Darkness Shines (talk | contribs) |
RegentsPark (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 377: | Line 377: | ||
::I do believe the discussion shows that to be in dispute. <b><i>[[user:Scythian77|The Scythian]]</i></b> 11:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC) |
::I do believe the discussion shows that to be in dispute. <b><i>[[user:Scythian77|The Scythian]]</i></b> 11:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC) |
||
:::What discussion would that be? There are none in the sources which I presented. Please provide sources which say there is a question over this being a genocide. [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines|talk]]) 12:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC) |
:::What discussion would that be? There are none in the sources which I presented. Please provide sources which say there is a question over this being a genocide. [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines|talk]]) 12:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC) |
||
Since this was the original title of the article, I suggest a [[WP:RM|requested move]] discussion is more appropriate for figuring out whether genocide, atrocities, or war crimes are better titles. (This is also discussed [[User_talk:RegentsPark#Still_following_me|here]].)--[[User:RegentsPark|regentspark]] <small>([[User talk:RegentsPark|comment]])</small> 13:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:38, 1 March 2013
Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context! | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Louisiana Science Education Act
Could someone please review the article on the Louisiana Science Education act, here: [1] The article appears to be written completly from the viewpoint of the small group seeking to repeal the act. Their original version did not Even cover the text of the act or the reasons it was proposed or passed in he first place. I have sought to add some balance to the article by including the purpose of the act, but am facing accusations of 'vandalism' by annonymous ip addresses for having done so. They are claiming that the statements by the bills author made in the legislative hearing are the authors opionion and not indicative of the intended purpose of the act. Pikachudad (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- You probably should not have raised this issue here. Your efforts on this article are the ongoing violations of NPOV. This bill has attracted opposition from the entire scientific community, has been opposed by a lengthy honor roll of Nobel prize winners, and the article should reflect this. Instead, you have insisted that the rhetorical assertions by the sponsors, pretending (as "intelligent design" backers always do) to be advocating for "neutrality", are in some mysterious way reliable. The bill's advocates are the ultimate in unreliable sources.
- It is also uncivil to insult anonymous editors just because they are not registered users. You will note that I am not one of them; I'm a proud dad and not even vaguely anonymous. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Although this article is well-written and generally well-referenced, I believe the questioner has a point. It does strongly take a particular point of view, and the other perspective is given little air time. However, there is some justification for this. From looking through the refs, it appears that it is actually no small group that opposes this legislation, and that most of the media coverage has highlighted the drawbacks of it. Still, some coherent statement of the other perspective is conspicously absent. However, I would suggest that if Pikachudad or some other editor wishes to include the pro-legislation point of view, that they do so using reliable SECONDARY sources. “Statements by the bill’s author made in the legislative hearing” sounds like a reference to a primary document, such as legislative records. Excuse me if I am wrong. If you can find some quotations from pro-legislation spokesmen in newspaper or other media or scholarly accounts (not the websites of pro-legislation groups), I think it would enrich the article to add this significant point of view.
- But speaking of primary sources, my opinion is that although this article is well-referenced on the whole, the authors have leaned too heavily on primary sources. There are quite a few references to the websites of groups that oppose the legislation. Sometimes this is OK, to reference simple facts or to give access to a relevant document; but sometimes, as in the case of the three substantial paras quoting Barbara Forrest under “Creationism,” it goes too far. WP:RS states that “Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.”
- In summary: article is generally well-done, but would be better if it included a little more of the perspective of the pro-legislative group, in proportion to the media and scholarly attention it has received; also, in one or two sections, it leans too heavily on non-neutral primary sources. EMP (talk 01:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- I do tend to agree with you that the article makes too much use of primary sources. I only came across it a few days ago, and have made some efforts at improving it, but haven't had time to go through all of it yet. I also agree with you that it would benefit from the addition of a coherent statement of the supporters' perspective... but I haven't been able to find enough high quality secondary sources talking about the pro side to do a proper rewrite of it yet. Kevin Gorman (talk) 08:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- After reading through this article I believe that the article is fairly biased against bill. Since most of the media coverage does seem to be against the bill, I don't think that it is bad that this is more heavily weighted in the article. I do believe however that some of the diction used just puts the bill in a very negative point of view, right from the start. I think that this could be presented without using such strong biased language.--MartellRedViper (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Taking a look at this article, I agree with the original assertion that it is not presented from a neutral point of view (NPOV). The article is very biased against the bill, and definitely doesn't equally represent both sides. As many folks have pointed out, this may be due to a lack of credible secondary sources in favor of the bill. The primary source is not going to cut it, because making the article biased in the other direction will make it worse rather than better and adding the author of the bill as a source will most certainly accomplish that. It is possible that if valid secondary sources can't be found for both sides then the article should be deleted altogether. The lack of secondary sources in favor of the bill should not excuse a blatant violation of NPOV.--Mdcoope3 (talk) 05:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- An absurd suggestion. WP:NPOV requires that articles reflect the balance of opinion in reliable sources, not that they be balanced in some absolute sense with every opinion represented equally. - Cal Engime (talk) 05:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- Good point that WP:NPOV doesn't require that articles be balanced in an absolute sense. Editing from NPOV involves showing the "relative prominence of opposing views." The second paragraph of the introduction does acknowledge that proponents of the law say that its purpose is "to promote critical thinking and improve education." If the article did nothing but harp on creationism, that might raise questions about its neutrality, but the reference to critical thinking seems to admit to more nuanced thinking by some of its proponents.--Brodmont (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with the idea that WP:NPOV doesn't require articles to balanced in an absolute since but instead involves showing the "relative prominence of opposing views." I do however think that some parts of this article are quite biased in tone when representing the information. It sounds like it is condemning the act along with the majority view when it should instead be presenting the views in a NPOV tone. --Youngpenn (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- Good point that WP:NPOV doesn't require that articles be balanced in an absolute sense. Editing from NPOV involves showing the "relative prominence of opposing views." The second paragraph of the introduction does acknowledge that proponents of the law say that its purpose is "to promote critical thinking and improve education." If the article did nothing but harp on creationism, that might raise questions about its neutrality, but the reference to critical thinking seems to admit to more nuanced thinking by some of its proponents.--Brodmont (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- An absurd suggestion. WP:NPOV requires that articles reflect the balance of opinion in reliable sources, not that they be balanced in some absolute sense with every opinion represented equally. - Cal Engime (talk) 05:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- Taking a look at this article, I agree with the original assertion that it is not presented from a neutral point of view (NPOV). The article is very biased against the bill, and definitely doesn't equally represent both sides. As many folks have pointed out, this may be due to a lack of credible secondary sources in favor of the bill. The primary source is not going to cut it, because making the article biased in the other direction will make it worse rather than better and adding the author of the bill as a source will most certainly accomplish that. It is possible that if valid secondary sources can't be found for both sides then the article should be deleted altogether. The lack of secondary sources in favor of the bill should not excuse a blatant violation of NPOV.