpoint has been provided, it is natural to propose that these alternative viewpoints may be:
- That this term (in the Malayan context) has been used initially by by some scholar or journalist, and only after that by the British authorities;
- That this term was the common term the Malayans themselves used to describe the rebels, and the British authorities just adopted this terminology;
- (Provide your own version).
- However, no sources in support of these claims has been provided so far. In the absence of alternative viewpoints we cannot speak about weight. The only question is if these views are supported by others. As my quotes demonstrated, they are. However, since it has been claimed that they aren't, we have to continue on the WP:RSN.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- How many times need it be said? It is a question of weight, Deery is the one source you have found which says they were called communist terrorists as part of british propaganda. One source only out of hundreds which says this. This is a question of weight, and given the failure of any editor here to find a source which back this claim then Deery as a source is undue. Tentontunic (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- In the absence of alternative viewpoints this one has a 100% weight. In addition, Yew supports what Deery says. Btw, he directly supports what he is saying by citing him. Anticipating a request to provide the source that quotes Yew, let me point out that it is a very recent article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- How many times need it be said? It is a question of weight, Deery is the one source you have found which says they were called communist terrorists as part of british propaganda. One source only out of hundreds which says this. This is a question of weight, and given the failure of any editor here to find a source which back this claim then Deery as a source is undue. Tentontunic (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
This is one non-involved comment, would be glad to read others. Deery is mainstream history and his view should be represented in the article. Contrary views should be there too if and only if there are sources of equivalent quality that express the contrary views. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- There are no contrary views. And I will now present a second source (for the fourth time btw, ignored by Teutonic each previous time), "Fueridi for example wrote, "The representation of the Malayan guerrillas as criminals required a careful control over the vocabulary of popaganda, with endless debates on which words to use to characterize them. In the end the term `bandit' was dropped in favour of `communist terrorist`." (p. 214)[13]". TFD (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- I have not ignored your source, I have in fact responded every time, your source does not say the term communist terrorist was used as a part of british propaganda. Do you know why they dropped bandit? It had naught to do with propaganda. Tentontunic (talk) 22:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Put your telescope to the other eye, Nelson. TFD (talk) 02:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- One needs to show that the words appear together. TFD (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Care to explain why this reasoning does not work here? Given only one source actually supports the sentence communist terrorism was used as a part of british propaganda. Tentontunic (talk) 08:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- See Fueridi, "The representation of the Malayan guerrillas as criminals required a careful control over the vocabulary of propaganda, with endless debates on which words to use to characterize them. In the end the term `bandit' was dropped in favour of `communist terrorist`." (p. 214)[14]". TFD (talk) 13:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- And no matter how many times you copy and paste that, it does not, nor will ever say communist terrorist was used as part of a british propaganda campaign. In fact the source does not even mention why the usage of bandit was dropped. You can not demand that editors provide One needs to show that the words appear together. TFD (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC) this when you yourself choose to ignore it. Tentontunic (talk) 13:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- And I do not think a Professor of Sociology who normally writes, as he puts it, In his books he has explored controversies and panics over issues such as health, children, food, new technology and terrorism notice the controversies bit? I would not call him a good source on a historical subject. Tentontunic (talk) 13:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- The book was published by I.B.Tauris and the description of the use of language in order to win "hearts and minds" is not controversial. If you have a source that challenges this view then by all means present it, but it appears to be how the subject is perceived by all writers. Both terms 'bandits' and 'CTs' btw were part of British propaganda. The insurgents did not call themselves bandits and CTs, and neither did neutral scholarship. TFD (talk) 14:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- And again no. The source does not say communist terrorism was used as a part of british propaganda. I am rewriting the section anyway using mainstream sources so it matters not that you are unable to admit that you cannot fond another source to support your contention. Tentontunic (talk) 14:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- And are you saying that any source which uses communist terrorism is not neutral? All the sources, hundreds in fact are not neutral? Tentontunic (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- You have it the wrong way round. TFD (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- The amount of sources that use this term is irrelevant. None of them discussed the origin of this term. By contrast, all mainstream and reliable sources cited here confirm that this term was used by British government for political and economical reasons, and had no or little connection with the essence of the state of things in Malaya.
- The phrase don't have to appear verbatim in all sources we cited, it is quite sufficient that it supports the current text. If there are any doubts in that, one can go to WP:NORN, the last major noticeboard that has been left unspammed.
- Since Deery dissected the propaganda issues in details, there is no need for other scholars (and for himself) to return to this issue again: each scholarly article must contain new ideas, not just repetitions of what has already been said. Some articles cite Deery, which adds credibility to what he says, others sources (e. g. Fueridi) put forward similar, or somewhat different (Yew) ideas, and no sources question the idea that the term "Communist terrorism" was used by British propaganda. In addition, many sources use the term simply because that during the Cold war era it was the common term for Malayan emergency, along with generic "guerrilla war":
- It is easy to see that "Communist terrorism" is just one, and not the most common term, so I see no weight issues at all.
- Again, if some wants to continue this (already senseless) discussion further, they can go to the last major unspammed noticeboard (WP:NORN), although I doubt is a success to this enterprise. --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Re "are you saying that any source which uses communist terrorism is not neutral?" As "neutrality" means "means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources", the term "neutrality" is applicable to what the Wikipedians write, not to the sources. In this particular case, that means that it is necessary to write that "the Malayan emergency was a guerrilla war (refs to many sources), which was characterised as "Communist terrorism" (references to other sources), for propaganda(ref to Deery and Fueridi) and financial (ref to Yew) purposes.
- PS. If some doubts on that account exist, one may go to the Malayan emergency talk page and discuss the way the ME should be represented in the CT article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Unless you can actually find other sources to support this statement. as "Communist terrorism" in British propaganda then you are giving undue weight to the one source you did find which actually says this. The one uninvolved editor who has commented has also said this. Tentontunic (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- And are you saying that any source which uses communist terrorism is not neutral? All the sources, hundreds in fact are not neutral? Tentontunic (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- The book was published by I.B.Tauris and the description of the use of language in order to win "hearts and minds" is not controversial. If you have a source that challenges this view then by all means present it, but it appears to be how the subject is perceived by all writers. Both terms 'bandits' and 'CTs' btw were part of British propaganda. The insurgents did not call themselves bandits and CTs, and neither did neutral scholarship. TFD (talk) 14:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- See Fueridi, "The representation of the Malayan guerrillas as criminals required a careful control over the vocabulary of propaganda, with endless debates on which words to use to characterize them. In the end the term `bandit' was dropped in favour of `communist terrorist`." (p. 214)[14]". TFD (talk) 13:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- One needs to show that the words appear together. TFD (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Care to explain why this reasoning does not work here? Given only one source actually supports the sentence communist terrorism was used as a part of british propaganda. Tentontunic (talk) 08:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Put your telescope to the other eye, Nelson. TFD (talk) 02:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- I have not ignored your source, I have in fact responded every time, your source does not say the term communist terrorist was used as a part of british propaganda. Do you know why they dropped bandit? It had naught to do with propaganda. Tentontunic (talk) 22:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I stumbled across something of interest today, Robert B. Asprey was of the opinion that the British turned to the "far more realistic term of communist terrorism" War in the Shadows: The Guerrilla in History By Robert B. Asprey pp574
- Firstly, the book published by iUniverse is much less reliable than the sources cited by me. To cherry-pick junk sources to back one's POV is not the best strategy.
- Secondly, this term was probably more realistic that earlier "bandits", however, that does not mean that it was more realistic than "guerilla war".--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- The proper place toi dismiss any source as "junk" is at RSN. The source does appear to be SPS, but that is a different term from "junk." I suggest you post there if you feel it is junk in order to get fresh eyes thereon. Collect (talk) 11:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- Do not see any reason to go there: when I used the Penguin Books' book as a source, it was dismissed as "junk". Even the article published in reputable peer-reviewed journal was dismissed as alleged "junk" - and now the same person tries to use a self-published book as a source - just because it allegedly supports the POV they are pushing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- You do realize this is a reprint yes? It was not self published originally you know. Tentontunic (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- Cite the RS publisher. If Paul does not like it, then RSN is the place he must go. I am tired of removal of sources because of IDONTLIKEIT reasoning. Paul does not say the material is not relevant at least. Collect (talk) 13:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- Firstly, iUniverse is hardly a reputable publisher, much less reputable that the sources I use. iUniverse does not specialise on history publications, and it is not clear if its books are being reviewed at all. Again, to dare to come up with such a junk, after my top quality sources have been attempted to be rejected by the same person under the same pretext is a blatant example of double standards.
- Secondly, I still haven't seen the extended quote. If the source in actuality says that the "CT" term was more reasonable than "bandits", that is correct, but irrelevant, because my sources do not contradict to that. They only state that the "CT" was much less adequate than "anti-colonial partisan war".
- Re IDONTLIKEIT, since I (by contrast to someone else) always provide concrete arguments, my only recommendation is "Physician, heal thyself".--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- Are you blind? The first print from 75 was not self published, and was in fact highly praised. As collect said, I shall cite the 75 version which is perfectly reliable. Tentontunic (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- You should have to provide correct reference. The second volume of this book has been published by iUniverse, a self-publishing company. That is your responsibility to give a full citation, so I am not blind, but you are not accurate. In addition, if the book you refer is a 35-years old book, it is very possible that it reflects the Cold war myths common for those times. Regarding the essence of my objection, I still see no quote from the book your cited, so it is not clear for me what is the context the words were taken from. Without seeing the quote it is hard to judge about relevance.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- Are you blind? The first print from 75 was not self published, and was in fact highly praised. As collect said, I shall cite the 75 version which is perfectly reliable. Tentontunic (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- Cite the RS publisher. If Paul does not like it, then RSN is the place he must go. I am tired of removal of sources because of IDONTLIKEIT reasoning. Paul does not say the material is not relevant at least. Collect (talk) 13:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- You do realize this is a reprint yes? It was not self published originally you know. Tentontunic (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- Do not see any reason to go there: when I used the Penguin Books' book as a source, it was dismissed as "junk". Even the article published in reputable peer-reviewed journal was dismissed as alleged "junk" - and now the same person tries to use a self-published book as a source - just because it allegedly supports the POV they are pushing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- The proper place toi dismiss any source as "junk" is at RSN. The source does appear to be SPS, but that is a different term from "junk." I suggest you post there if you feel it is junk in order to get fresh eyes thereon. Collect (talk) 11:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
No, you do not understand. The first and second volumes were printed in 75, the iuniverse print is not a second volume, it is a reprint of both in one book. Now do you understand? Tentontunic (talk) 07:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Obviously, no. You still have provided neither the full citation (to clarify what concretely do you mean) nor the extended quote (to demonstrate what was the context these words have been taken from). Remember, the burden is on you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Franklin child prostitution ring allegations
The subject of criminal charges is referred to by newspapers variously as a "nationally active Republican politician" (he was vice chairman of a Republican council), a "prominent Republican", "a rising star in the Republican party" or a "major Republican fundraiser". Three editors were happy just to mention the connection only in the lead ie: "Republican fundraiser Lawrence E. King" and not to mention the connection at all in the article. One very active editor repeatedly deletes this claiming that any mention of his Republican affiliation is pushing an "all Republicans are perverts" agenda which is POV pushing and a BLP violation. It took some time to get him to accept using the word "political" and the lead now says "prominent political fundraiser Lawrence E. King". This disagreement has been ongoing in talk since early January. Wayne (talk) 11:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- The same newspapers point out that King was a Democrat for most of his life, but that didn't make it into the Wikipedia article. Instead, the criminal was described exclusively in the Wikipedia article lede as a Republican. The party identification of Democratic state senator Ernie Chambers and frequent Democratic presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche, who flogged this scandal for every political point they could score, was also never mentioned in the Wikipedia article. If we're going to mention political party affiliation, we need to be even handed about it, particularly in this case where the most salient allegation (a large scale child prostitution ring that allegedly flew child prostitutes all over the country) was never proven, and in fact produced a perjury conviction and prison sentence for one of the accusers.
- Yes, for a few
monthsyears before his embezzlement conviction, Lawrence E. King changed over to the Republican Party. But prominent Democratic Party members were backing even more hideous allegations that turned out to be nothing but a smear campaign. Either the political affiliations need to be completely described on both sides, or they need to be left out. By the way, I am the one who proposed using a compromise word "political" instead of "Republican," Wayne/WLRoss was the one who eventually accepted it, and the diffs are available to prove it. I grow very weary of these misrepresentations. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- It is worth noting that this editor has been pushing for inclusion of an unreliable source in this BLP article (which espouses the minority/fringe POV even though it criticizes LaRouche), on the article Talk page here. The issue was taken to WP:RSN, where several previously uninvolved editors unanimously agreed that the unreliable source should not be used.[21] Dissatisfied with this result, the editor has now brought his grievance to WP:NPOVN. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- I looked into this in the past, and King is commonly referred to as a "Republican fundraiser" in reliable sources. Part of what made the story so salacious were his connections to Washington politics. However his main title was manager of a credit union, and so that should be used first with the fundraising role mentioned later.
- The grand jury did not identify those suspected of engineering the hoax. But it did indict two witnesses who it said had given perjured accounts in the tangled case, involving a failed credit union formed to help the poor that was headed by a nationally prominent Republican. [..] The rumors about child sex abuse, drug trafficking and other offenses began to circulate in late 1988 shortly after the failure of the Franklin Community Federal Credit Union, which was headed by Lawrence E. King Jr., a former vice chairman of the National Black Republican Council, an affiliate of the Republican Party, who has entertained generously at Republican national conventions. He has been indicted on charges of embezzling money from the credit union, which closed in November 1988, but a Federal magistrate has ruled that he is not mentally competent to stand trial at this time.
- Omaha Grand Jury Sees Hoax in Lurid Tales WILLIAM ROBBINS, Special to The New York Times. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Jul 29, 1990. pg. A.19
- Lawrence E. King Jr., everyone now agrees, had a remarkable knack for stretching a dollar. On a salary of $16,200 a year, the credit union manager drove a $70,000 white Mercedes-and still could afford to spend $10,000 a month on limousines. His credit card charges topped $1 million, he owned a four-story house on 26 acres overlooking the Missouri River, and his floral bill alone came to $146,000 during a fragrant, 13-month period in 1987-88. A former McGovern Democrat who converted to the GOP, King threw a $100,000 party for 1,000 close friends at the Republican National Convention in New Orleans two years ago, leasing a warehouse used to store Mardi Gras floats. Four years earlier, before singing "The Star-Spangled Banner" at the Republican convention in Texas, he hosted a similar bash by renting Southfork, the ranch used to film "Dallas." [..] Moreover, King's high profile in the GOP has "got the Republican Party here as nervous as a long-tailed cat in a roomful of rocking chairs," added former state senator John DeCamp, a Republican. [..] King once served as business committee chairman of the National Black Republican Council, an organization with official ties to the party. Federal Election Commission records show that he donated more than $30,000 to various political causes in the 1980s, including $2,500 to the Republican National Committee, $15,000 to a gay rights political action committee and, in 1987, $1,000 to Jack Kemp plus another $5,000 to a Kemp PAC. "He was in fact a contributor, but one of thousands," a spokesman for Kemp said Thursday. "They met at a fundraiser but King was not a personal friend."
- Omaha's Hurricane of Scandal; Larry E. King Jr., in the Eye of the Storm Over Fraud, Prostitution Charges; [FINAL Edition] Rick Atkinson. The Washington Post (pre-1997 Fulltext). Washington, D.C.: Apr 1, 1990. pg. f.01
- King, 45, a flamboyant entrepreneur once hailed as a black role model and embraced by the national Republican Party, is accused of using the Franklin Community Federal Credit Union as his personal treasury. Prosecutors and federal regulators say he looted about $37 million in depositors' funds, spending lavishly on clothes, gifts and parties. [..] In his heyday, from 1983 until late 1988, King was ubiquitous here. In addition to the credit union, he owned fashionable restaurants, rode around town in limousines and mixed with the city's arts, business and Republican establishments. A polished tenor, he sang the national anthem at the 1984 GOP convention in Dallas and threw huge parties for black Republicans there and at the party's 1988 convention in New Orleans.
- SEX-SCANDAL TALK DELUGES OMAHA Andrew Cassel. Philadelphia Inquirer. Philadelphia, Pa.: Mar 12, 1990. pg. A.2
- He became politically active, too, as a fund-raiser and a contributor to the Republican Party. He maintained a second home near Embassy Row in Washington. He sang the national anthem during the opening ceremonies of the 1984 Republican National Convention; later, he threw a party for several hundred convention-goers at Texas' Southfork Ranch, where scenes of the television show Dallas are shot. Mardi Gras was the theme of his 1988 convention party in New Orleans; the menu featured alligator meat.
- Fallen Hero: A Credit Union Fails, And Omaha Wonders: Was It Bamboozled? --- Manager Lawrence King Jr., A Role Model for Blacks, Is Sued in Misuse of Funds --- Limousines and Lavish Parties By Robert L. Rose. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Feb 8, 1989. pg. 1
- King was an active Republican, working with the party's Citizens for America and the National Black Republican Council and singing the national anthem at the 1984 GOP convention in Dallas. Last summer, he orchestrated a party at the GOP convention in New Orleans for 1,000 people under the auspices of the Council on Minority Americans, a group he heads. Caterers estimated that the party cost $100,000.
- Credit Union Boss Sued for $34 Million Reports Say Funds Allegedly Diverted to Pay for Lavish Life Style; [Home Edition] Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext). Los Angeles, Calif.: Nov 24, 1988. pg. 5
- The grand jury did not identify those suspected of engineering the hoax. But it did indict two witnesses who it said had given perjured accounts in the tangled case, involving a failed credit union formed to help the poor that was headed by a nationally prominent Republican. [..] The rumors about child sex abuse, drug trafficking and other offenses began to circulate in late 1988 shortly after the failure of the Franklin Community Federal Credit Union, which was headed by Lawrence E. King Jr., a former vice chairman of the National Black Republican Council, an affiliate of the Republican Party, who has entertained generously at Republican national conventions. He has been indicted on charges of embezzling money from the credit union, which closed in November 1988, but a Federal magistrate has ruled that he is not mentally competent to stand trial at this time.
- I don't see any reason to exclude the party affiliations of other involved parties, where they are mentioned by relevant sources. However party affiliations from the past, prior to the scandal, seem less relevant. Will Beback talk 22:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- I looked into this in the past, and King is commonly referred to as a "Republican fundraiser" in reliable sources. Part of what made the story so salacious were his connections to Washington politics. However his main title was manager of a credit union, and so that should be used first with the fundraising role mentioned later.
- Thanks Will, but some of the same sources feel that King's previous Democratic Party prominence was worth mentioning:
- In 1972 he headed a national political organization, Black Democrats for George McGovern. But he gained greater prominence after he had switched parties a while later, serving for a time as vice chairman of the National Black Republican Council, an official affiliate of the Republican Party, and becoming a familiar figure on the Republican social scene.
- Omaha Grand Jury Sees Hoax in Lurid Tales WILLIAM ROBBINS, Special to The New York Times. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Jul 29, 1990. pg. A.19
- In 1972 he headed a national political organization, Black Democrats for George McGovern. But he gained greater prominence after he had switched parties a while later, serving for a time as vice chairman of the National Black Republican Council, an official affiliate of the Republican Party, and becoming a familiar figure on the Republican social scene.
- I think we should allow previously uninvolved editors to take a look at this before we make any final decisions. I would also suggest to you, Will, that Wikipedia has the advantage of 20/20 hindsight. Political affiliations which may have seemed very important at the start of the grand jury investigation may not have seemed important at all once the grand jury labeled it a "carefully crafted hoax." Look at the news reports published after the grand jury published its findings.
- There are several other NPOV issues that should be discussed with uninvolved editors since we're here. Apostle12 and WLRoss/Wayne have been POV-pushing and it has led to numerous policy violations, as uninvolved editors unanimously agreed at WP:RSN.[22] Violations include WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BLP, three of our most important policies. Any attempt to talk them out of these violations is described as a personal insult.
- In particular, the two words "with minors" have repeatedly been added to describe sexual activity. These two words are completely unsupported by the reliable source. They are pure poison. They push conduct far across the line, from merely scandalous (sex between unmarried consenting adults) to a Class X felony. Lawrence King is out of prison now, presumably broke and would welcome an opportunity to sue some deep pockets like Wikipedia's for libel. Any immunity we may enjoy from such liability should not be seen as a license to engage in a smear campaign against him. And of course Wikipedia's usual critics would be given fresh ammunition for a fresh round of attacks. But every time I remove the words "with minors," it seems they are added again.
- I regret to suggest sanctions but I have reached the limit of my patience with these two, and I seem to consistently face 2-to-1 odds when trying to protect and enforce Wikipedia policy. Only when I went to RSN was I not completely alone in this. I don't have the time to baby-sit this article and accordingly, I regretfully recommend a 30-day topic ban for both of them. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- An affiliation with the Democrats 20 years before the events of the article is hardly relevant outside the subjects own biography. No one has prevented any mention of Democrat and I myself suggested mention that Democrats as well as Republicans were accused. There has also been no violation of any Wikipedia policies and no use of the source referred to since the RSN despite a very limited consensus (after failing to get consensus Phoenix and Winslow began inviting editors to comment until he got what he could claim was a consensus in his favour) which only applied to the publisher and didn't address the reliability of the author (the actual edits included only the authors claims that were supported by primary sources). I believe "with minors" was added by another editor and then replaced once after P&W reverted it so I dont think "repeatedly added" applies and considering that the Fraklin committee stated that King should have been charged, it may have been them (a primary RS) who used the term. Then of course, the civil case judge found the claim true which should remove any BLP problem but I'd need to find where the term was mentioned and the context so I cant say the edit was right or wrong. P&W is free to "talk [us] out of these violations" all he likes, it is the agressive attitude [we] consider an insult. Is it possible that a discussion can take place without P&W assuming bad faith, making personal attacks, making threats, exaggerating and including material beyond the purvue of the topic being discussed? Wayne (talk) 20:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- That Lawrence King was a "prominent Republican" and a "rising star in the Republican Party" is beyond refute and, in my opinion, relevant. He was invited to sing the star-spangled banner at both the 1984 and 1988 Republican Conventions; he maintained a residence in Washington D.C. where he entertained lavishly, primarily among Republican circles; and he gained prominence only after he switched from being a Democrat to a Republican. His identity as a Republican and his connections to the Washington D.C. Republican elite constitute a large part of King's notability.
- I agree with Wayne's analysis above. P & W engaged in repeated massive reverts of good-faith edits, referring to the good-faith edits of other editors as "garbage." He proceeded in a heavy-handed, arrogant manner in violation of WP:OWN, insisting that other editors defer to his impeccable judgment. He talked down to other editors, using condescending phrases like "please educate yourself as to the difference." P. & W. accorded no one even the slightest respect, relying insted on repeated threats and browbeating.
- The clause "with minors" was explicitly supported by Bryant and implicitly supported by many other sources; however once P. & W. pinpointed his objection to the inclusion of this phrase (in concert with exaggerated and inflamatory accusations of "plagiarism"), the phrase was readily eliminated out of deference to his concerns. P. & W. writes "But every time I remove the words 'with minors,' it seems they are added again;" this assertion is simply a lie, as any dispassionate review of the the record will clearly demonstrate. There is no question that the allegations against Lawrence King included sexual crimes "with minors," however this phrase will be reinstated only after further sleuthing allows reference to other reliable sources (beyond Bryant) that explicitly support inclusion of the phrase.
- P. & W.'s own POV-pushing has in fact been relentless. He seems finally to have backed away from his more outrageous assertions (e.g. that all those who question the propriety of the Douglas Country grand jury findings must be LaRouche followers, or, alternatley, that they must "have drunk a slightly different brand of kool-aid"). P. & W. persists in labeling as "conspiracy theorists" anyone who entertains the possibility that former Senator Ernie Chambers, the Franklin Committee, former Senator John DeCamp, investigative reporter Nick Bryant, and others might deserve a measure of credibility. Despite the fact that 70% of Nebraskans agreed with the dissenting view of the Franklin Committee, and nearly as many considered the Douglas County grand jury proceedings to have been "rigged," P. & W. attacks this as a "fringe" point of view.
- The article has emerged as reasonably balanced at the present time, though an aggressive search for adequate sourcing (now that Bryant has been eliminated as an RS) will be necessary to improve it further. The progress we have made has been in spite of P. & W., who has refused to engage in collaborative editing, instead favoring ad hominem attacks on anyone who disagrees with his perspective. Apostle12 (talk) 09:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
POV about LDS Mormons belonging to Christianity
The article The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints describes the religious body to be a restoratinist Christian religion. Renowned references like the Britannica, Oxford English Dictionary, among others don't define the Church of Jesus Christ LDS as a christian religion. Therefore I see the NPOV policy violated and ask other Wikipedia editors to resolve the dispute. --217.5.199.242 (talk) 13:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- While the LDS church is about as theologically distant from Christianity as Hinduism, they are derived from Christianity, they describe themselves as Christians, and so the anthropological approach is to say they are a Christian religion. It's not saying they truely are Christians, though, if you want to look at it that way. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- I smell a Scotsman here. LDS is a Christian Church (and, BTW, Britannica agrees, as far as I can figure out from snippets online). Christianity is a somewhat mushy concept. But if we accept Southern Baptists, the Roman Catholic Church, Episcopalians, and the Syrian Orthodox Church, I see no reason to exclude Mormons or Jehova's Witnesses. Of course, the only true Christians are adherents of Platonic Gnosticism. All others will Burn In Hell (tm). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well, the Baptists, Catholics, Episcopalians, and Orthodox are trinitarian monotheists who believe in the incarnation, at least; but yeah... And no, the only true Christians (tm) are the Circumcellions. ;P *TWHACK!* "Laudate Deum!" Ian.thomson (talk) 14:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- What a compelling doctrine! And to think I never heard of them before. Rumiton (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- There are a couple of distinct issues here, first the questioner needs to understand that 'Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' is a distinct subset of what are collectively called Mormons. And since the question was specifically about LDS, then we need to restrict the debate to that article. The typical LDS view is that they are the correct branch of Mormonism. Many LDS members describe themselves as 'Christian', but not all. The typical argument I have heard is "'Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' has Christ in the title, so how are we not Christians?" That alone I do not find to be a compelling argument, since anyone can make a religion and include Christ in the name ("Balloon Christ Believers"). LDS Mormons believe that Joseph Smith set them back on the proper Christian path and that other Christian religions were in error. Most Orthodox Christian religions do not regard LDS as Christian. When comparing the set of beliefs of LDS versus Orthodox, there are several significant divergences.
- The article Mormonism and Christianity describes these differences in detail. A quote from that article:
- Mormons do not accept non-Mormon baptism nor do non-Mormon Christians usually accept Mormon baptism. Mormons regularly proselytize individuals actually or nominally within the Christian tradition, and some Christians, especially evangelicals, proselytize Mormons. A prominent scholarly view is that Mormonism is a form of Christianity, but is distinct enough from traditional Christianity so as to form a new religious tradition, much as Christianity is more than just a sect of Judaism.
- As far as the exact proper way to approach this in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article, I believe I would lean toward something like "is described a restorationist Christian religion", just adding the word 'described' maybe. -- Avanu (talk) 15:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- We had a long ArbCom case about a similar topic regarding Jehovah's witnesses. LDS is classified as restorationsist christian in so far as they profess to restore the original form of early christianity. It doesn't matter whether other christians actually accept them as christians or not. Restoriationists are recognized by stating that they restore the original "correct" form of Christianity. Not by the degree to which they are distinct from other denominations.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- "Mormons do not accept non-Mormon baptism nor do non-Mormon Christians usually accept Mormon baptism." - possibly, but the same is true for many other Christian faiths. E.g. most Baptists do not accept Roman Catholic rites at all. See Jack Chick. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- What a compelling doctrine! And to think I never heard of them before. Rumiton (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well, the Baptists, Catholics, Episcopalians, and Orthodox are trinitarian monotheists who believe in the incarnation, at least; but yeah... And no, the only true Christians (tm) are the Circumcellions. ;P *TWHACK!* "Laudate Deum!" Ian.thomson (talk) 14:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- I smell a Scotsman here. LDS is a Christian Church (and, BTW, Britannica agrees, as far as I can figure out from snippets online). Christianity is a somewhat mushy concept. But if we accept Southern Baptists, the Roman Catholic Church, Episcopalians, and the Syrian Orthodox Church, I see no reason to exclude Mormons or Jehova's Witnesses. Of course, the only true Christians are adherents of Platonic Gnosticism. All others will Burn In Hell (tm). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Not sure what is meant by 'rites', but Baptists would accept a baptism done by Roman Catholics. -- Avanu (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Depends on the Baptists and it depends on what you mean by "accept". See Believer's baptism. There are all kinds of denominational and sectarian differences within Christianity. At the end of the day Mormonism falls within the Christian family. Don't believe me, then look at the sources. I'm not sure why this is even being argued. If we do what we are supposed to here on Wikipedia, and follow the reliable sources, then there is no doubt. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Not sure what is meant by 'rites', but Baptists would accept a baptism done by Roman Catholics. -- Avanu (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- comment - Christian theology of course describes itself as a continuation of the religion of the Old Testament, just as Muslim theology (see eg "Messiah#Islam") describes itself as a continuation of both Judaism and Gospel of the Messiah, Jesus, in turn. Yet, because of the distinctions among them from what is normally understood as "Judaism" and/or "Christianity," we classify them both as separate and distinct branches of Abrahamic faith. The Mormon faith(s) are analogous.