--Mdcoope3 (talk) 05:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- After reading through this article I believe that the article is fairly biased against bill. Since most of the media coverage does seem to be against the bill, I don't think that it is bad that this is more heavily weighted in the article. I do believe however that some of the diction used just puts the bill in a very negative point of view, right from the start. I think that this could be presented without using such strong biased language.--MartellRedViper (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- I do tend to agree with you that the article makes too much use of primary sources. I only came across it a few days ago, and have made some efforts at improving it, but haven't had time to go through all of it yet. I also agree with you that it would benefit from the addition of a coherent statement of the supporters' perspective... but I haven't been able to find enough high quality secondary sources talking about the pro side to do a proper rewrite of it yet. Kevin Gorman (talk) 08:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- In summary: article is generally well-done, but would be better if it included a little more of the perspective of the pro-legislative group, in proportion to the media and scholarly attention it has received; also, in one or two sections, it leans too heavily on non-neutral primary sources. EMP (talk 01:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Looking for some unbiased opinions on neutrality and undue weight issue for the lead of NLP in the article talk page Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming. Allisgod (talk) 00:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- (explective deleted} Not NLP again? It's always the fringe topics that cause trouble. Just tell them that NPOV does not mean equal weight, and if it's junk science, it's going to say so in the lead. KillerChihuahua 23:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- As happens on some fringe articles, the undue weight on this article is on evaluation of it as a science, resulting in it being unequivocally and way too repeatedly called a pseudoscience based on relatively weak sources, when it is actually more like a multi-level marketing scheme for self-improvement, selling techniques and motivation. Hans Adler 00:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- From my read, for what it is worth, it appears to have originated as a serious scientific theory/method of therapy, and has evolved into that, subsequent to sustained mainstream scientific criticism. Dont know if its origins were linked to its ultimate "New age" self-improvement niche it appears to now occupy. Irondome (talk) 00:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, but it's not wit, they actually said that. They also said it would fail scientific testing. The only real claim they made was that it could -- not would -- work. That the scam artists find it so useful seems to me to demonstrate that there's useful something there, just not what this round of science is looking for. Science frequently wears blinders, cf. that bacteria that causes ulcers. htom (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- I wanted to close this RfC but I have decided I'm too involved, having made three edits to the NLP talk page. Could somebody fresh take a look, and either close it unresolved, or propose something, please. pretty please. Roxy the dog (talk) 11:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, but it's not wit, they actually said that. They also said it would fail scientific testing. The only real claim they made was that it could -- not would -- work. That the scam artists find it so useful seems to me to demonstrate that there's useful something there, just not what this round of science is looking for. Science frequently wears blinders, cf. that bacteria that causes ulcers. htom (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Biased, opinionated, non-neutral edits to Gun politics in Mexico
It has come to my attention that the Wikipedia editor EnochBethany (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made at least seven recent edits to the Gun politics in Mexico article of which at least five, I believe, are in violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.
The following is the lists of all seven edits done by EnochBethany to the Gun politics in Mexico article as of the time I am submitting this complain. Highlighted in bold are the exact changes done by EnochBethany which I consider biased/non-neutral:
- 1st edit: [3] Here EnochBethany changes the following: "While contemporary Mexican society has not embraced gun culture as passionately as its northern neighbor, the United States, firearms have played a significant role in the History of Mexico..." to "Contemporary Mexican society has embraced gun homicide more passionately than its northern neighbor, the United States, and firearms have played a significant role in the History of Mexico..."
- The use of embrace passionately was an emotive term out of place in an encyclopedia article. I allowed it, however, in my first revision. And if it were appropriate in the original, it is appropriate in my revision. However, I decided to omit those words altogether, as well as the reference to the USA, since the purpose of the article is not to criticize the USA. Any comparison should be with the world, not with the USA. The article is not about the USA. (EnochBethany (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC))
- 2nd edit: (here EnochBethany added a reference link to 1st edit) ...Contemporary Mexican society has embraced gun homicide more passionately than its northern neighbor, the United States,[1]
- Adding a citation was in order. (EnochBethany (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC))
- 3rd edit: [4] A common misconception is that firearms are illegal in Mexico and that no person may possess them.[2] [...] Of course those who watch Spanish language news have no misconception that criminals commonly carry firearms and kill persons in Mexico, regardless of paper laws.
- Reference to a "common misconception" would be very hard to prove. If a secondary source said that, it would be commending itself as unreliable. The generalization about misconception needed qualification, which I provided. Indeed those who watch Spanish language news would not have a misconception "no person may possess them," as the new is full of persons may and do possess them, especially against the law. This is a fact, not a POV. (EnochBethany (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC))
- 4th edit: (deletion done by EnochBethany, no violation here)
- 5th edit: [5] Private ownership of firearms is restricted to the home only,[3] except for criminals who commonly ignore the law, carry guns, and shoot them wherever and whenever they so choose.[4]
- No reference to owning guns is complete without including the fact of criminal ownership. This is not a POV, criminal ownership is a fact. Also that criminals choose where to carry and shoot guns is well-know. The supporting citation is valid and is just one of many citations that could be given, as you well know. (EnochBethany (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC))
- 6th edit: [6] The transfer of ownership and the sale and purchase of firearms between individuals is also permitted, but the transaction must receive authorization from the Secretariat of National Defense by both parties (buyer and seller) appearing in person along with the weapon, to conduct the transaction in accordance to requirements set by law,[5]except in the common case of criminals who get need no permission from the government, yet carry and use guns quite commonly.[6]
- There can be no doubt but that crimnals in Mexico get no permission, yet carry and use guns commonly. This is no POV, but a fact. The supporting citation is valid as well as common knowledge. You know very well that many sources could be added to support this, but they are not necessary. This is not POV, but fact. (EnochBethany (talk) 02:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC))
- 7th edit: [7] ...With all receipts and documentation, along with photo ID, appear in person at DCAM to pick up firearm. A temporary transportation permit (valid for 24 to 72hrs) is granted, which permits the owner to transport the firearm from DCAM to his or her home by personal or public transportation (ground or air). As an alternative, a person may choose to ignore the law and privately buy guns and ammunition without regard to the law.[7]
- It is a fact & not any POV what persons may choose to buy guns and ammo without regard to the law. An article about owning and possessing guns in Mexico should be objective, not biased to give a false impression. (EnochBethany (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC))
It appears editor EnochBethany wants to assert to Wikipedia readers that despite the fact that there are laws governing the lawful ownership and possession of firearms in Mexico, there are people who choose to ignore these laws and proceed to own and possess guns illegally. This is true, but the article is a not a forum to rant about how some people choose to break the law in Mexico because lawbreakers exists in all societies, not just Mexico.
- This is no rant; it is an objective presentation of facts. The rant is the irrational objection to my factual additions to the article. For some reason some person or persons does not LIKE the facts. (EnochBethany (talk) 02:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC))
Imagine the driver license article stating something somewhere along the lines of: "A driver's license/licence or driving licence is an official document which states that a person may operate a motorized vehicle, such as a motorcycle, car, truck or a bus, on a public roadway. However, one can always ignore the law and chose to drive a vehicle without a driver license or authorization from the government."... The sentence in bold is an example of the style of writing EnochBethany has chosen to let readers know there are those who choose to break firearm law in Mexico.
I was going to proceed and revert all edits done by user EnochBethany that I consider biased/non-neutral but I did not want to fall into an Edit warring & 3RR incident with him or her. I would appreciate if an Administrator would revise my grievances and decide. I suggest that if EnochBethany wants to remind readers of the gun violence and unlawful proliferation of firearms that does exist in Mexico, he/she creates an additional section in the article, similarly to the Gun violence section of the Gun politics in Honduras article. I have informed EnochBethany of this notice. Thank you. --Usfirstgov (talk) 11:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Usfirstgov apparently is opposed to NPOV, as his complaints are directed against including all relevant information. What I added to the article is inclusive material on the subject with citations. As the article was before my improvements, it ignored the realities of illegal activity. The emotive words in the article came from whomever edited before myself. Apparently USfirstgov wants to edit war and has made this complaint to support his activity. The article should not be written from the POV that the attitudes of the people in a nation are defined by the mythical idea that the people all adhere to the law in their conduct. (EnochBethany (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC))
- Besides some poor language, at least one source, the aljazeera article, doesn't back the statements. Maybe this should have been at WP:NOR. Dougweller (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Reverted it. Dougweller (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Since this is an NPOV violation, attempt to censor material that is factual and not POV at all, but someone who evidently wants negative comparisons to the USA, I put my material back. A discussion should take place & an attempt at consensus before reverting additional information, which is what I added. Indeed the aljazeera article does back the statements, which in fact are common knowledge and could easily be supported from many sources, as surely you must know. But I went further in fixing this article now. This article is supposed to be about Mexico, not the USA. Thus all the negative things about the USA or unfavorable comparisons need deleting. If you want to compare Mexico, do it to the entire world. It appears that there may be some POV ax to grind vs the USA in this article. It is totally out of place. Thus I have removed the irrelevant references to the USA.
- Another matter is the edit-warrier's comment above: "Besides some poor language, at least one source, the aljazeera article, doesn't back the statements." Where is any "poor language"??? Note how you start that sentence with "Besides some poor language." In English class you may find that called "a dangling modifier," as it has no rational connection to the main sentence. (EnochBethany (talk) 02:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC))
- Since this is an NPOV violation, attempt to censor material that is factual and not POV at all, but someone who evidently wants negative comparisons to the USA, I put my material back. A discussion should take place & an attempt at consensus before reverting additional information, which is what I added. Indeed the aljazeera article does back the statements, which in fact are common knowledge and could easily be supported from many sources, as surely you must know. But I went further in fixing this article now. This article is supposed to be about Mexico, not the USA. Thus all the negative things about the USA or unfavorable comparisons need deleting. If you want to compare Mexico, do it to the entire world. It appears that there may be some POV ax to grind vs the USA in this article. It is totally out of place. Thus I have removed the irrelevant references to the USA.
- Reverted it. Dougweller (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Besides some poor language, at least one source, the aljazeera article, doesn't back the statements. Maybe this should have been at WP:NOR. Dougweller (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
(EnochBethany (talk) 02:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC))
- Dear EnochBethany, I am not attempting to censor you or censor any information out of the Gun politics in Mexico article (proof of that is that I did not revert any of your edits, instead I called for a dialogue to get more opinions on the matter), I am simply pointing out that your choice of words and structure within the article is not encyclopedic and therefore inappropriate. The comparisons about the United States are valid because Mexico and the United States are neighbors and as such both countries are influenced by each other's cultures (for good or bad). There is nothing about the article attempting to grind against the US. The references about the US is to give world readers a compassion of two neighboring nations (one with a high cultural attachment to firearms, as in the case of the US and one who no longer has an equal cultural attachment, as in the case of Mexico). And I mainly speak of the lawful cultural attachment to firearms, not unlawful activity. Now, I understand that gun violence in Mexico has been rampant in recent years, it is fine to point this out in the article but it should be done within Wikipedia standards, not with sentences such as (I quote your own contributions):
- Of course those who watch Spanish language news have no misconception that criminals commonly carry firearms and kill persons in Mexico, regardless of paper laws.
- ...except for criminals who commonly ignore the law, carry guns, and shoot them wherever and whenever they so choose.
- ...except in the common case of criminals who get need no permission from the government, yet carry and use guns quite commonly.
- As an alternative, a person may choose to ignore the law and privately buy guns and ammunition without regard to the law.
- The aforementioned statements do not fit within the article. Anything pointing out the unlawful use of firearms should be dealt with in a difference section, not within the sections that tell readers what the laws says and how persons can engage in lawful acquisition, ownership, and possession of firearms in Mexico. I hope others in the Wikipedia community can see what I'm trying to convey and let you know. Thank you. --Usfirstgov (talk) 03:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- You are repeating material posted above. I responded to all those references to my additions above. They are objective facts, not POV. Well, I suggest a simple revision to the first sentence. I posted it on the article talk page where, I think, discussions like this belong. If it is stated at the outset that the article only covers legal considerations without regard to criminal and illegal activities, that should make my additions unnecessary. Then I have no objection to their deletion. The USA references, however, need to be deleted. (EnochBethany (talk) 03:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC))
- Dear EnochBethany, I am not attempting to censor you or censor any information out of the Gun politics in Mexico article (proof of that is that I did not revert any of your edits, instead I called for a dialogue to get more opinions on the matter), I am simply pointing out that your choice of words and structure within the article is not encyclopedic and therefore inappropriate. The comparisons about the United States are valid because Mexico and the United States are neighbors and as such both countries are influenced by each other's cultures (for good or bad). There is nothing about the article attempting to grind against the US. The references about the US is to give world readers a compassion of two neighboring nations (one with a high cultural attachment to firearms, as in the case of the US and one who no longer has an equal cultural attachment, as in the case of Mexico). And I mainly speak of the lawful cultural attachment to firearms, not unlawful activity. Now, I understand that gun violence in Mexico has been rampant in recent years, it is fine to point this out in the article but it should be done within Wikipedia standards, not with sentences such as (I quote your own contributions):
- OK so. On first reading on thing that strikes me here is edit #1 where does not embrace as much becomes "has embraced gun homicide more passionately." The reference is rather sketchy and c'mon, 3.66 vs. 3.6? Yeah, that's more, but...the site itself looks user-generated. I'd be inclined to say it's ok for non-controversial stuff since it does look like a relatively clear-eyed attempt at factual presentation, but as who's more passionate...and look at that source link. Might as well just link to wikipedia directly. So. Passion is emotion in my book, and in my opinion it would be better to restate. I do find the repeated insertions unreferenced statements about what criminals do to be pretty obnoxious. If you really want that in, go find a newspaper article or two that says this. Gun violence in Mexico? Try the El Paso Times, geez. As for the comparison to the US, that really should cite a secondary source also. Elinruby (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC) 21:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
A big part of the problem is sourcing and original research. I found:"Of course those who watch Spanish language news have no misconception that criminals commonly carry firearms and kill persons in Mexico, regardless of paper laws.[8] - there is no article at the link that says this. I've left that in for the nonce.