Would it be possible, as a compromise, to classify "Latter Day Saint Christianity" as a distinct branch of Abrahamic faith (actually, Sikhism and Bahai could conceivably be added too) yet keep this use of the self-describing term "Christianity" within the designation itself?
--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- People, can you please give your feedback here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#Argument_against_Christianity I would like to see this discussed on just one page, and that is the page where the debate started. --217.50.56.198 (talk) 17:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Mormonism is classified as Christian in reliable sources. This IP appears to be treating the talk page of the entry as a forum to argue against the way that reliable sources classify Mormonism. Notably, in order to do so, s/he claims that sociologists are not reliable in this matter, only theologians are. It's the other way around I'm afraid. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
A Christian religion is one emphasizing Jesus of Nazareth as a central figure and considering his teachings (alleged or otherwise) to be important. By that mark, Mormonism is a Christian religion. — Rickyrab | Talk 01:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- comment - are there any nomenclatures which give classifications of Christianity and include either of the LDS Church or the Mormons?--Whiteguru (talk) 08:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Is the % of pages in secondary sources the only indicator to measure due weight?
We're having a discussion about a paragraph in the History section of a summary article. Some editors want to include certain events and some others don't. (If you feel curious, I can tell you that the "events" we're talking about are 1) the widespread rapings, desecrations of all churches but one and the lootings of almost all homes in Gibraltar when it was captured in 1704 and 2) the subsequent exodus of practically all of the inhabitants of Gibraltar -of whom the largest part specifically established themselves in a nearby place called San Roque).
One argument used by the editors who don't want to include the events is that they only add up to a very small % of the total information included in the main sources about the whole History of Gibraltar, and therefore dedicating two sentences to those events would give undue weight to them. On the other hand, they recognize that those events "are included in Hills, Jackson, Francis, Bradford and all major British historical works".
The other editors contend that the sources only can talk about the information that was recorded at the time, and even if it is very important they can not go for pages and pages talking about the events if there was only original information for one or two pages, and therefore the number of works that mention those events is a better measurement of "weight".
My question is: should we use the % of pages dedicated to an event in secondary sources as the main indicator of "weight", or are there other issues to take into account even if that % is not too large? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- For information, Imalbornoz's claims above that editors seek to remove the fact that violence occurred and the fact that the townspeople left are strongly misleading. It is proposed that these points be summarised, not removed (see this RFC, which contains the proposed text).
- Also, the argument is not that a raw percentage alone is pivotal, but that the points concerned are given very much less weight in reliable sources than in Imalbornoz's preferred version of our summary. That is to say, no other factors have been found that would convey weight on the details that Imalbornoz wishes to include. Given quite how much weight he wishes to put on these points, this is not surprising.
- Imalbornoz has only disputed this inasmuch as he argues that weight can be measured purely on the basis of the number of sources found that mention the information, without any other regard for the content of those sources. On Monday this board did not consider this an appropriate way of measuring the weighting of points in the article - a point that was reconfirmed about an hour ago. It would be useful to know if this has changed since then. Pfainuk talk 22:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Just to address the specific question asked. Such percentages can only give the roughest of indicators. It is the quality of sources that you should be considering. Is this actually a situation where there is a disagreement between scholars? If so, it would help if one or two scholarly sources on each side could be listed. Or is it not that at all, in which case a different question needs to be asked? Itsmejudith (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- To answer Itmejudith's question, I don't think there is any disagreement in the vast majority of sources. No sources deny the widespread rapings, desecrations, lootings, and the exodus, mainly to a place called San Roque (at least, none of the editors in this discussion have found any -and we all have made extensive searches of sources). On the other hand, the vast majority of relevant sources do mention these events.
- To give some more specific information, the two sides of the dispute are:
- Some editors want to keep the current text, as they consider that it is very relevant to the population of Gibraltar, very notable, and is mentioned by almost all relevant sources. The text is:
“ | The terms of surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings.[1][2] By 7 August, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and fled to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain.[1] | ” |
- Some editors want to reduce the mention of the events arguing that the proportion of the text in relevant sources is disproportionately low compared to the weight given in the article. The text they propose in order to replace the text above is:
“ | ...but they [the Anglo-Dutch commanders] were frustrated when, after three days of violent disorder, almost the entire population of the town left citing their loyalty to Philip V, the Bourbon claimant.[3] | ” |
- You can check some excerpts from the main sources here.
- Thank you for your comments. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Please be aware that these excerpts are taken out of context, for the purpose of promoting Imalbornoz's position.
- The points on weight are reasonably clear. The dispute is as to which of the following should more appropriately be the basis for the weight on the points to be made:
- The weight given to the points by reliable sources, taking into account not just the length and detail given, but the context it is given in and other similarly appropriate factors.
- The raw number of sources found by certain editors that mention the point, regardless of context and weight given to the point by those sources; taken with statements that events are "very notable".
- In judging this, it is worth pointing out that the points that are given massively more weight in Imalbornoz's preferred text than in the sources, and that he describes as "very notable", happen to be exactly the same points as are used by one side of the modern dispute in pursuit of its goals. Pfainuk talk 15:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
You folks really are "going around the houses" — and the block, and popping up three places just on this noticeboard. Which isn't getting you anywhere. I think it is time to round up all the chickens an put them back into one pen. So I propose that all further discussion regarding Gibraltar be consolidated and kept on Talk:Gibraltar. Any objections? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- I apologize for being the one to pop up in the third place... but please understand that us chickens are a bit tired of hearing each others' cacophony (for two years now) and are desperately wishing to hear some fresh outside opinion. Which -I agree- is no excuse for not being able to agree to post just one consensus question in the noticeboard instead of filling it up with our separate questions... We'll go back to our place ;-) and pray for some outside commentators who help us out (not easy, I think we've already bored out of the discussion quite a few mediators and commentators). Thank you very much for your time and your interest. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- For info, I created that example of Bibliometry. For the record, I don't consider that or any other form of Bibliometry at all useful in deciding WP:DUE and have consistently said so for the 2 years I have tried to engage constructively with Imalbornoz. I merely offered a Bibliometric example to show just what a crock of bullshit it actually is. However, WP:DUE is consistently argued by Imalbornoz on the basis of Bibliometry but his chosen "metric" is the number raw hits in Google searches, condemned on this very board as unacceptable, that opinion has been ignored and this is now described as "ingenious" bibliometry believe it or not. Those reading these comments may wish to take this into consideration.
- Whilst, I don't claim Bibliometry is at all useful for establishing WP:DUE, it can be useful to illustrate when massively undue weight is given to certain details contrary to the quantity of text and depth of coverage guidelines in WP:DUE. Like when 14% of the history section in an overview is dedicated to documenting a list of crimes and stating a single reason for the exodus (several are noted by historians) and to the exclusion of explaining the geopolitical reasons for the Gibraltar capture. And when most serious histories treat it on the basis of little more than a footnote.
- We decide WP:DUE on the basis of weight of opinion attached in reliable sources, this is not established by Google Snippets, selected quotes obtained from 3rd parties or hit counts in searches in Google Books - this is how Imalbornoz has sourced his edit - he doesn't have access to sources of his own and has admitted so in discussions. We will make a lot more progress if some people go to a library. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- I would like all of you involved in this issue to take a moment to look at one of the reasons why you all have been going "around the houses" on this (and for two years?!!).
- All of the editors concerned here seem to be intelligent, articulate, interested and informed on the topic (some topics are not so fortunate), and care about it to a degree that approaches passionate. Which is the problem! All of you have a great deal to say on both the topic and the issues. So you keep saying it. Witness WCM's last remarks: I proposed that further discussion be consolidated elsewhere, Imalbornoz said (at length, but essentially) "okay", and WCM wants to — discuss the issues. (WCM, please don't take offense here. Everyone here has done this; your remarks were just closest to hand.) So one of you goes flying out of the coop, then another, you keep exciting each other, and pretty soon you are scattered all over and pulling in different directions. Right? (That's a "rhetorical" question, don't have to answer!) Keep in mind that I am not against discussing issues. I am saying that you shouldn't be popping off at any time with whatever is bugging you. As it is, you have one "side" firing off a broadside of points, then the other side responds with a different set of points, and there is so much shrapnel flying around that everyone else is ducking for cover.
- I think (for whatever it's worth) you all need a bit more discipline in staying focused, particularly in taking up just one sub-issue at a time, so that you don't choke on them. Let's take this back to the talk page, and I'll try to help you sort matters out there. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 02:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not in the least offended. The thing I think you're missing is the claim that "ingenious" Bibliometry establishes WP:DUE so overwhelmingly, that anyone who disagrees is "suppressing" material because they're "embarassed" by the material and you can ignore them and impose content. The "ingenious" Bibliometry is not a sustainable argument under wikipedia's policy. But hey why bother with the tedium of reading sources when you just have to fire up Google Books? Wee Curry Monster talk 21:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't "miss" it, I am (for the moment, and in this place) ignoring that claim. This is what I was just talking about: you folks just keep going on and on and on. And in the process you raise more claims and subsidiary points, and no wonder your arguments are spread all over the map. To make any progress you need to slow down and spend time on single issues.
- Please note that this claim for "bibliometry", or some aspect of it, is being discussed above (at #Due weight and numbers of sources), and I hope we can resolve some part of this claim there. As to various other issues: as I have proposed here, I recommend that you all try to keep them on Talk:Gibralter. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not in the least offended. The thing I think you're missing is the claim that "ingenious" Bibliometry establishes WP:DUE so overwhelmingly, that anyone who disagrees is "suppressing" material because they're "embarassed" by the material and you can ignore them and impose content. The "ingenious" Bibliometry is not a sustainable argument under wikipedia's policy. But hey why bother with the tedium of reading sources when you just have to fire up Google Books? Wee Curry Monster talk 21:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if mediation would work on this one. Underneath it all, there is an issue of how much weight to give to some events that are covered by historians. It has become utterly entrenched. Each side repeats the same arguments; uninvolved editors find it hard to know where to start. Not everyone has access to all the historical texts. Something is needed to break the logjam. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. I am having a go (a bit of an experiment) at trying to help these folks at the discussion above, but that will probably drag out for several weeks. In the mean time I hope any further outbreaks of this running dispute might be quelled. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- ^ a b Jackson, Sir William, Rock of the Gibraltarians, p100-101
- ^ Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar. George Hills (1974). London: Robert Hale. pp. 173-174. ISBN 0-7091-4352-4
- ^ Frederick Sayer (1862). The history of Gibraltar and of its political relation to events in Europe. Saunders. p. 115. Retrieved 4 February 2011.
sock blocked |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Attempts have been made by editors to move this page from Lio Convoy, the better-known and more-used title, to Leo Prime. --UnstableBiosphere (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
|
9/11 conspiracy theories - Architects & Engineers petition (continued)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Continuation of discussion from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#9.2F11_conspiracy_theories.2C_Architects_and_Engineers_for_911_Truth_petition
I'm sorry, the status quo (i.e. repeated removal of reliably sourced, neutrally worded, factual material from the article by a minority of editors) is simply not acceptable. Leaving these deletions stand is not a solution - it's clearly against WP:NPOV to allow this kind of omission. Any other suggestions for resolution? And if the NPOV noticeboard and the article talk page are not appropriate places to discuss this, can you suggest a more appropriate place? Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- No, for every reason that's been said in the countless previous discussions. GoN clearly has a faulty understanding of NPOV and OR. His repeated attempts to continually bring this up at different venues everytime the consensus is against him is beyond WP:IDHT. Ravensfire (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Strong no. GoN, this is the proper place to raise an NPOV issue (instead of the noticeboard's talk page, which is where you last raised the issue). But this is no longer an NPOV issue, it's issue of you repeatedly beating a WP:DEADHORSE. (There are other subsidiary issues, but I think everyone is tired of hearing them.) You have been advised to GIVE IT A REST. Please do so, for at least six months. If you can't hear that — or are willfully not hearing it? — would some kind of administrative action catch your attention? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I need some help on how to address the POV issues that exist from the Race and intelligence article title. Is AfD the only route to fix this?
The article content was originally given a completely different context. From the creator's edit comment copied large section from Racism
- the article would be more acurately labelled Race and IQ and it should be noted that IQ can be a very crude measure of intelligence
- title (including race and iq) accepts the premise of the question WP:UNDUE which is inconsistent with the scientific community
- requires context or interpretation
None of the studies should be used without explaining why they might be statistically misleading and while there are studies that counter point by point other studies this does not give an encyclopedic article. But really the encyclopedic item is the larger Nature versus nurture debate.
I think it should be merged into another article the closest is Heritability of IQ but doesn't quite have the right name. Tetron76 (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- I tend to agree and would welcme your input to the article. It is unfortunately mostly a battleground between Single Purpose Accounts working to promote scientific racism and other editors who disagree but have less dedication to the topic. You should know that the article was the subject of a recent arbcom case and is subject to discretionary sanctions, so only the best behavior is encouraged there. Also you should know that it is part of a larger problem of pov pushing on articles related to race and intelligence in a very broad sense - articles such as J. Philippe Rushton, Race, Evolution and Behavior, Race and crime, Race and genetics and many others have similar problems. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Smooth jazz is a subgenre of jazz, however, an editor is trying to push a view that it isn't. Most of the early smooth jazz musicians root their influences to older styles of jazz (i.e. George Benson roots his influences to Wes Montgomery). Is there anything I can do about this? ANDROS1337TALK 22:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- I added a disputed about template to warn people that there is currently a dispute (without violating the three revert rule), the only thing I can suggest you or any other editor can do is find numerous sources which both comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines and which also back up the assertion that smooth jazz is a subgenre of jazz. Not easy from when I looked for sources a while ago, although I do believe that smooth jazz is a valid subgenre of jazz. I'd go have a look again for sources now, however it is late in the UK and I have work tomorrow morning, so bedtime is upcoming for me. --tgheretford (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- Would this link pass WP:RS? ANDROS1337TALK 15:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- That source could be considered by some as a primary source, considering its interests in the genre. We could really do with a number of links, preferably from organisations which don't have an interest in smooth jazz, such as learning academies, radio measuring organisations or any other third party organisation who meet the reliable sources guideline. That link alone probably in my personal opinion, wouldn't be enough to quantify the statement that smooth jazz is a valid subgenre, particularly so considering it's interests in the genre. --tgheretford (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- I've had a look around Google, there are a number of general jazz websites (much better arbiter of secondary source) and newspaper websites which offer a historical view and oversight of smooth jazz, maybe worth going through search results and pulling up sources from the aforementioned organisations into clarifying that smooth jazz is a valid subgenre of jazz. Hopefully then, we can agree consensus across all sides over the definition of smooth jazz. Coincidentally, I'm listening to smooth jazz as I type this! --tgheretford (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- The perfect answer to the initial comment: smooth jazz is not a subgenre of jazz, however, an editor is trying to push a view that it is. Smooth jazz is cited as having evolved from fusion, but not from jazz as it's way too watered down, to the point that the elements that define jazz are no longer present. I saw several comments on the discussion page that hang on to the fact that the name "smooth jazz" contains the word "jazz" and therefore, "must" be connected. By that logic, is there any connection between vanilla pudding, bread pudding and black pudding? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- I am not going just by name, but by the real origins of smooth jazz. Please read WP:AGF. ANDROS1337TALK 17:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Is that a subliminal admission of guilt? I never pointed at you, I was actually referring to other editors. WP:AGF goes both ways, you know... Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- That source could be considered by some as a primary source, considering its interests in the genre. We could really do with a number of links, preferably from organisations which don't have an interest in smooth jazz, such as learning academies, radio measuring organisations or any other third party organisation who meet the reliable sources guideline. That link alone probably in my personal opinion, wouldn't be enough to quantify the statement that smooth jazz is a valid subgenre, particularly so considering it's interests in the genre. --tgheretford (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- Would this link pass WP:RS? ANDROS1337TALK 15:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Someone should take a look at this article, it suffers from many of the same problems that caused the recent spectacle about "Jews and Money" - i.e. presenting a racist stereotype as reality.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- Certainly not helped by you deleting all material regarding the stereotype having some factual cause due higher crime rates for blacks.Miradre (talk) 13:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- Could you please be more specific in describing what kind of help you are seeking? Even better, there are instructions at the top of this page for getting a good response to your concern. Right now I am not sure what the problem is. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 07:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- There is no connection between race and crime. There's definitely a stereotype, though. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- It just needs attention from editors who are not SPA's dedicated to promoting certain ideas regarding race. That is the assistance I seek.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- There is no connection between race and crime. There's definitely a stereotype, though. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Could you please be more specific in describing what kind of help you are seeking? Even better, there are instructions at the top of this page for getting a good response to your concern. Right now I am not sure what the problem is. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 07:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this is one of those issues where there do seem to be hard "facts" (factoids?) supporting the position. E.g., it is often argued that more blacks are convicted and/or imprisoned (so there!), which (in the U.S.) is indeed the case. Yet more careful studies long ago showed that conviction and imprisonment rates have more to do with poverty rates (e.g., lack of $$lawyers$$) than ethnicity; the latter is only an indirect correlation. So this is very much an issue where it is not acceptable to merely show sourced "facts" supporting some position. It is necessary to show pretty much the entire range of opinions and critical commentary to provide proper weight. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Weston Price introduction
Currently there is an issue with the lead into the Weston Price article. I want to go with a more descriptive (and IMHO more accurate) lead in (see [[23]] but one editor wants to stick with a less descriptive (and I might add TOTAL UNREFERENCED) lead into (see [[24]])
Who agrees that Yobal's version is the better one?
Also who agrees with Yobol that putting in direct quotes from Weston Price himself presented in peer reviewed material can be kept out just because Yobol claims they are "selective quotes" with NO PROOF to support this claim all the while Yobol avoids the focal infection theory article which has these exact same quotes and has to meet the higher WP:MEDRS bar?--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- You are the one who seems to be pushing a point of view and WP:OWNing the article. The kind of detail you have added to the lede is unwarranted, as the lede should reflect the main body of the article. That seemed to be true of the statements, "These ideas formed the basis of focal infection theory during this period and led to the mass extraction of teeth rather than the use of root canal therapy. This application of focal infection theory fell out of favor starting in the 1930s, and it is not currently considered viable in the dental or medical communities." Mathsci (talk) 16:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Given the conflicting nature of the WP:MEDRS noted in the focal infection theory article how is the above version better than "However, research in the 1930s raised questions about the quality of this and similar evidence and despite a cautious resurgence in interest in oral FIT there is still no scientific evidence for it working to the degree supported by Price and his contemporaries" which has Pallasch's 2003 article as a reference which Ingles (2009) PDQ Endodontics called recommended reading and talks about Weston Price in more detail than Grossman does (though admittedly not by that much)?
- I noted you ignored the fact Yobol removed the "Noted in the dental profession for his work in the relationship between x-ray and cancer, the invention and improvement of a pyrometer dental furnace, and the development of radiological techniques expanded on in the 1940s" part which is in the main body of the text having no less than seven reliable sources including Ingle's Endodontics (6 ed.) (I have added those as references in my restore)
- I also found this little gem: "The last paper was read by Weston A Price DDS of Cleveland, "Focal Infection" tracing the source of infection to the gums, tonsils and accessory sinuses, showing the intimate relationship between the nose and threat surgeon and dentist" ((1915) The Lancet-clinic, Volume 113; pg 508) If you have reliable sources that address the "gums, tonsils and accessory sinuses" part of Price's FIT I think we would love to see them.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- You asked for an opinion. You seem to be advocating a minority point of view in that article and related articles; it differs from the mainstream point of view. I also find it odd that the biography of someone who died in 1948 is being used as a WP:COATRACK to discuss current practices in dentistry/nutrition. Mathsci (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- I also found this little gem: "The last paper was read by Weston A Price DDS of Cleveland, "Focal Infection" tracing the source of infection to the gums, tonsils and accessory sinuses, showing the intimate relationship between the nose and threat surgeon and dentist" ((1915) The Lancet-clinic, Volume 113; pg 508) If you have reliable sources that address the "gums, tonsils and accessory sinuses" part of Price's FIT I think we would love to see them.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- The reason for that has to do with the Weston A. Price Foundation's claims about the continued relevance of Price's work and the resulting recent critiques of Price's work by professional skeptics (e.g. Stephen Barrett). Had no one resurrected his theories he'd simply have been a figure in the history of dentistry, and perhaps also the history of nutrition, but now his very dated research is the center of controversy. I would personally prefer it if all of that stuff went into the entry for the foundation instead, but what happened some months ago was that a couple of editors insisted on adding Barrett's critique into the entry. Ever since then Bruce has been arguing to include all kinds of other materials, which IMO also do not belong in the entry.Griswaldo (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- It not just the Weston A. Price Foundation but as user:Ocaasi showed in Talk:Weston_Price#Price_and_FIT-inspired_.27holistic_dentistry.27 a lot of other people using his work with George E. Meinig being the main lightning rod according to Ingles 6th ed. I agree that the article should be on the man himself and not what others have done with his work but the lead in Yobol supports fails to explain why Price is important now while mine (as flawed as it is) at least tries to deal with that issue. IMHO too much is on what others are using Price's work for rather than what the man himself said.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
- You know, I've tried multiple times to get Bruce either to take this over to the Focal Infection Theory page or elsewhere, because it doesn't belong on Price's Bio. I don't understand why he doesn't get that, and I'm tired of arguing about the issue with him. If he wants to say stuff about modern applications of FIT, he should do it somewhere where they talk about modern applications of FIT, not on the article about someone who was long dead before FIT started to be reconsidered. --Ludwigs2 19:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- The problem as I keep pointed out is the biography keeps making a medical statement about the current status of FIT. Administrator User:Will Beback stated that "(h)owever articles that appear in scholarly journals are considered to be reliable for most purposes. If we're using it to make medical claims, then it would have to meet the stricter standards at WP:MEDRS, but I don't have enough information to tell if it does."
- Personally I think the only way this article can truly move forward is if we go back to Price's contemporaries and see how they summed up his ideas. The one sentence in Pallasch 2003 Yobol harps about is actually referenced to Price WA Buckley JP. "Buckley–Price debate: subject: resolved, that practically all infected pulpless teeth should be removed." J Am Dent Assoc 1925: 12: 1468–1524 and rice WA. (1925) "Fundamentals suggested by recent researches for diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of dental focal infections." J Am Dent Assoc 1925: 12: 641–665. or some 47 pages worth of material including a debate. And as I have repeatedly stated it is not me who makes the connection between Price and his contemporaries and what is going on with regard to modern FIT but the reliable source Pallasch (and a whole host of non RS)!
- "Little attention then as now was paid to the observations that temporal associations are the weakest of epidemiological links and that many of its proponents were infected with the concept of ‘after it, therefore because of it’ for which even today there is no preventive vaccine." Pallasch set up the rabbit experiments of Weston Price and Rosenow as an example of the "then" and and spends the next six pages on the "now". If you go back to Grossman you will see he put Price and Rosenow together just as Pallasch does.
- Strangely a 1935 Journal of the Canadian Dental Association article cited Price's 1923 book as an example of conservatism with regards extraction of teeth due to FIT which is puzzling for a man Pallasch says "asserted that ‘practically all’ infected non-vital teeth should be removed rather that endodontically treated to prevent or cure focal infections."
- Furthermore Price's comments in his 1939 book "The evidence seemed to indicate clearly that the forces that were at work were not to be found in the diseased tissues, but that the undesirable conditions were the result of the absence of something, rather than of the presence of something" make you wonder if he still supported FIT in 1939. We can't say but we can put his exact words on the matter in his bio and let the reader decide.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Bruce, there should be no discussion whatsoever of FIT as a theory on Price's bio. It's not the place for it. I would be happy to discuss removing any claims that are made about FIT that are currently in the article - I could support that - but do not try to argue it out in the article, because it is not the correct place to do that. --Ludwigs2 22:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ludwigs2, with all due respect how on Earth did you come up with this idea? There are dozens of RS articles that mention Price's work regarding FIT including the The Journal of the American Dental Association, The Dental cosmos, Pickett-Thomson Research Laboratory, Canadian Dental Association, Dental summary, Dental journal of Australia, Endodontic Topics and Ingels as far back as 2002 (who now has a 7th edition-2010 out). This is ignoring all the non RS people using Price's research to push their own views.
- Bruce, there should be no discussion whatsoever of FIT as a theory on Price's bio. It's not the place for it. I would be happy to discuss removing any claims that are made about FIT that are currently in the article - I could support that - but do not try to argue it out in the article, because it is not the correct place to do that. --Ludwigs2 22:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- This is not like the idea that Louis Pasteur might have seen penicillin but didn't realize its impact--like or not FIT was a major part of Price's work. I have already pointed the third party 1916 Lancet-clinic article showing that Price application of FIT included "gums, tonsils, and accessory sinuses" and so wasn't just limited to teeth or root canals. FIT clearly belongs in Price's bio but the question is what is being presented actually Price's views rather than those who use his work. That is why IMHO we need to go back to the old material of Price's time and see what his contemporaries said and note how it disagrees with the more recent source material. After all isn't noting when sources conflict at the heart of NPOV?
- That is why I say IMHO neither the Stephen Barrett or Weston A. Price Foundation rebuttal really belong in the page as neither is really reliable with regards to the biography. As I showed in Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_21#Burn_Barrett_Bandwagon.3F Stephen Barret had NO IDEA what he was talking about with regards to Price.
- To paraphrase Yobol: "One last time: this is an article on Weston Price." This is not the article on holistic dentistry. So why is this holistic dentistry nonsense in Price's biography? What reliable sources show that Weston Price was a holistic dentist?--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- I should note that these issues have been discussed ad nauseum over months on the article talk page, so I feel no need to repeat myself here, except to note that Bruce's approach, which is to delve into 80-100 year old primary sources to build this article rather than use reliable more current secondary sources flies in the face of most Wikipedia policies, and no amount of discussion has been able to get this across to him. I would also like to thank Bruce for showing me these problems exist also in the Focal Infection Theory article (which I had not looked at all that close)...I will be addressing the problems there soon as well. Yobol (talk) 02:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- A 2003 article is a "80-100 year old primary source"?!? Yobol's claims are not born out by reality. Right now the entire basis of his version of the lead is based on an now out of date version of Ingles and given his efforts to push a unsupported idea that there were two theories and if he takes that nonsense to a page that have very good MEDRS references he is going to have issues.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- I should mention true to his word Yobol is now doing his nonsense in the focal infection theory article as well and so I have opened a NPOV thread on that mess. This is starting to look like the kind behavior we saw with User:Ronz (see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive97#Noticeboards.2C_source_criticism_and_claims_of_BLP_issues as well as a repeat of the Wikipedia:Recentism issue brought up in Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_21#Weston_Price_and_Quackwatch for the fun the editors had there) to exclude relevant material.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
New lead in still being blocked
I came up with a largely third party referenced lead in that even uses Ingels (see [[25]] which has already been determined as a reliable source and Yobol true to form reverted it back to the unreferenced stuff (see [[26]]
A) I sure you all agree that the first part of the first paragraph with four third party references is well referenced and there are sources that can back up the second part so WP:OR can NOT be put out as a valid argument. More to the point the first sentence establishes why Price is important outside of all the current use of his work.
B) The second part has two references--both third party.
C) The third part is simply a reworking of what already exists.