" except for criminals who commonly ignore the law, carry guns, and shoot them wherever and whenever they so choose.[9] - the linked article doesn't say this, the editor is using it as an argument for his edit - this is what we call original research, see WP:NOR.
"except in the common case of criminals who get need no permission from the government, yet carry and use guns quite commonly." (ctrl-click)"> (ctrl-click)"> (ctrl-click)"></ref> - basically the same thing.
And "As an alternative, a person may choose to ignore the law and privately buy guns and ammunition without regard to the law."[10] - I've deleted all 3. Dougweller (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'd take the first one out too. It's an assertion of "common knowledge" which really requires a reference. I do see your point about the Al Jazeera link. It documents *one* incident of gun violence, not the blanket assertion that the editor wants to make. It's not like there aren't sources that say that gun violence occurs in Mexico -- I just found three on a fast Google. Of course none of them exactly say that laws don't keep Mexicans from buying guns, but some of them come close. In other words, yeah, there may be a case for making edits to the article, but not these. Elinruby (talk) 01:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
IMHO wp:npov is just one of the problems with the edits. The others are wp:ver / wp:nor lack of reliable sourcing for the statements as worded, and also unenclyclopedic writing, bordering on being rants. North8000 (talk) 12:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- And pardon my dangling modifier, my edits outside article space (and some edit summaries) are more casual and not proofread. I hope I don't write sentences such as "except in the common case of criminals who get need no permission from the government, yet carry and use guns quite commonly." Unnecessary comma and what is "get need no" (yes, poor proof reading probably rather than just bad grammar). Nor does that make sense - they carry guns in defiance of the law, not because they "get need no permission", and what does 'yet' mean in this context? They need no permission to carry guns yet they carry guns? That's what I meant by poor English. Dougweller (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Just reading through this notice made my head spin, but as I see it this is a violation. I believe that the statements made by EnochBethany were opinionated and unwarranted. The sources are a bit on the lighter side (content wise) but yet demonstrate common misconceptions and beliefs about Mexico. It is as if his/her statements are something that could be added to any Wikipedia page and be proven in the way that EnochBethany did. But like I said, his/her sources were not substantial and a bit biased.--Thepresidenthal (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Is the word enemy neutral?
[Note: Links to the BBC may not be visible outside the UK]
I came across this article on the BBC web site which led me to this one then, on a hunch, our article. Is the word enemy, used in our article, a neutral term in this context? --Senra (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- It depends on context. The article you refer to simply says that the British army uses them to "fly into enemy territory". That's generic. The enemy is whoever the army is engaging at the time. I can't see how any other word could be as meaningfully used. Paul B (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- I would second Paul B's response. I don't see how anyone could dispute that the intended target of a military weapon is considered an "enemy". --Brian Z (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I disagree with you both in this context. How can you say that the following is neutral? "Operation Herrick personnel in Afghanistan deploy the Black Hornet from the front line to fly into enemy territory to take video and still images before returning to the operator". It talks about a specific deployment and thus identifies the Afghanis as enemy. Compare our article with the two BBC articles which are clearly more neutral --Senra (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- The usage of "enemy" in the article happens in a separate clause that I read as just talking about the technology's purse in general, which seems to be neutral.--Jeflicki (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- The word "enemy" is never neutral. There is always a negative connotation because of the way it's talked about. An "enemy" is never going to call themselves an "enemy" therefore it cannot be neutral. However, using the word "enemy" is unavoidable in the context. Rebaduck (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it be more appropriate to change "enemy territory" to "other territory"? Just saying enemy territory would exclude the fact that they could use it on neutral territory as well. By saying "other" the article will not label areas as good or bad, but rather just territories that are not their own. --MangoDango (talk) 02:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know if "enemy" is unavoidable...the Mirror states that the Black Hornet can run thirty-minute reconnaissance missions, so it's a simple fix: "Operation Herrick personnel in Afghanistan deploy the Black Hornet from the front line for thirty-minute reconnaissance missions before returning to the operator." More problematic, I think, is: "Designed to blend in with the muddy grey walls in Afghanistan, it has been used to look around corners or over walls and other obstacles to identify any hidden dangers and enemy positions." I agree with Senra; the "enemy" is inferred to be Afgani, and I can't see how such a sentence could be considered neutral. And in my mind, the perhaps overly-descriptive mention of "muddy grey walls" isn't helping the neutrality matter, either. --Katerwaul (talk) 07:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- The word "enemy" is never neutral. There is always a negative connotation because of the way it's talked about. An "enemy" is never going to call themselves an "enemy" therefore it cannot be neutral. However, using the word "enemy" is unavoidable in the context. Rebaduck (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- The usage of "enemy" in the article happens in a separate clause that I read as just talking about the technology's purse in general, which seems to be neutral.--Jeflicki (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- I disagree with you both in this context. How can you say that the following is neutral? "Operation Herrick personnel in Afghanistan deploy the Black Hornet from the front line to fly into enemy territory to take video and still images before returning to the operator". It talks about a specific deployment and thus identifies the Afghanis as enemy. Compare our article with the two BBC articles which are clearly more neutral --Senra (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I would second Paul B's response. I don't see how anyone could dispute that the intended target of a military weapon is considered an "enemy". --Brian Z (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, enemy is a neutral term. Why would anyone the British are fighting be offended by the idea that they are the enemy of the British and the British are the enemy of them? If the article called these Afghan rebels, for example, the enemies of freedom and democracy, that would be different, but as it is I just don't see an issue. - Cal Engime (talk) 08:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- How is "enemy" a neutral term? The dictionary states, "a person who feels hatred for, fosters harmful designs against, or engages in antagonistic activities against another; an adversary or opponent." I don't see any neutrality associated. But, I don't know if "enemy" is avoidable in the article.--Jastout (talk) 16:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- I do not see an issue either. This is like saying the word opponent is not neutral. Each side is fighting against each other and both would consider them enemies. Depending on who is attacking who the word enemy is relative. The same people defending the attack would say they are defending the enemy. There are other ways to word "enemy territory" to completely bypass this whole neutrality. But if everyone insists on using the word enemy, I do not see a problem with it.--SJRick (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Khaybar KH2002: did the Iranians intend to call their rifle "That Time We Killed Jews" or "Reference to Well Known Shia Fable of Divinely Inspired Heroism"
This article here: [[11]] has this section:
Basis of name
Khaybar is an oasis approximately 95 miles east of Medina, which was once the largest Jewish settlement in Arabia. The name was chosen as a reminder of the Battle of Khaybar, a battle that took place in 629 between Muhammed and his followers against the Jews who inhabited the settlement.[6]
As I noted on the Talk page [[12]], the [6] reference "providing 'support' for the explanation of the name given here doesn’t mention the assault rifle at all, is an article slandering Muslims as rabid anti-Semitic jihadists, and is written by someone who authored a book called “The Islamization of America”. It's anti-Muslim hate-speech, and at the very least is NPOV. Worse, from Wikipedia’s perspective, it doesn’t give any evidence the Iranians named their rifle after a massacre […]"
My point is that the article claims the name was specifically chosen as a reminder of a battle against a Jewish tribe (without mentioning the attack was in response to betrayal), when no evidence from anywhere – least of all not from the manufacturers website or the supposedly supporting reference – backup that assertion, and there's a frankly more compelling case to be made for the reference to the well known Shia myth.
Its unwarranted and biased, akin to suggesting something like: "American arms producer, Colt, is named for the horses ridden by the US Cavalry as they slaughtered Native Americans".
I'm not the first to raise this, but the blatant race-baiting remains. Its unwarrantedly partisan: at the least, the alternate explanation should be included.
I am not familiar with Wiki culture, and do not know if I have support for my position: I feel, without any reference that actually explains the verified reason for the choice of the name, the section is pure speculation and should be removed entirely, but I know that simply deleting sections is frowned on. What would be a good way to proceed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.80.171 (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- A difficult case. The SPME reference doesn't specifically mention the rifle in question; it simply speaks to a general use of Khaybar as an antisemitic name in Iran. Looking at SPME's page I'm not sure I would accept them as the sole source for such a claim. On the other hand the name's import is a little, well, blatant. Perhaps the approach to take would be to not haggle over this single source and to look for others. It's hard to imagine there aren't others. Mangoe (talk) 00:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Having a look for other sources, I noticed something: neither the Iranian military DIO (manufacturer website) nor the MODLEX export agency (export website) refer to the rifle as anything but the KH-2002. The nickname 'Khaybar' doesn't appear at all. The nickname only seems to show up on various 'list-of-guns' type websites (ie Modern Firearms) - sometimes there is a reference to the historical battle of Khaybar as the reason for the name, but that claim is never backed up with a reference, press release, etc (one of these sites has almost exactly the same text the wiki page does, including the clunky reference to 'Arabia', are they the source of the claim used on Wiki, or did they get it from here? - see here - they claim the info came from one ‘Pierangelo Tendas’ - does he count as a verified source, whoever he might be?). I don't see any reason to rely on these gun-fan sites as sources: they give no indication the name is official, nor that the rifle is widely known by that name, and any claims as to what the basis for the name might be are pure conjecture. Also, the above mentioned SPME page specifically takes an interpretation of references to Khaybar as being explicitly, exclusively anti-Semitic, but alternate interpretations exist - the SPME claims are one thing, but do most Shia really think of the event in these terms, or do they hold the less incendiary interpretation suggested on the KH-2002 talk-page?
- I think that claims are being made on the wiki page that are unsupported by evidence. If someone has a press release from the DIO where they talk about the KH-2002 as the Khaybar and mention the battle as a glorious slaughter of Jews, then yes, we would have support for what is in the article, otherwise, its conjecture, and somewhat defamatory at that.
- Last point: this reminds me of the way the Russian AN-94 rifle became known throughout the West as the 'Abakan' despite that not being an official name (it was the name of the rural area whre the project to develop a new rifle was held, the AN-94 was one of several tested). Site pointed back to site, all spreading the idea this rifle was called Abakan, it showed up in computer games with that name, etc, but it was wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.80.171 (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Looking back into the history of the article, I find that it is first cited to [13], and I find that the oldest version of that page says "The KH-2002, also known as the 'Khaybar rifle' (Khaybar is the name of an historical oasis approximately 95 miles east of Medina, which once was also the largest Jewish settlement in Arabia), was launched by the D.I.O. (State-Owned Defence Industries Organization of Iran) in the early 2003." Mangoe (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Based on the various references I've moved the article to KH-2002, reflecting the official sources. I haven't struck "Khabar" from the article but I'm somewhat inclined to do so given how thin the justification is for the supposed nickname. Mangoe (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have not commented on this so far because firearms are far removed from my areas of expertise, but for what it is worth I have been following the discussion and looking at the links, and I agree, the documentation for the name is *very* thin, and the Colt example brought home to me how insulting this might be. So fwiw I'd be inclined to remove it. Personally. Elinruby (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have read this article and the source, and the reference to the Battle of Khaybar is obscure and definitely not reliable. The source that Mangoe found from the original article is written by an Italian arms enthusiast as far as I can tell from an internet search, but his sources are not referenced, and so his information cannot be considered reliable, especially since it comes to us on a page riddled with ads. The language is defamatory and is listed under the "Design" heading as well. It may be a nickname used by the Iranians but that is not proven anywhere on the page, and its origin is not necessarily relevant and needs to be removed, in my opinion. Tinaface86 (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have not commented on this so far because firearms are far removed from my areas of expertise, but for what it is worth I have been following the discussion and looking at the links, and I agree, the documentation for the name is *very* thin, and the Colt example brought home to me how insulting this might be. So fwiw I'd be inclined to remove it. Personally. Elinruby (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Based on the various references I've moved the article to KH-2002, reflecting the official sources. I haven't struck "Khabar" from the article but I'm somewhat inclined to do so given how thin the justification is for the supposed nickname. Mangoe (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Looking back into the history of the article, I find that it is first cited to [13], and I find that the oldest version of that page says "The KH-2002, also known as the 'Khaybar rifle' (Khaybar is the name of an historical oasis approximately 95 miles east of Medina, which once was also the largest Jewish settlement in Arabia), was launched by the D.I.O. (State-Owned Defence Industries Organization of Iran) in the early 2003." Mangoe (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Cleo Rocos (and elsewhere) : Use of "best known for"
There has been substantial edit warring at Cleo Rocos and heated discussion at the associated talk page, with some claiming it violates NPOV to say a subject is "best known for" something, and some think it's okay. Reading the recent obituary of Richard Briers on BBC News here, I notice they use the phrase "Actor Richard Briers, best known for his role in TV's The Good Life...." To hopefully close the lid on this feud once and for all, I'm going to bring it here for a wider audience to see what everyone else's opinion is. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- In this context the BBC has a specific implied audience of the UK and their statement best known for needs no further qualification. In the Wikipedia encyclopaedic context of a global audience, however, best known for needs qualification such as best known in the UK for or whatever --Senra (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I would say that would only be appropriate if he was better known for something else in another part of the world. As an example, an early version of Hugh Laurie said he was "best known for his television work, especially his partnership with Stephen Fry", which was (probably) correct in 2002, but now, post House, is not. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- "best known for" is in all circumstances an unverifiable statement, a pure matter of opinion and should not be included in articles. That it appears in news sources is of no relevance. NPOV requires that you simply state the facts, and not apply a judgement to them. How does the BBC or anyone else know what Richard Briers is best known for? Have they polled a representative sample of the population? Of course they haven't. They are making an assumption. And why should we regurgitate that assumption? What are we adding to any article by saying "X is best known for Y", instead of simply saying "X is Y"? Nothing, except a point of view which is not neutral. 150.244.54.122 (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that "best known for" is, in every case, just an opinion. However, if this opinion is widely shared throughout the world (not just the U.S., or not just in Europe) I think it is a reasonable statement to be used. Yes, nobody for sure knows what a person is "best known for", but if you could ask different people from different backgrounds and different countries about someone and they all agree on one fact about them, I see no problem in including that fact. This is easier said than done because it would be hard to get the verification needed for that kind of statement, but the concept is there.Kslinker5493 (talk) 00:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- The number of cases in which the statement "X is best known for Y" has been tested by means of a poll of a representative sample of the global population is zero, for all values of X and Y. 212.145.150.133 (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that "best known for" is, in every case, just an opinion. However, if this opinion is widely shared throughout the world (not just the U.S., or not just in Europe) I think it is a reasonable statement to be used. Yes, nobody for sure knows what a person is "best known for", but if you could ask different people from different backgrounds and different countries about someone and they all agree on one fact about them, I see no problem in including that fact. This is easier said than done because it would be hard to get the verification needed for that kind of statement, but the concept is there.Kslinker5493 (talk) 00:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- "best known for" is in all circumstances an unverifiable statement, a pure matter of opinion and should not be included in articles. That it appears in news sources is of no relevance. NPOV requires that you simply state the facts, and not apply a judgement to them. How does the BBC or anyone else know what Richard Briers is best known for? Have they polled a representative sample of the population? Of course they haven't. They are making an assumption. And why should we regurgitate that assumption? What are we adding to any article by saying "X is best known for Y", instead of simply saying "X is Y"? Nothing, except a point of view which is not neutral. 