Who here agrees with Yobol keeping in a unreferenced lead in that has nothing to support anything it claims and more importantly why? Please, no vague unsupported claims or references to previous versions; you must explain why Yobol's unreferenced version is better than my third party referenced on.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
NPOV issues in the Focal Infection theory article
True to his word User:Yobol is engaged in his "quote out of context" nonsense in the focal infection theory article now. He is using his claim to remove direct quotes by Price from the Journal of the American Medical Association and a book published by by the Medical Book Department of Harper & Brothers. As a trip to the "The progressive decline of modern civilization" chapter of Nutrition and Physical Degeneration shows that I am quoting nearly the entire paragraph. The sentence before this Price states "Our problem of modern degeneration involves both individual and group destiny. Our approach to this study will, accordingly, involve first a critical examination of the forces that are responsible for individual degeneration."
IMHO Yobal's behavior is bordering on POV pushing with regards to Weston Price.
Who agrees with Yobal that a near full paragraph in a book published by the Medical Book Department of Harper & Brothers with a reference to the entire chapter is being "quoted out of context"? Who says that Price stating
1) "(i)n my search for the cause of degeneration of the human face and the dental organs I have been unable to find an approach to the problem through the study of affected individuals and diseased tissues.
and
2) "The evidence seemed to indicate clearly that the forces that were at work were not to be found in the diseased tissues, but that the undesirable conditions were the result of the absence of something, rather than of the presence of something."
while referring back to his 1923 Dental Infections is not relevant to his position regarding focal infection theory?
Sure we can't summarize what Price meant by this so why not use the quote? If anyone agrees this is out of context please have them explain what else "The evidence seemed to indicate clearly that the forces that were at work were not to be found in the diseased tissues" could apply to.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Consensus above suggests that modern focal infection theory should not be discussed in the biography of Weston Price. Please keep the discussion of Focal infection theory on the talk page of that article. If you have complaints about the conduct of particular editors, WP:ANI is a more appropriate venue, provided the complaints are well-founded. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Mathsci, did you even bother to READ what I said? This is about the focal infection theory article and NOT the Weston Price article. It even says that in the title.
- Also there is no real consensus in the regarding Price's quotes. Ludwigs2 feels there should be "no discussion whatsoever of FIT as a theory on Price's bio" (which has its own set of issues as even his obituaries and memorials talk Price's work in focal infeciton clear into the 1950s), and Griswaldo is not clear about the material he has issues with (most likely the general FIT stuff that the quote)--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- There is no need to use capital letters or coloured/bold fonts: please do not shout. You have opened up two threads here which seemingly only attract editors already active on the articles. Even here you mention Weston Price, so the issues remain unchanged. Long threads have been generated elsewhere (eg on WP:FTN). Posting here does not seem to be an appropriate way to resolve disputes on either article. If you have complaints about another editor's conduct, WP:ANI is the right noticeboard. From my perspective, it is you who appear to be pushing a minority point of view. Mathsci (talk) 07:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- We already had one of those (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive675#Weston_Price.2C_NPOV.2C_and_MEDRS) and nothing was done. The issue of putting misleading and out of date medical claims was never addressed by the other editors.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- That was a thread started by you and no administrative action was considered appropriate. Which medical claims are out of date? The statements by Weston Price, or something more recent than 1939? Mathsci (talk) 08:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- I explained that fully in the above link. "This application of focal infection theory fell out of favor starting in the 1930s, and it is not currently considered viable in the dental or medical communities." is the problematic passage.
- That was a thread started by you and no administrative action was considered appropriate. Which medical claims are out of date? The statements by Weston Price, or something more recent than 1939? Mathsci (talk) 08:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- We already had one of those (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive675#Weston_Price.2C_NPOV.2C_and_MEDRS) and nothing was done. The issue of putting misleading and out of date medical claims was never addressed by the other editors.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- There is no need to use capital letters or coloured/bold fonts: please do not shout. You have opened up two threads here which seemingly only attract editors already active on the articles. Even here you mention Weston Price, so the issues remain unchanged. Long threads have been generated elsewhere (eg on WP:FTN). Posting here does not seem to be an appropriate way to resolve disputes on either article. If you have complaints about another editor's conduct, WP:ANI is the right noticeboard. From my perspective, it is you who appear to be pushing a minority point of view. Mathsci (talk) 07:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Also there is no real consensus in the regarding Price's quotes. Ludwigs2 feels there should be "no discussion whatsoever of FIT as a theory on Price's bio" (which has its own set of issues as even his obituaries and memorials talk Price's work in focal infeciton clear into the 1950s), and Griswaldo is not clear about the material he has issues with (most likely the general FIT stuff that the quote)--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- "Additionally, recent evidence associating dental infections with atherosclerosis and other chronic diseases has also helped resurrect the focal infection theory." (Silverman, Sol; Lewis R. Eversole, Edmond L. Truelove (2002) Essentials of oral medicine PMPH usa; Page 159) This book is now published by the same people that put out Ingles.
- The Pallasch 2003 article expresses concern that given focal infection theory's easy explanation and economic incentive to use it one could easily see the same application as seen in Price's time. As I stated before the Pallasch 2003 article 1) Defines FIT, 2) talks about Weston Price while going into the history of focal infection theory, and 3) goes into the current situation regarding focal infection theory. It also make several connection between the enthusiasm in Price's time and the current situation.
- PDQ Endodontics (2009) by Ingles clearly states "And even today, cancer and neuropsychiatric disorders are blamed on focal infection" making the statement supported by Ingles 2002/2007 (the 5th and 6th editions are nearly identical in this regard) statements out of date. In fact Ingles 2007 states the revival of FIT is "based on the poorly designed and outdated studies by Rosenow and Price" and no mention of the modern revival triggered by the work of Mattila (Fowler, Edward B "Periodontal disease and its association with systemic disease" Military Medicine (Jan 2001)) is made. PDQ Endodontics by contrast does comment on the revival thanking Pallasch for his information and so does NOT make the "not currently considered viable in the dental or medical communities" claim that the older versions did and even recommends the Pallasch 2003 article for additional reading.
- Heck, Pallasch in 2000 was stating "The resurgence of the focal infection theory of disease has been greeted with great enthusiasm in some quarters" citing three papers from 1998 including Meskin's "Focal infection: Back with a bang!" in no less than the Journal of the American Dental Association so the Ingel's piece was already out of date in 2002 (which was my point)
- A more NPOV sentence would be "Idea that focal infection was a primary cause of systemic disease fell out of favor starting in the 1930s, and despite a cautious modern revival "Focal Infection Theory fails to pass scientific scrutiny" (Pallasch 2003)--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Chevrolet Vega problems
This article is dominated by one user named User:Barnstarbob pushing a pro-Vega agenda. The Chevrolet Vega is widely considered to have been one of America's worst cars, but criticisms are shunted to bottom paragraphs and overwhelmed with positive detail. The article dominator deletes inline citations, reverts "COI" tags by other users, is uncooperative and doesn't participate with WP:AGF. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, that article's got issues. BSB obviously dominates the talk page, and the main page itself is very much fixed in the early 1970s, with all mention of the Vega's historical significance buried at the bottom. I mean, it's there, which is something, but the article very clearly leads with the positive whenever possible, and burying the criticism section changes the character of quite a few earlier quotes. For instance: Car & Driver picked it as one of its 10 most collectible cars, with the comment "We're talking about historical significance here." But that appears at the end of a long list of awards won by the Vega and before any mention of its legacy as a "black eye" for Chevy, which makes the historical significance seem positive to somebody who doesn't already know what they're talking about.
- Also, I never thought I'd ever run across the phrase "pro-Vega agenda" unless it involved Street Fighter. ShaleZero (talk) 14:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- Tomwsulcer, I generally agree with the characterization of the Chevrolet Vega article which you and ShaleZero have provided. On the other hand, it's also important to note that other editors have given a barnstar and other praise to Barnstarbob for his work on the article, saying it is more detailed and well-researched than the typical car model article. What do you propose be done? -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Personally, I wouldn't propose to delete any of the content Barnstarbob added to the page, but to reorganize it. The Vega's one of the best-known cars of its decade and definitely deserves a comprehensive article; it just needs to stop dancing around why the Vega is so well-known. If I had free reign of the page, I'd move the "reception" section much higher and add either a third subsection or a subsequent full section on the car's popular reception, to examine how the car went from best-seller to discontinued in the space of seven years. Either way, the article needs a full "Legacy" section on how the eventual failure of the Vega line (a) affected Chevrolet as a company and (b) led to its sitting alongside the Pinto and the Yugo as one of the all-time bad cars in popular culture.ShaleZero (talk) 11:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
How best to present disputed information
Idris al-Senussi is a claimant to the abolished throne of Libya. The man has gained quite a bit of notoriety in the media, including most recently in the U.S., in light of the protests against Gaddafi. But the legitimacy of his claims have been widely questioned.
- The two main sources used in the list, Christopher Buyers and Henry Soszynski, both present the son of the last crown prince, Muhammad al-Senussi, as the rightful heir.
- In 1995, a British magistrate ruled that "The world of make belief has totally absorbed Mr Idris Al-Senussi in this case. Mr al-Senussi wishes people to believe he is the heir presumptive to the Libyan throne. ... [T]he clear evidence in this case says that crown prince Muhammad, son of the last Crown Prince of the Kingdom of Libya, has a stronger case".
- This case followed his attempt to convince British members of parliament that he was the "great nephew of the late King Idris of Libya". However, David Williamson, co-editor of Debrett's Peerage, instead described the man (after also mocking his claim) as "the second son of the sixth son of the second son of the younger brother of Idris's father." (The Sunday Times) Buyers' genealogy matches this association exactly. Soszynski doesn't list him at all.
There is now a disagreement regarding how best to present his claim on List of current pretenders. WP:LIST requires a verifiable inclusion criteria, and this list currently requires a legitimate link to the throne. The order of succession in Libya was codified in Art. 45 of the Constitution: primogeniture, or failing that, nomination by the reigning king. This man fails both of these, and it's verified by independent sources. Similarly dubious claims are presented in the article either in plain prose or in a footnote, but not as a main entry. The other editor involed claims that presenting claims unequally violates NPOV. As for myself, I consider it a violation of NPOV to give dubious claims the same weight as those that are generally recognised; see the following relevant sections from WP:NPOV: I'm hoping that editors here, familiar with the policy, can determine which is the right way to go. Any comments would be greatly appreciated. Nightw 08:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- My reading is that we should exclude people like Emperor Norton, whose claims are entirely illegitimate. TFD (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Metapedia
Metapedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ongoing whitewashing attempt by a single purpose account on this article about a white nationalist and far right website purporting to be an encyclopedia, more editors keeping an eye on this would be helpful. 81.147.155.12 (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
"Considered a legend"
Google currently lists 64 uses of "considered a legend" on Wikipedia, and most — if not all — of them are uncalled for. Someone wants to clean it up? --Damiens.rf 16:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- Great! Well, I have to say your exposure of this unacceptable phrase everywhere in Wikipedia is umm legendary? Is there a bot that can fix this?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks! I know I'm the best! [citation needed]. --Damiens.rf 02:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- When reliable sources refer to the individual as a legend, it's appropriately used in the article. You might want to actually check the sources before tagging or altering the language, certainly not all of them are appropriately used, however of the first 7 on that google search 2 of them were linked to reliable sources using the word "legend".--Crossmr (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Not really. Considered is weasel wording and legendary is non-neutral language. We do not allow not-neutral text just because we know whose opinion it is. Still, some of them may be justifiable. --Damiens.rf 02:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- The first hit I got was from the Simple English Encyclopedia, "[ William Tell ] is considered a legend". The English Wikipediqa articles says that he is a legend. How would you re-phrase this? TFD (talk) 02:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- That's where "considered mythical" might work better. Most of the entries appear to be hype, and not many of the "legendary" comments actually are from quotes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Legends tend to be about humans, while myths are about supernatural characters. TFD (talk) 03:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Then keep it as "legend" where it really is a legend, and dump it elsewhere unless it's an integral part of a quote. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- I agree as "myth" and "legend" are used interchangeably. Bulfinch's Mythology or John Remsburg's The Christ give more detailed descriptions how "myth" is used.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Then keep it as "legend" where it really is a legend, and dump it elsewhere unless it's an integral part of a quote. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Legends tend to be about humans, while myths are about supernatural characters. TFD (talk) 03:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- That's where "considered mythical" might work better. Most of the entries appear to be hype, and not many of the "legendary" comments actually are from quotes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- The first hit I got was from the Simple English Encyclopedia, "[ William Tell ] is considered a legend". The English Wikipediqa articles says that he is a legend. How would you re-phrase this? TFD (talk) 02:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Not really. Considered is weasel wording and legendary is non-neutral language. We do not allow not-neutral text just because we know whose opinion it is. Still, some of them may be justifiable. --Damiens.rf 02:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Weasel words and non-neutral language is usually only a concern when we don't attribute it. In fact we have a section exactly on that Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Attributing_and_specifying_biased_statements. If reliable sources refer to a subject as a legend, especially multiple sources, there is no reason that that shouldn't be included in the article.--Crossmr (talk) 05:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Most of them are unattributed. So they're either hype on the part of the editor, or they were lifted from another source without attribution. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- If they are sourced by the attributed language is missing "according to.." that can easily be fixed rather than running around blindly tagging sources as failing verification as he did when the language is present in the source. That kind of editing is bordering on pointy and disruptive.--Crossmr (talk) 09:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Who did it? --Damiens.rf 01:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Better yet give us examples.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- You did. Right here [27]. You tagged the source as failing verification for the term "legend". Yet, the article in question clearly makes the statement about the individual. For several seasons, Anyang Halla has been coached by Otakar Vejvoda. A legend of Czech hockey as both a standout defenseman for HC Kladno and a successful coach, Vejvoda is now in his third season behind the Anyang Halla bench.. When the NHL correspondent refers to an individual as a legend in hockey, I'd say that's a rather authoritative classification.--Crossmr (talk) 08:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- No. As said above, this is inherently non-neutral language, and Wikipedia should not parrot that kind of statements. NHL texts are written for fans and contain a certain amount of hype. Reader discretion is advised. --Damiens.rf 14:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia specifically has policy addressing that kind of text. It specifically discusses how to word them and does not prohibit their use. It's your opinion on how NHL news stories are written and what degree of hype (if any) they contain. You've failed to provide any any evidence that these kinds of statements shouldn't exist at all, nor support your claim about NHL news stories, in addition you seemed to have no recollection of even making the edit, nor the fact that the text you were objecting too appeared directly in the cited article. My original comment stands that your edits seem borderline pointy and disruptive.--Crossmr (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- We had such WP:PEACOCK issue over in Weston Price article regarding him being a Charles Darwin of Nutrition and to use it we had to state just where it came from in the text itself. The Czech hockey example above does not do that. Per WP:PEACOCK the material should read something like "According to Meltzer in a NHL news story Vejvoda is considered both a standout defenseman for HC Kladno and a successful coach."--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- "standout defensemen" is no less of an opinion than legend, and both terms appear in the text. My point was the false tagging of the passage rather than adding the attributed language. Tagging it as failing verification would indicate the text did not appear in the citation when it in fact did.--Crossmr (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Not so much false tagging as incorrect tagging. [vague], [who?], or [neutrality is disputed] would have been more appropriate.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- There was nothing vague about it. His legend status was attributed to his skill as a player and coach, and it was cited. While it was unattributed in the article, it could have been attributed if he was so inclined, but it was clear he was just going to tag things rather than actually check the citations. Had he bothered to check it, he would have seen the text appearing there, and thus his edits were borderline pointy and disruptive. If he's got some kind of argument to make, he needs to far more careful with his edits. Especially for someone who was just blocked for trying to force uncited text into an article. It puts it in a far more pointy context. As far as being point of view, there is nothing inherently wrong with it being point of view so long as it's attributed in text. Your version is no less point of view, as "stand out defenseman" is just as much opinion as "legend" is.--Crossmr (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Not so much false tagging as incorrect tagging. [vague], [who?], or [neutrality is disputed] would have been more appropriate.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- "standout defensemen" is no less of an opinion than legend, and both terms appear in the text. My point was the false tagging of the passage rather than adding the attributed language. Tagging it as failing verification would indicate the text did not appear in the citation when it in fact did.--Crossmr (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- We had such WP:PEACOCK issue over in Weston Price article regarding him being a Charles Darwin of Nutrition and to use it we had to state just where it came from in the text itself. The Czech hockey example above does not do that. Per WP:PEACOCK the material should read something like "According to Meltzer in a NHL news story Vejvoda is considered both a standout defenseman for HC Kladno and a successful coach."--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia specifically has policy addressing that kind of text. It specifically discusses how to word them and does not prohibit their use. It's your opinion on how NHL news stories are written and what degree of hype (if any) they contain. You've failed to provide any any evidence that these kinds of statements shouldn't exist at all, nor support your claim about NHL news stories, in addition you seemed to have no recollection of even making the edit, nor the fact that the text you were objecting too appeared directly in the cited article. My original comment stands that your edits seem borderline pointy and disruptive.--Crossmr (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- No. As said above, this is inherently non-neutral language, and Wikipedia should not parrot that kind of statements. NHL texts are written for fans and contain a certain amount of hype. Reader discretion is advised. --Damiens.rf 14:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Who did it? --Damiens.rf 01:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- If they are sourced by the attributed language is missing "according to.." that can easily be fixed rather than running around blindly tagging sources as failing verification as he did when the language is present in the source. That kind of editing is bordering on pointy and disruptive.--Crossmr (talk) 09:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Most of them are unattributed. So they're either hype on the part of the editor, or they were lifted from another source without attribution. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Weasel words and non-neutral language is usually only a concern when we don't attribute it. In fact we have a section exactly on that Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Attributing_and_specifying_biased_statements. If reliable sources refer to a subject as a legend, especially multiple sources, there is no reason that that shouldn't be included in the article.--Crossmr (talk) 05:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Could a few people have a look at Trafigura. An IP editor has been removing lots of negative information and slanting the rest in a more positive light [28]. A couple of editors have reverted, prompting some long posts on the talk page - it's currently back on the IP's version. The article may well have too negative before, but now it's gone a long way in the opposite direction. Trafigura have tried to improve their image on wikipedia in the past (Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2007-05-21/Trafigura); this might be good faith editing but I think more experienced eyes are needed.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Just got a level 3 warning for my edit at Indus Valley Civilization
I've just been given a Level 3 warning for presumably this edit: [29]. The editor, Wangond (talk · contribs) removed the entire sentence (not just my edit) and a citation request of mine at [30] . There been a brief discussion at the article talk page and I certainly didn't expect this, although I note that he removed a citation to Sharri Cla earlier claiming it wasn't in the source, which was I believe just plain wrong. He appears to think that any suggestion that disagrees with h about mother goddesses is a " minority views npov violation". I don't want to get involved in an edit war (see his talk page, he's had a couple of warnings recently about 3RR), but Clark has a number of interesting things to say about the figurines - see [31] which should be in the article. The whole mother goddess issue is also not cut an dried as I've pointed out at Talk:Indus Valley Civilization#Religion and mother goddess.
- Editor's first edit was [32] which removed a cited claim that the Indian Ocean was named after India (no edit summary). [33] was a basic change in the etymology of the article from what looked like a well cited claim that the origin was generally thought to be Sanskrit but might be Tamil, removing the Sanskrit paragraph and asserting it was Tamil. So we may well have an NPOV problem but I hope it's not on my part. Dougweller (talk) 11:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
The violation was made by you. According to wp:npov, such sentences are not allowed to have prominence like the majority view. Furthermore, Clark doesnt contenst the majority view, but giving stimulus to other views. The addition of Clark have thus no basis for inclusion, especially not in a dispute way. The word Malaysia is not thought to be from Sanskrit. This is not referenced by any source, the editors have given in the Malaysia article. The sources say only, that there is a Sanskrit work, which references to Sumatra as Malayadvipa. Etymology is about the sorces of words, not references from works to this word.--Wangond (talk) 11:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- It seems there is an issue with sanskrit, among other things, see here where the editor altered a disambiguation to say that it was a sanskrit loanword. I'm not sure it's appropriate for a disambiguation page either. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- I put a fact tag asking for references for what you claim to be the majority view, and you removed it. You don't appear to understand NPOV if you think Clark's viewss don't belong in the article. The sentence you removed, "However, this view has been disputed by S. Clark who sees it as an inadequate explanation of the function and construction of many of the figurines." doesn't violate NPOV, in fact I'd say it's required if we are going to have "In view of the large number of figurines[1] found in the Indus valley, it has been widely suggested that the Harappan people worshipped a Mother goddess symbolizing fertility." I've said that that claim worries meas it is cited to another work by Clark [34] which does not make this 'widely suggested' claim and could be read as suggesting that Clark has made that claim. As for Malaysia, right or wrong, your edit summary "vandalism no source for the claims made" not helpful. I agree with what you say about etymology but it was neither vandalism nor unsourced, although the sources might be being misused. Dougweller (talk) 11:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your support on Malaysia. I have talked to chipmunk about this, and he still doesnt understand the matter. However on IVC, are you still contesting a majority view about mother goddess worship requiring a source? even after I told you to look in google books on the talk page? --Wangond (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- I am saying it needs citing and you should not have removed the fact tag, but more importantly I easily found sources making statements such as " Given our current knowledge, we are unable to understand fully the position of a Mother Goddess as a fertility deity or, for that matter, the role of other female divinities in the religious fabric of the protohistoric societies of India. It is uncertain if the Harappan population had any idea of a single supreme Goddess with or without a male counterpart or if they were governed by magician-priests or even if they had a highly developed religion."[37] and the comments in this book [38] eg "At one time scholars tended to use the "Mother Goddess' label for all female figurines found at sites. This largely because of the belief that the worship of fertility goddesses was an important part of agricultural society. In the light of such problems the term "Mother Goddess" should be replace by the longer but more neutral phrase — 'female figurines with likely cultic significance'... " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 12:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your support on Malaysia. I have talked to chipmunk about this, and he still doesnt understand the matter. However on IVC, are you still contesting a majority view about mother goddess worship requiring a source? even after I told you to look in google books on the talk page? --Wangond (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Pov entrenchment at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories
I have edited many controversial articles and BLPs but this is the most difficult in terms of entrenched pov bias (the pov being that this matter's "truth"(that Obama was born in Hawaii) is obvious and must be reflected in the article's title, section titles and general content). This is also the first such article where consensus seems unwaverable for retaining the pov in the title,section titles and content
There are 3 npov issues that I think need addressing;
- 1: Respect for the pov tag. Three different Editors have attempted to place a pov tag on the article 5 different times in the past 12 hours only to have the tag summarily removed. [39][40][41]
- 2: The section title "Release of the birth certificate" is misleading in its povishness and incorrect terminology, yet again, multiple efforts by multiple Editors to correct the title have been quickly reverted. Its really a matter of a single, albeit important, word distinction. The image, and what was released, is a short form,computer generatedcertification; yet the section title keeps getting reverted to misapply the term for the more detailed long form "certificate", which applies to something quite different in the State of Hawaii as shown here:
- from the article; source #35[42]"Birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth and Certifications of Live Birth) and Certificates of Hawaiian Birth are the primary documents used to determine native Hawaiian qualification.The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth (original birth certificate) and Certifications of Live Birth because they are official government records documenting an individual’s birth. The Certificate of Live Birth generally has more information which is useful for genealogical purposes as compared to the Certification of Live Birth which is a computer-generated printout that provides specific details of a person’s birth. Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth."
- 3:The article title is inherently pov as our own article on conspiracy theories states the term, "conspiracy theory", is perjorative. Also, it is even more pov because it does not apply as WP:COMMONNAME nor with any sense of logic (who are the alleged conspirators). I am attempting a move to substitute controversy for conspiracy theories but the comments thus far generally and openly display the entrenched close minded pov I am referring to. There are a couple of other Editors trying to pry open the discussion and insert some NPOV into the article but we have been overwhelmed in that regard.
Here are the links o the talk page discussions.
[43][44] Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- I agree entirely. It's impossible to edit objectively there. There is a group of POV folks there who simply won't allow anything that attempts to neutralize the POV. They take the position that the opposing POV is a fraud and must be identified as such. Any neutral phrasing of any contrary information is immediately reverted (usually on the ground that it was discussed long ago and an agreement reached).
- The underlying issue isn't inherently a "conspiracy theory" (as defined in WP) but the entrenched majority insists that it be called such - so that it sounds more dismissive (with no rationale... just that it's the consensus).
- I've never seen an article that it more appropriate for NPOV intervention. John2510 (talk) 14:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Wait - Do you acknowledge that claims that Obama isn't a natural born US citizen is a WP:FRINGE theory? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- It's impossible not to notice that you started a request for comment on the talk page yesterday and today the count of heads stands at 12 to 1 against you, or perhaps 14 to 3 if you count comments. The issue is obviously one of very strong consensus. Only when the strong consensus is against one does one ever characterize it as entrenched. Admit that you are in the minority and move on. Binksternet (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Editors should be aware of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation. Maybe we need to notify some editors about this. Dougweller (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Notified the OP, others may need to be notified but as the OP has been told by another editor they are getting close to edit warring there is a particular need for the OP to be clear about the probation. Dougweller (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Assuming the OP is acting in good faith and is simply unaware of the history of the matter, but this board is not an appropriate place to deal with this kind of thing. The OP needs to realize that when a bunch of experienced editors advise them not to add POV tags accusing Wikipedia of "liberal bias" for failure to give due credence to false conspiracy claims about the US president, they ought to listen and try to understand the situation instead of jumping to a knee-jerk conclusion that everyone but them is acting in bad faith. The article and subject are a sock / troll magnet as it is, and edit warring to insert POV tags because you don't agree with long term consensus on the article is not going to help. I'll probably avoid participating here b/c as I said it's not the right place, but allowing POV tags to stay up on articles like this has been consistently rejected, and encourages tendentiousness rather than resolution. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Anyway, the OP has made what's sometimes called a "perennial proposal" that has the effect of drawing a false distinction between the birth certificate Obama released and a "real" (but nonexistent) form of birth certificate that some conspiracy theorists claim he's hiding. It also attempts to recast the fringe claims as a "controversy" rather than a conspiracy theory. As a content matter both are contradicted by the sources, and have been rejected by a long term consensus of many editors. The Obama articles in particular, and other high traffic articles that are the matter of partisan politics, have seen a lot of "drive by tagging" by disgruntled editors (in many cases, persistent socks and trolls, hence some sensitivity and refusal to be dragged through repeated bureaucratic process on the matter). Language on the tag saying it shouldn't be removed doesn't make it so. The editors have reasonably decided not to allow tags denigrating the article and its editors from those unhappy because consensus runs against them. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- I assume I am the OP. I don't think I ever accused anyone of "liberal bias" and challenge Wikidemon to show that diff. I think Wikipedia is an organic and growing entity wherein perennial proposals,especially with the new Arizona legislation and Trump's involvement, are not a reason for dismissal, and the statement, as if it is fact, that a "real" form of birth certificate (which I believe in this case would be the original long form Certificate of Live Birth), is nonexistent is not supported by any of the Reliable Sources that I have read, some of which state that Hawaiian officials have seen such a document. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- The digital short form is today's official version of the long form and is sufficient in Hawaii to establish birth. That makes it a "real" birth certification even though it is demonstrably not a birth certificate of the old long form. Binksternet (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't agree with all of Mr.Grantevans2 claims above, but he is certainly right that there are some WP:OWNERSHIP / entrenched POV issues with this article. A few editors reject every substantive change, citing "long-term consensus", regardless of how many potential editors might come along and disagree. I made what I thought to be a couple pretty reasonable suggestions (as you can see on the talk page), and they were either ignored or rejected immediately. On the requested move, my first comment on the matter included the statement "I understand the desire to not legitimize the topic in the title, but conspiracy theory doesn't really fit", and yet I was dismissed without much thought. Never a "hmmm, yeah, maybe we can come up with somebody better than conspiracy theories that we all agree on". –CWenger (^ • @) 17:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
The entire article should be deleted as a WP:BLP violation and redirect to his bio article. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. It's a serious POV fork. The subject is already covered elsewhere and given more than the weight it deserves, which is about 2 sentences. The OP's complaint that Obama's Hawaiian birth is merely a "POV" is disingenuous. He (as well as the other "birthers") are essentially labeling Hawaii's record keepers as liars. That's a BLP violation in wikipedia, and theoretically libelous in the real world if anyone cared to dignify it enough to take action on it. And in fact it's a conspiracy theory... and it's a fact that conspiracy theorists don't like being labeled conspiracy theorists. Nothing new about that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- I am not a Birther (I just read the definition). I am not a proponent of any theory about Obama's birth and have no opinion about it at all. I actually like Obama. The pov I am referring to is semi-hysterical and name calling reactions to attempts to improve the article, not to mention rapid reverts of tags and content. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Much of tha "hysteria" is a function of exasperation, due to the birther POV-pushing over the last 2 1/2 years. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- If that is the case maybe they should take a wikibreak. –CWenger (^ • @) 23:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sure the lunatic fringe is hoping for that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- If that is the case maybe they should take a wikibreak. –CWenger (^ • @) 23:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. It seems necessary to emphasize that the "birther" POV is (as AQFK noted above) WP:FRINGE in terms of facts or truth. But the "birther" phenomena seems real enough, and just as we have articles about flat earth, Moon landing conspiracy theories, etc., an article about the birther theory(?) seems acceptable, and even desireable. But NPOV and WP:WEIGHT would require recognizing and reflecting that it is a fringe view. (Although that probably requires addressing why half (?) of the Republican party can't be wrong.) At any rate, such an article cannot be allowed as a WP:SOAPBOX for championing a fringe POV. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- A redirect could point here. But I'm not convinced that a redirect would be the best way to go. The issue is pretty big, and no other article is devoted exclusively to it. A better approach might be to try and make it NPOV. Some liberal Democrats, such as Chris Matthews, have urged release of the document. But the editors at this article refuse to mention such things, and prefer to suggest instead that there is nothing more to release, that only nutty fringe Republicans seek release, et cetera. Also, as you can see from the potential redirect location that I just suggested, the eligibility issue also involves something unrelated to conspiracies: whether your father has to be a US citizen to qualify you as "natural born" under the original meaning of the Constitution as written in 1787 (I personally think the answer is "no"). My point is that this article is trying to deliberately slime anyone and everyone who has eligibility concerns or who seeks release of documentation, as fringe right-wing conspiracy theorists. There are fringe right-wing conspiracy theorists here, but that's only part of the story..Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- I wonder if editors have the same feelings about George W. Bush military service controversy, i.e. it's a BLP violation and POV fork? –CWenger (^ • @) 20:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "editors"? There are thousands of editors; I would be stunned if at least some of them didn't think so. Presumably you mean the very specific editors who offered that opinion above.