150.244.54.122 (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I would say that would only be appropriate if he was better known for something else in another part of the world. As an example, an early version of Hugh Laurie said he was "best known for his television work, especially his partnership with Stephen Fry", which was (probably) correct in 2002, but now, post House, is not. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
(Preface: Really this shouldn't have got this far, as multiple discussions have shown a clear consensus in one direction, but what can you do when users insist on edit-warring tendentiously in service of a POV.)
Maafa 21 is an anti-abortion film (by Mark Crutcher, car salesman turned activist) about the conspiracy theory according to which Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood were formed with the aim of facilitating genocide against black people through birth control and abortion. This WP:FRINGE claim is not remotely supported in the historical scholarship, and Esther Katz (NYU professor and editor of Sanger's papers) has deigned to comment on the film in order to point this out. All our policies not only allow but require that this fact appear in our article, but for the past week or so, users whose love for the film seemingly outweighs their commitment to building an encyclopedia have been edit-warring to remove it from the article, or at best, weakening it to "criticism" from "some people." (While adding rubbish promotional sources, as though volume were a substitute for quality and NPOV.) It's strange to pose this question to the board when the answer is so obvious, but here it is anyway: does NPOV require censoring any mention of the mainstream view in an article on a fringe view?
- The minimum text I would like to include: "It claims that eugenics movements targeting African Americans in the 19th and 20th centuries are the basis for reproductive rights movements and in particular for the creation of Planned Parenthood by Margaret Sanger, a claim which Esther Katz, a leading scholar on Sanger's life and work, identifies as completely wrong and without evidence." This language is a softened-up paraphrase of Katz's statement that the film's claims are "flat wrong...just stupid...there's no way she ever said any such thing...there's no action she's ever taken to signify that." There are also specifics that could be included (Katz points out specific false or misleading claims and explains why they are false) but we can get to those later.
- Talkpage discussion: various sections at Talk:Maafa 21
(Multiple RSN discussions have determined that Katz and other historical scholars are reliable sources on the history of Sanger and PP, while Crutcher is not, and also that our sources (a newspaper which quotes Katz, and material from the MSPP website) are acceptable references for those scholarly views. On the other hand, one user at the article has apparently stated an intention to continue removing the material forever since her own personal interpretation of NPOV overrides everyone else's consensus, so more content noticeboards instead of behavioral boards may be a waste of time, but hope springs eternal.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC) [Edited to add diffs/text –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)]
Perhaps if you read the instructions above and actually follow them then somone might be able to focus on your NPOV issue. So far the only diff you presented is a talk page comment that doesn't even say what you are purporting. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 22:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- LGR, please focus on the issue at hand, namely the alleged contributions in violation of NPOV, and not on contributors. Viriditas (talk) 23:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Issues raised by Roscelese:
- Consensus for NPOV established on Talk:Maafa 21 is not being followed
- Consensus directs editors to note WP:FRINGE claims per Esther and Katz
- Is this everything, Roscelese, or have I missed something? Viriditas (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- That's not a good way of phrasing the issue - everyone (well, theoretically) agrees that there should be NPOV. The problem here is that the consensus of editors does not see a POV issue in the inclusion of the mainstream view in the article, but other users are refusing to heed this consensus in the ostensible name of NPOV. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should ask for diffs of the text in question, not the strawman argument above. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 23:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)- Perhaps you will assume good faith and expect diffs to be forthcoming? I've been in many situations where I'm out the door and can only file a report, with diffs added much later. Do you agree, LGR, that there is consensus on the talk page, and that NPOV directs involved editors to add Esther and Katz? Is this an accurate summary of the dispute? Viriditas (talk) 23:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm going to be away for a bit, but if you read the last thread on RSN, you should get a better picture of this issue. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 23:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC) - To answer your questions, yes there is consensus for NPOV, but its not what Rosclese thinks it is. Consensus claimed by one is no consensus at all. No one is denying that Katz views cannot be made, but once again there is no consensus for the POV version Roscelese prefers. Several editors have used the word "attribution" which only one editor has a WP:IDHT problem with. However yesterday she made IMO a somewhat decent edit, which might have addressed this issue. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 00:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm going to be away for a bit, but if you read the last thread on RSN, you should get a better picture of this issue. little green rosetta(talk)
- Perhaps you will assume good faith and expect diffs to be forthcoming? I've been in many situations where I'm out the door and can only file a report, with diffs added much later. Do you agree, LGR, that there is consensus on the talk page, and that NPOV directs involved editors to add Esther and Katz? Is this an accurate summary of the dispute? Viriditas (talk) 23:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should ask for diffs of the text in question, not the strawman argument above. little green rosetta(talk)
- UMHHH . . . Excuse me but did I read correctly that in her complaint Roscelese said "what can you do when users insist on edit-warring tendentiously in service of POV" and that "users whose love for the film outweighs their commitment to build an encyclopedia have been . . . adding rubbish (to it)? If so why does our initial conciliator here, Viriditas, caution my colleague little green rosetta, but NOT my colleague Roscelese, to focus on the issue and not on contributors?? Badmintonhist (talk) 01:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, Badmintonhist is making a perfectly reasonable distinction, while pointing out the kind of etiquette (or lack thereof) that has been exercised by Roscelese since (and--I'm sure--long before) I first met her at Maafa 21 in August of 2012. (Frankly, we're all a bit tired of it.) -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- With all due respect, your input in this issue is most unwelcome. You have lost all right to expect me to AGF when it comes to you. Please let someone else that regularly comments on these issues moderate. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 06:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)- I'm afraid you are distracting from the issue under discussion again. Please refrain from attacking the OP or changing the subject to what you think of me. If you can't do that, then don't reply. I'm only interested in seeing this issue resolved. If you feel that you have interpersonal issues with other editors, then please seek guidance elsewhere. Viriditas (talk) 06:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- With all due respect, your input in this issue is most unwelcome. You have lost all right to expect me to AGF when it comes to you. Please let someone else that regularly comments on these issues moderate. little green rosetta(talk)