- I'm an editor who doesn't happen to think either article is a BLP violation or a POV fork. They both are about issues that have been covered extensively in the press, thus there are tons of reliable sources, so I don't see how any sourced statement would be a BLP violation.
- Clearly, if the article said "Hawaii's record keepers are liars", that would be a BLP violation, but it does not.--NapoliRoma (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
The only "POV entrenchment" I see on that article is the desire to actually follow Wikipedia policies. People who think it is pushing a POV to not give equal validity to the birthers' fringe views just do not get how encyclopedias work in general. DreamGuy (talk) 00:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think any of the proposed changes would give equal validity to birthers. –CWenger (^ • @) 00:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I note that several editors have mentioned that the article is a BLP violation. I would suggest that they haven't a clue what that means. They should reread the WP:BLP policy. Any information, even the most offensive, is not a BLP violation IF PROPERLY SOURCED. There may be other arguments against using such information, but BLP isn't one of them. It must not only be properly sourced, but framed correctly. If framed as a notable opinion, it's still okay. BLP should not be used as an argument for censorship and whitewashing. We're already seeing plenty of that on all the articles related to the Koch brothers, where even articles by notable prize winning journalists published in RS like the LA Times aren't being allowed by certain entrenched tag teaming editors, in violation of NPOV. They too claim anything negative is a BLP violation, so those articles are hagiographies. That mustn't happen here.
As to redirecting, that's not appropriate because this isn't an improper fork. It's more about birtherism (IOW Obama's enemies) than about Obama, and a tweak of the title might be in order for that reason (not sure to what though ). Per FRINGE the phenomena deserves short mention in the Obama article, but that's all. The article deserves its own life as documentation of a very notable political phenomena, just like other ridiculous beliefs that are also documented in RS. It's notable enough that some statistics show that over half of the Republican membership are fooled by it. We can't ignore something that notable. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- The BLP violations, aside from those aimed at Obama, are also the ones aimed at the Hawaiian officials. Those officials have stated that a proper BC exists. The birthers are calling them liars. Wikipedia does not need to be in the position of aiding and abetting BLP violations. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. Any "unsourced or poorly sourced" addition of such opinions would be a BLP violation. Any "properly sourced" addition that was framed as if it was true would also be a violation of FRINGE and UNDUE. The difference between fact and fiction should be made plain, and there are myriad extremely reliable sources that do so. The fringe POV pushing editors don't understand our policies and one seems to think that just because Trump is pushing the issue gives it more credence. That's a hoot! If anything, that only.....nah, better not say it here.... ! As always, if we stick to RS, we're safe. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- So, using the process of elimination, it seems as if BullRangifertalk is saying that properly sourced additions which are framed simply as having been reported (as opposed to being "true") would be acceptable? The Trump view adds notability to the "questioning" group because he is polling #2 in the Republican party and #1 in the Tea Party. In terms of credibility of the person referenced, I don't think that's for us to deal with as it is another word for path towards "truth" discovery. Its the credibility of the Reliable Source which I think is more important to us? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- In principle and in practice that is often the case. It isn't Wikipedia's job to determine truth. Editors aren't allowed that freedom, because that would violate NPOV by editors taking sides in their edits. They are welcome to have personal opinions, but that mustn't cause them to engage in censorship or whitewashing, either by inclusion or exclusion of RS. We document what RS say, even if the opinion might not be true. We have whole articles devoted to documenting nonsense, such as the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article. It documents numerous false and libelous statements, but they are properly sourced and the fact they are false is made clear by using other RS. That's how to frame things properly.
- One of our most important policies is the WP:Verifiability policy, and it is very clear there that we are concerned with "verifiability, not truth". That doesn't mean we don't care about truth, or don't consider it, but that when we discover something isn't true, we frame it properly by making sure it isn't allowed to stand alone and deceive readers. It's not allowed to stand alone, as that would violate WP:Undue. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Its clear that there are at least 4 groups covered by Reliable Sources involved in this subject matter. The Birthers who are proponents of the view that Obama was not born in the USA, the "fightthesmears" group itentified in the article who say Obama was clearly born in the USA and the topic is not open for discussion, the agnostic but questioning group, which Donald Trump seems to belong to if one actually listens to his inteview [45]backup[46] on the Today Show, which want more information. And the fourth group, like myself, who don't have an opinion and don't really care whether he was born in the USA or not. Virtually all of the discussion on the article talk page by the more experienced Editors of this article ignores the possibility that Editors may belong to either the 3rd. or 4th.groups and thereby forces on the discussion page a false dichotomy which by the nature of dichotomy leads to non-constructive stalemate and/or bickering.
- And I do not understand why experienced editors would actively edit and vote on articles covering subject matter which they are highly opinionated about? To me it seems to be a direct hindrance to the whole effort of creating NPOV content in Wikipedia. Baseball Bugs comments above about "lunatic fringe" is the kind of opinions I am talking about as well as his assumption that I am a "Birther". If the "probation" designation means anything, it is exactly that type of commenting, if any, which I think should call for sanctions; although I personally am philosophically opposed to these types of article editing differentiations. (except for semi-protect). I personally have the opinion that any support for non-universal health care in any civilized society in 2011 would be coming from a "lunatic fringe" group. So I do not edit articles related to health care. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- That's odd. There's a discussion on the article talk page about this proposal, where it belongs but is opposed by fairly overwhelming consensus, and as I said I do not wish to participate in a process fork here or yet another blustering attempt to accuse editors of bad faith for being resistant to bad / biased birther content about Obama. True, four (or so) positions are reliably sourced, and it is also reliably sourced that one of them is correct, namely that Obama was born in the United States and is a US citizen, eligible for the presidency. Not caring and not being convinced about the accuracy of fringe theories and political smears to the contrary is not an unbiased opinion, it's giving a fringe theory credibility, and neutrality of the encyclopedia does not require that the encyclopedia sit on the fence as to the accuracy of every untruth that gains currency in every corner of the world. Please don't start calling for sanctions against editors you disagree with - we have some memory of that kind of battleground mentality in the articles, one of the reasons for article probation, and it does not make for constructive editing environment. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- The entrenched majority at the subject page continue (there and here) to confuse: 1) giving an unbiased description and analysis of the birther position; with 2) giving validty to the position. Mocking it, as opposed to describing it, is not encyclopedic. Cubby-holing it as a "conspiracy theory," etc. contributes nothing to the reader's understanding of the subject. I haven't edited there in a while. I figure it's so blatantly POV that it stands as a monument to the POV reality of Wikipedia when it comes to political subjects. John2510 (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- BTW... I observe that the WP articles on Yeti and Bigfoot are given a much more NPOV than is the subject article. Perhaps the editors find them less threatening... John2510 (talk) 16:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe because almost no one really takes them seriously. The birthers are Grade-A "conspiracy theorists". There is no getting around that. When confronted with statements by Hawaiian public officials, they say it's a lie. If they were shown the actual birth certificate, they would say it was a lie, a fake. The true conspiracy theorist never accepts the facts. It is not wikipedia's place to cater to those looneys. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- John2510: Your point is well-taken. And I agree that it's not encyclopedic to mock a fringe theory (as tempting as it may be). However, I read through the first third of the article (I got bored by the time I got to Campaigners and proponents and quit reading - sorry!) and the article seemed fairly well-balanced all things considered. I thought some of it was a bit redundant so I made a few minor fixes only one of which was reverted and is now being discussed on the article talk page per WP:BRD. What specific part(s) do you think descend into mocking? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Baseball Bugs mocks things on talk pages. I think he's just acting in character. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- It's like deja vu, as a few years back we had the exact same thing going on at the Apollo hoax page. And it's the same style of fanaticism. It is the conspiracists who are "entrenched", as they will never abandon their viewpoint regardless of any facts presented. They are like the "flat earthers" that way. That's why I call them "looneys"... on talk pages, as you note. I don't edit-war over this nonsense. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe you should try refraining from using terminology like "looneys". If I'm able to do it at 9/11 Conspiracy theories, so can you. :) 17:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Or "moon-bats" as they were called at the Apollo hoax page. Predictably, when the recent lunar orbiter transmitted photos that showed the moon landing sites from straight above, the moon-bats said they were fake. Surprise, surprise. And if you were to take the leading "birther", whoever that might be, directly into the state archives and show him the Obama BC, he would declare it a fake. Guarantee ya. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe you should try refraining from using terminology like "looneys". If I'm able to do it at 9/11 Conspiracy theories, so can you. :) 17:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- It's like deja vu, as a few years back we had the exact same thing going on at the Apollo hoax page. And it's the same style of fanaticism. It is the conspiracists who are "entrenched", as they will never abandon their viewpoint regardless of any facts presented. They are like the "flat earthers" that way. That's why I call them "looneys"... on talk pages, as you note. I don't edit-war over this nonsense. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, it looks like the article may have been cleaned up a little since I was last there. The term "conspiracy theory" is unduly loaded, dismissive and inherently mocking. I note the article gratuitously uses the term numerous times within the first few paragraphs. As I've argued on the article's talk page, theories about his citizenship (none of which, BTW, I believe) don't necessary involve a "conspiracy" and certainly don't meet the WP definition of a "conspiracy theory" - in that they don't require, "...conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning." I'm told the use of that term doesn't need to be consistent. I disagree. Simply calling them "theories" and describing the arguments pro and con would allow the reader to draw his own conclusions - which one would assume are that the theories are invalid. If they really are absurd, the appropriate treatment would seem to be to treat the arguments with all due care and deference, and then explain briefly why they are almost certainly false. I note also that the article has grown to a ridiculous size and is poorly structured. John2510 (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- To call them just "theories" without the "conspiracy" qualifier would be misleading. It would give undue weight. If you prefer "fringe theories", maybe. But they are not proper "theories". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Calling something a "theory" or a "claim" doesn't give it any weight - due or otherwise. That's the point. There's nothing good to be gained by slapping on a POV qualifier in front of the label. John2510 (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- IMHO, a reasonable compromise to achieve NPOV in the article as a whole would be to drop the "consipiracy" label, reference them as "fringe" theories in the opening paragraph, and then go on to address the arguments on both sides in as fair a manner as possible. The reader will presumably conclude that the theories are invalid and somewhat kooky... but he'll do that without WP ramming it down his throat. I seem to recall the article used to call them "false claims," which was even worse from an NPOV perspective than the current version. John2510 (talk) 18:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- To call them just "theories" without the "conspiracy" qualifier would be misleading. It would give undue weight. If you prefer "fringe theories", maybe. But they are not proper "theories". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Baseball Bugs mocks things on talk pages. I think he's just acting in character. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- John2510: Your point is well-taken. And I agree that it's not encyclopedic to mock a fringe theory (as tempting as it may be). However, I read through the first third of the article (I got bored by the time I got to Campaigners and proponents and quit reading - sorry!) and the article seemed fairly well-balanced all things considered. I thought some of it was a bit redundant so I made a few minor fixes only one of which was reverted and is now being discussed on the article talk page per WP:BRD. What specific part(s) do you think descend into mocking? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- I've always believed in following the sources. If reliable sources call it a "conspiracy theory", then it's proper for Wikipedia to do so as well. OTOH, I have sometimes noticed a tendency towards always inserting the word "conspiracy" before every single mention of the word "theories" which can sometimes become repetitive. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
These claims are baseless. The facts are, reliable sources describe the Birther claims as "conspiracy theories"(these just in the last week or two). It is not POV to describe them as such, and there are a plethora of reliable sources that describe them both as conspiracy theories and fringe views. In fact, the claims by the OP and a couple others here that wish to give "equal weight" to fringe views is the real problem. Both by Wikipedia guidelines and reliable sourced reality. I was reading but ignoring this thread, hoping an uninvolved Admin would just close it and the requested move down, because we have to go through these hoops and ladders in what seems like every other month or so. Many times with the same editors chiming in to declare the article POV. Perhaps we need a more detailed FAQ for the page, these claims are made way too often. Dave Dial (talk) 19:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree that a detailed FAQ would be helpful. In the RfC, several editors mentioned past arguments but an uninvolved editor will have no idea what those arguments were. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
There is no 'POV Entrenchment', the is a WP:Fringe theory that is not accepted as mainstream consensus and will never be without better evidence to the contrary. It may be a pain to go back in the archives and discover all of this, but that doesn't change this fact. SeanNovack (talk) 19:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- And how many articles describe the theories without using that judgmental label? The fact that some articles choose to make judgment calls doesn't mean WP must or should. A lot of reliable sources say that the New York Yankees are the greateast baseball team ever. Maybe they are, but I don't think WP needs to take a stand on that. As I said, WP seems reasonably objective on the Yeti and Bigfoot. I think it can let the reader draw his own conclusions here. WP tries to set a particularly high standard for objectivity, and there's simply no reason to make an exception here. Some people use FAQ's to intimidate editors and inappropriately suggest that an issue is closed to discussion. What new information would you see being added to "a more detailed FAQ?" John2510 (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- The "birthers" are indeed the entrenched POV-pushers. If evidence emerged that Obama was not in fact a natural born citizen, it would be accepted by the mainstrem. So far, no such evidence has emerged. And in the opposite case, if new and further-solid evidence were provided that should satisfy most doubters, the true "birthers" will continue to claim that it's a lie, just as the Apollo moon hoax believers and the flat earth believers do. It is not wikipedia's purpose to aid and abet their crusade. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- John, the bottom line is that we have to follow the sources. If they are calling this a conspiracy theory, then it's against NPOV to call it something else. We don't introduce bias to counter the bias of reliable sources. To answer your question about what I would like to see in the FAQ, in the RfC, several editors mentioned past arguments but an uninvolved editor will have no idea what those arguments were. I'd like to see a good paragraph or two explanation summarizing these past discussions. Can FAQs be misused to stifle debate? Sure. But we're supposed to assume good faith. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Quest, maybe I did it wrong but it looks like "Obama+birth+certificate+controversy" pulls up 973,000 while "Obama+birth+certificate+conspiracy+theory" pulls up 391,000.[47][48] Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Great minds must think alike, I just did a google hit count for the article talk page, and got 6.8 million hits for "Obama + citizenship". Probably "eligibility" is the most general concept, but not the most used term. The birth certificate is a part of it, but not the whole issue. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- US Google, no sets of terms in quotes unless noted:
- Obama citizenship controversy: 1,960,000
- Obama citizenship conspiracy: 2,110,000
- birther: 3,100,000
- birther controversy: 404,000
- birther conspiracy: 477,000
- "where's the birth certificate" controversy: 297,000
- "where's the birth certificate" conspiracy: 230,000
- --NapoliRoma (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Quest, maybe I did it wrong but it looks like "Obama+birth+certificate+controversy" pulls up 973,000 while "Obama+birth+certificate+conspiracy+theory" pulls up 391,000.[47][48] Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Mr.Grantevans2: This is the type of argument that would impress me. However, the problem with Google hits is that it returns web sites that don't qualify as reliable sources. When you limit it to sources which are reliable, I get:
- Obama birth certificate controversy - 383 hits[49]
- Obama birth certificate conspiracy theory - 217 hits[50]
Another metric I like to use is the Google News Archive Search.