- No, I don't have interpersonal issues with other editors, just hypocrites like yourself. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 07:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Viriditas: If I may, I would like to summarize what I believe the dispute to be from the point of view of an uninvolved editor who contributed to the two discussions in WP:RSN (see 1st and 2nd). I think there is agreement that Katz is a reliable source for her opinion, but Little green rosetta asserted that the Wikipedia text did not accurately reflect what was stated in the article. I think there is/was some validity to that complaint. They were referred here to hash it out. Good luck! Location (talk) 07:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- That's incorrect; I brought it here in the perhaps misguided hope that yet another demonstration of the same consensus would get LGR to finally stop edit-warring. Can you explain what you believe to be a problem with the paraphrase of "flat wrong...just stupid...there's no way she ever said any such thing...there's no action she's ever taken to signify that" as "completely wrong and without evidence", as linked above? (Other than that it's overly gentle, but I don't think it's a good idea to describe a film as "stupid" in the lede even if that's the sourced, scholarly viewpoint.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's mind boggling that everyone that has commented on this issue has disagreed with your position and you still claim consensus on your side. IDHT indeed. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 13:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's mind boggling that everyone that has commented on this issue has disagreed with your position and you still claim consensus on your side. IDHT indeed. little green rosetta(talk)
- That's incorrect; I brought it here in the perhaps misguided hope that yet another demonstration of the same consensus would get LGR to finally stop edit-warring. Can you explain what you believe to be a problem with the paraphrase of "flat wrong...just stupid...there's no way she ever said any such thing...there's no action she's ever taken to signify that" as "completely wrong and without evidence", as linked above? (Other than that it's overly gentle, but I don't think it's a good idea to describe a film as "stupid" in the lede even if that's the sourced, scholarly viewpoint.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- I haven't seen any comments that disagree with Katz's analysis that claiming that Sanger wanted to erase blacks from the face of the earth is just stupid. I mean, there's no way she's ever said any such thing. There's no action she's ever taken to signify that, so why would we be talking about it? The problem with her statement, as I have explained here, is that the subject (i.e. the documentary Maafa 21) doesn't make that claim (i.e. global extermination of black peoples), so when Katz offered that analysis, she wasn't talking about the film: she was responding to the interviewer (i.e. Frank Carlson, who makes it perfectly clear in his two articles that he is openly hostile to pro-life activists).
- That being said, Katz is being used as a reliable source in the article. No one has tried blocking the use of Katz, only the POV mishandling of her statements, orchestrated by Roscelese and supported solely by Binksternet. Over the past year, all consensus beyond those two editors, has been to remove the overtly anti-pro-life tone of the article (not of sources, mind you, but of WP's voice). The article is finally in pretty good shape: it accurately describes the nature of the film; it highlights Katz's perspective as the scholar that she is; and it offers a variety of significant responses to the film. Naturally, some adjustments can be made, but as the article currently stands, there is no real POV issue.
- -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- It might also be pointed out that neither when posting at this notice board nor when posting at WP:RSN did Roscelese alert/notify those with whom she has disagreed at the Maafa 21 article. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Beleg Strongbow (related, perhaps, to Chief Jay Strongbow?) has stated the situation quite accurately. The article as it now stands contains substantial negative criticism of Maafa 21; certainly more negative criticism than positive commentary. In no sense is it a "whitewash" of the film perpetrated by "users whose love of the film seemingly outweighs their commitment to building an encyclopedia." Badmintonhist (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- An excellent example of Roscelese's approach to the article on Maafa 21 is the following: when advised at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to attribute Esther Katz's criticism of the film to Professor Katz in-text and by name (rather than making a declarative statement of the criticism in Wikipedia's name and mentioning Katz only by footnote) she created the following bifurcated sentence:
- In reality, birth control activist Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood, the film's subjects, did not have racist aims and worked in coordination with black leaders; according to Esther Katz, a leading scholar on Sanger's life and work, the film is not based on any research, and its claims rely on misrepresentation of historical events, suppression of context, and attribution of quotes to Sanger which she never said.
- This is the kind of mindset we've had to deal with. The "not based on any research" part, incidentally, is also a misconstruction of what Katz said which was actually that she was "not aware of the research" that the film's creator had done. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Your example of Roscelese's contribution fails to worry me about her "mindset". The Roscelese contribution is a collection of true facts except for "the film is not based on any research", which is wrong because we know the film is based on research which has been twisted, altered, misrepresented and taken out of context by the filmmaker. Can these facts be presented to the reader in a different manner, with different wording? Of course. Binksternet (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- The devil is in the details with respect to "of course". I particulary like the phrase you suggest "out of context" because that is pretty much what the sources say. In fact Roscelese made an interim edit which is much better then the proposed text she is vociferously defending. I do see that Badmithonhist improved upon that edit, but it is no worse for wear. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 18:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC) - Binksternet, right on cue, has just perfectly demonstrated the kind of POV tone that he and Roscelese wish to impose upon the article in WP's voice. From my first edit at Maafa 21, I have made an attempt to allow the critics to speak for themselves, which they have opposed at every turn. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, in the "true facts" department that Binksternet refers to above, he and Roscelese have been exceedingly eager for Wikipedia, in Wikipedia's voice, to declare Margaret Sanger to be free of any racial prejudice in this article, something that the Wikipedia article on Sanger, wisely, does not do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badmintonhist (talk • contribs) 20:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- While Sanger certainly held views that would be considered racist today, those views were commonplace in her era. And yes, I think (and the evidence seems to support) that Maafa 21 takes advantadge of this to full effect to support their narrative. The sources say this and it should be included in the article. Additionaly Sanger was quite progressive for the time and one of the sources called her a "race liberal", so any explanation of her racial views needs to be tempered with context. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 22:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- While Sanger certainly held views that would be considered racist today, those views were commonplace in her era. And yes, I think (and the evidence seems to support) that Maafa 21 takes advantadge of this to full effect to support their narrative. The sources say this and it should be included in the article. Additionaly Sanger was quite progressive for the time and one of the sources called her a "race liberal", so any explanation of her racial views needs to be tempered with context. little green rosetta(talk)
- Yes, in the "true facts" department that Binksternet refers to above, he and Roscelese have been exceedingly eager for Wikipedia, in Wikipedia's voice, to declare Margaret Sanger to be free of any racial prejudice in this article, something that the Wikipedia article on Sanger, wisely, does not do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badmintonhist (talk • contribs) 20:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- The devil is in the details with respect to "of course". I particulary like the phrase you suggest "out of context" because that is pretty much what the sources say. In fact Roscelese made an interim edit which is much better then the proposed text she is vociferously defending. I do see that Badmithonhist improved upon that edit, but it is no worse for wear. little green rosetta(talk)
- Your example of Roscelese's contribution fails to worry me about her "mindset". The Roscelese contribution is a collection of true facts except for "the film is not based on any research", which is wrong because we know the film is based on research which has been twisted, altered, misrepresented and taken out of context by the filmmaker. Can these facts be presented to the reader in a different manner, with different wording? Of course. Binksternet (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Current text (as of 22:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)):
- "It claims that the eugenics movements that targeted African Americans in the 19th and 20th centuries formed the basis for the abortion-rights movements of the 20th and 21st centuries. The film has been enthusiastically received by anti-abortion activists but has been criticized as deceptive by others including Margaret Sanger Papers Project director Esther Katz."