- Obama birth certificate controversy - 551 hits[51]
- Obama birth certificate conspiracy theory - 519 hits[52]
NapoliRoma: There's a flaw in your first search string. "Obama citizenship controversy" returns hits on other topics such the controversy over the citizenship of illegal immigrants. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Plus, many of the results from the "Birth certificate controversy" hits are from non-reliable sources concerning this issue. Two of the top hits are from DavidDuke.com and WND. Google News is the search that should matter most, and the results speak for themselves.
- Obama "conspiracy theories" 490 recent results
- Obama "citizenship controversy" 0 recent results
- Obama "conspiracy theories" 3,390 Archive results
- Obama "citizenship controversy" 7 Archive results Dave Dial (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- The Google counts vary from minute to minute, but using the above as a model I tested another choice:
- birther 2,216 recent results (2,222 on a rerun)
- birther 3,140 Archive results
- Unlike "conspiracy theory", these would not include hits based on religion conspiracy theories, and are less likely to be inflated by hits to the Wikipedia article or its clones and mirrors. It's also more concise, already deemed widespread enough to be a redirect to the present article, and arguably no more POV or deprecatory than the current title. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Wow... This really cuts to the core of WP objectivity and standing behind NPOV. Who officially defines "reliable sources" in your search engine? Sources generally don't support the current POV of the article. We're apparently now getting into weighing "reliability" or, as you would have it, deferring to an oracle of reliablity. Does WP want to trust that source? Doesn't it make more sense to have a free exchange of ideas and let the listener decide? I guess that's a uniquely American and obsolete approach I have. John2510 (talk) 02:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Search engines are a tool but used this way all they can do is show notability and NOT "reliability". There are "tags" you can use to eliminate the garbage. For instance in the books section of google you can use "inpublisher" to limit the search to only know reliable publishers. THis is what is needed to sort the wheat form the schaff--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Received opinion is that Obama was born inside the United States. Deviant opinions should not be presented as if they had parity. TFD (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- John2510 seems to not understand about WP:WEIGHT, especially in regard to fringe theories, and that WP is not a WP:SOAPBOX for the trumpeting of little discredited views. It is a disservice to the readers (listeners) if unequal views are given "equal" status. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- John2510 has received several warnings and advice on his talk page about these matters, and was also informed that the article is under probation, so he's not ignorant about this. If he doesn't change his approach here, then the probationary sanctions may need to be enforced with a topic ban. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
[53] is presented as (edit summary) undoing User:Collect's major edits, for which he has no WP:Consensus
Is the change in lede back to the huge version (which, by the way, was not removed from the article) an advance to NPOV? Was the shorter lede more NPOV in any event? Does the article have significant POV issues? Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Your shorter version is a good start to the general housecleaning needed at that article. Binksternet (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually, there is an open RFC and an ongoing discussion about the Lead. One user, be it User:Collect or anyone else, cannot just take matters into his own hand in the middle of an ongoing process, and unilaterally re-write the lead, in order to bypass the RFC/Consensus-building process. This is not how Wikipedia works. Kurdo777 (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Manila hostage crisis
An editor added this note to one of the Chinese gov't response to the incident. I just want to know if this violates WP:NPOV.—Chris!c/t 01:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- NOTE: Three other editors agreed that it met NPOV, yet you still want to drag ths here. Brilliant~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 07:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see the point of adding that information. There is already a link to the Global Times article. We don't say the BBC is an autonomous public service broadcaster that operates under a Royal Charter and is owned by The Crown. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
It requires your intervention
The article is devoted to criticism of theory. But in fact protects theory against critics by hiding the facts.
There are others views:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_relativity_theory&diff=prev&oldid=423735550
- Is c=const proved?
- Is the speed of light constant? "Varying constants"
- RELATIVITY AND GPS
- Negation of relativity
But authors of articles do not want to see them. Пуанкаре (talk) 06:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
:This is a piece of Forum shopping. The user has already started a discussion about this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#What is it?, and all comments should go there, rather than fragmenting discussion of the question. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Perfectly true. It was a very careless mistake on my part. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Asatric/Vanatric (Germanic) Christiantiy
Germanic Saints?
Are there any official Germanic saints?
Grevenko Sereth 122.49.167.49 (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- What do you think? Which religion? What article does this pertain to?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Thor (film) Idris Elba
We're trying to work out what to do with the Thor (film) page. Basically, there has been some controversy stir about Idris Elba and a very, very small minority of white supremacists threatened at the time to Boycott the film.
What I am suggesting is that, it is not neutral, it gives far too much weight to this controversy stir. There is no mention whatsoever of anything except Idris addressing the controversy stir. Compare the character cast to all the others in this article and you can tell that there is something clearly wrong. I have attempted to rectify the issue, but have been unable to get through. I suggest only the following is needed on this section about the controversy stir:
- News of Elba's casting was met by online complaints from some comic book fans and white supremacists who saw it as inappropriate for a Norse deity to be played by a black actor. Kenneth called the controversy stir "daft".
or
- News of Elba's casting was met by online complaints from some comic book fans and white supremacists who saw it as inappropriate for a Norse deity to be played by a black actor. Idris called the controversy stir "ridiculous".
The rest of the article should not address the controversy stir at all, but how Idris felt playing the part, based on WP:NPOV. Therefore the following should be deleted: "In response Elba said, "We have a man [Thor] who has a flying hammer and wears horns on his head. And yet me being an actor of African descent playing a Norse god is unbelievable? I mean, Cleopatra was played by Elizabeth Taylor, and Gandhi was played by Ben Kingsley".[2] At the moment, there is NO mention of how Idris feels, or his thoughts about playing the part. It's all just addressing this blown-out-of-proportion controversy stir. It's too weighty in my opinion. For the past week or so I have tried to get this through but to no avail. And just to clarify what Wikipedia policy says: "To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. " KN→ talk • contribs 09:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Mention of this controversy stir is even mentioned on the Heimdall (comic) page, which I have left a comment about: see here. KN→ talk • contribs 11:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- I dont want to get into another drawn out discussion here but will offer a single rebuttal to the above and leave it at that. The current version is only two sentences; one stating the boycott and other is Elba's response. This is fair weight. Reducing Elba's response to a single word, unbalances the issue and reduces much of Elba's defense, that he so craftfully articulated. Unfortunately due to the media attention that the boycott has received, Elba statements have been mostly confined to addressing this issue and has not offered much information of any substance regarding the role itself. So any lack of content is not fault of Wikipedia or any bias, we work with what is available. Conficutus did suggest the following comment from Elba, "But Kenneth hadn't even given that a thought. He just needed an actor who has presence and command, and felt that I fitted the bill...It was so refreshing – and a testament to [Kenneth] as an actor and director that his casting was genuinely colour blind. I feel very proud of being part of that movie." Myself and couple of other editors stated that this particular quote offers no insight to the role itself. Elba here is simply stating that he was hired because he was right the person for the job (as is everyone else involved) and expressing his gratitude towards director Kenneth Branagh for hiring him (again not notable). The length of some of the other sections are longer because they do offer more insight (i.e. preparation, inspiration/influence, interpretation, etc.).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- To me, the issue isn't how to balance opinions about the controversy... the issue is whether to mention this so called "controversy" at all. I think mentioning it in the first place blows the idea that there really is a "controversy" way out of proportion, and gives undue weight to minority opinions. Blueboar (talk) 14:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- I thought so too originally, but it has received significant media coverage and is notable per WP:N. This was also discussed on the talk page, others have suggested to create an entire section detailing the "controversy" but we agreed a simple mention in its current location is fair weight.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- To me, the issue isn't how to balance opinions about the controversy... the issue is whether to mention this so called "controversy" at all. I think mentioning it in the first place blows the idea that there really is a "controversy" way out of proportion, and gives undue weight to minority opinions. Blueboar (talk) 14:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Kent Hovind
I would like to dispute the neutrality of the article on this man, specifically one sentence in the first paragraph. This is what I stated on that page's discussion board:
Putting aside that evolution itself requires a belief that a creator DOES NOT EXIST (as pointed out by some prominent evolutionists,) the statement, "Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence and research" is a blatant POV violation. First, the footnotes to that sentence link to talkorigins.org, which is a pro-evolution site so it is clearly not even a POV source. Second, the footnotes in question from talkorigins misrepresent their sources. In reponse to Hovind's claim that the geological column does not exist anywhere except in textbooks, they state, "John Woodmorappe, a young-earth creationist, has admitted that representative strata from the Cambrian to the Tertiary have been discovered lying in their proper order in Iran, by the Caspian, the Himalayas, Indonesia, Australia, North Africa, Canada, South America, Japan, Mexico, and the Philippines!" However, that statement by talkorigins is contradicted by Mr. Morappe himself who had this to say in an article titled, "The Geologic Column: Does it Exist?" : "Sometimes the motives of creationist researchers are challenged in an attempt to defend the concept of the geologic column. Consider, for instance, Glenn Morton’s tale of how I ‘set out to prove that the geologic column did not exist’, and then was forced to admit that it did. This fantasy has been picked up and repeated by other anti-creationists on the Internet without first checking what I actually wrote. The fact of the matter is, I in no sense tried to prove that the geologic column did not exist. The truth is that I already knew it didn’t! Nor was I in any way surprised to find that there are some places where lithologies attributed to all ten geologic periods can be found. I had known that long before. So had other informed creationists,[9] as pointed out earlier. In fact, I said so plainly on the first page of my article."
Morappe also goes on to say towards the end of his article, "There are a number of locations on the earth where all ten periods of the Phanerozoic geologic column have been assigned. However, this does not mean that the geological column is real. Firstly, the presence or absence of all ten periods is not the issue, because the thickness of the sediment pile, even in those locations, is only a small fraction (8–16% or less) of the total thickness of the hypothetical geologic column. Without question, most of the column is missing in the field. " The Geologic Column: Does It Exist?
Talkorigins then goes on to cite as another peice of evidence a second-hand relay of a phonecall between Edward Babinski and Glenn Morton. the same Glenn Morton who Morappe disputed in the paragraph above. So to say that this is research and scientific evidence is TOTALLY not accurate and clearly point of view. The proper sentence in the first paragraph should read, "Hovind's views, not surprisingly, are challenged by evolutionists," which is a factual and objective sentence.
The page has been locked and the original POV sentence has been retained. Therefore, I would like a POV tag placed on this article until a proper substitute sentence is placed. Thank you. — Dimestore (talk) 13:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
A new editor is making some very problematic changes to the lede of American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Specifically, he's adding information to a reference that doesn't appear on the website referenced (that: "AIPAC traces its history back to 1951, the date its founder left the employment of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs in New York." and is replacing some general lede-appropriate summary information with a very specific reference to an FBI file that is mentioned elsewhere in the article. I am particularly disturbed that the editor chose to include a quote about an allegation made against the organization while leaving off the part of the quote that stated the allegation was "unsubstantiated". Here is his latest edit. . GabrielF (talk) 19:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- ^ Photos: http://www.harappa.com/figurines/index.html
- ^ McClintock, Pamela (2011-03-04). "Black 'Thor' Actor Blasts Debate Over His Casting". The Holywood Reporter. Retrieved 2011-03-04.