- Proposed text (by Roscelese at the top of the thread):
- "It claims that eugenics movements targeting African Americans in the 19th and 20th centuries are the basis for reproductive rights movements and in particular for the creation of Planned Parenthood by Margaret Sanger, a claim which Esther Katz, a leading scholar on Sanger's life and work, identifies as completely wrong and without evidence."
- In my opinion, neutrality would best be served by separating the statement regarding the film's claims from the statement regarding Katz's opinions of the film and its claims. Regarding the first statement, the past-tense "targeted" is more accurate than the present tense "targeting" and "reproductive rights movements" is more accurate in this context than "abortion-rights movements". Also, the phrase "and in particular for the creation of Planned Parenthood by Margaret Sanger" is a valid addition. I suggest changing the first sentence to:
- "It alleges that the eugenics movements that targeted African Americans in the 19th and 20th centuries formed the basis for the reproductive rights movements and in particular for the creation of Planned Parenthood by Margaret Sanger."
- The second sentence of the current text is also preferable to the second clause of the proposed text in that I read "leading scholar" as puffery and there are issues with WP:CLAIM. If we have agreement to have two ideas placed into separate sentences, then we can work on the text of the second sentence if it is still not acceptable. Location (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've put your proposed text into the article and swapped "leading scholar" with a more specific description of Katz's scholarship. It avoids perceived puffery but also seems clumsy and sort of irrelevant as to the specifics? What do you think? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Roscelese, do you object to the current text (i.e. "The film has been enthusiastically received by anti-abortion activists but has been criticized as deceptive by others including Margaret Sanger Papers Project director Esther Katz.") because you think it is not accurate or because you think it is not descriptive enough? Location (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's inaccurate. Katz doesn't say the film is deceptive, she says it's totally wrong. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- The source states: "...Katz says Maafa 21 and the black genocide movement are flat wrong in their depiction of her views and work."[14] Would you be OK with: "Esther Katz, founder of the Margaret Sanger Papers Project, has stated that the film incorrectly depicts Sanger's views and works."? I understand that this may not be strong enough for you, but we don't have a direct quote from Katz saying "totally wrong" or "flat wrong" nor do we have a complete understanding of what "flat wrong" means anyway. Location (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- In the source, Katz does in fact go into detail about ways in which the film is wrong (and describe its claims as "stupid") - we just haven't been putting them in the lede. Also, in my haste I neglected to point out what has been an issue throughout this recent flurry of editing, which is that factual disputation from experts is not on the same level as popular reception and the phrasing cannot suggest that it is. If we were able to source significant popular pushback from pro-choice advocates, that is the sort of thing we could put after that conjunction, but history is history. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- The source states: "...Katz says Maafa 21 and the black genocide movement are flat wrong in their depiction of her views and work."[14] Would you be OK with: "Esther Katz, founder of the Margaret Sanger Papers Project, has stated that the film incorrectly depicts Sanger's views and works."? I understand that this may not be strong enough for you, but we don't have a direct quote from Katz saying "totally wrong" or "flat wrong" nor do we have a complete understanding of what "flat wrong" means anyway. Location (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's inaccurate. Katz doesn't say the film is deceptive, she says it's totally wrong. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Roscelese, do you object to the current text (i.e. "The film has been enthusiastically received by anti-abortion activists but has been criticized as deceptive by others including Margaret Sanger Papers Project director Esther Katz.") because you think it is not accurate or because you think it is not descriptive enough? Location (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've put your proposed text into the article and swapped "leading scholar" with a more specific description of Katz's scholarship. It avoids perceived puffery but also seems clumsy and sort of irrelevant as to the specifics? What do you think? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- The sentence Proposed by Location just above is fine by me. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Roscelese, you need to stop with the disruption. You are adding text you every editor that has cared to comment has said is problematic. Instead of working with others to draft mutually acceptable text, you game the system and thumb your nose at everyone else in the process. Do it again and it's going to ANI. Or you can propose some text here and others can sound off. And if we do come up with an agreeed upon version, please don't "improve" other parts of the article at the same time with POV edits, or else this will start all over again. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 05:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)- Please stop attacking and threatening users as if this was some kind of battleground rather than a collaborative, educational project based on civility and camaraderie. Please consider taking a break from this topic and come back refreshed. Viriditas (talk) 05:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Start an ANI thread if you think I'm guilty of any of the above. Now please stop your trolling. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 13:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Start an ANI thread if you think I'm guilty of any of the above. Now please stop your trolling. little green rosetta(talk)
- Please stop attacking and threatening users as if this was some kind of battleground rather than a collaborative, educational project based on civility and camaraderie. Please consider taking a break from this topic and come back refreshed. Viriditas (talk) 05:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Roscelese, you need to stop with the disruption. You are adding text you every editor that has cared to comment has said is problematic. Instead of working with others to draft mutually acceptable text, you game the system and thumb your nose at everyone else in the process. Do it again and it's going to ANI. Or you can propose some text here and others can sound off. And if we do come up with an agreeed upon version, please don't "improve" other parts of the article at the same time with POV edits, or else this will start all over again. little green rosetta(talk)
- Location, thank you for your suggestions, but I do have a concern about using the term "reproductive rights." The main problem that I have with replacing "abortion-rights" with "reproductive rights" is that the Wikipedia article on the topic calls it "Abortion-rights movements," therefore this term appears to be the preferred between the two. I have no other reservations for Location's specific suggestions. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 13:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for the constructive feedback. The reason I choose "reproductive rights movements" over "abortion-rights movements" was not because of political framing, but that I assumed that the movements also encompassed other forms of birth control. Given that abortion is/was certainly the primary issues, I would be OK with "abortion-rights movements". In this case, the appropriate link is likely United States pro-choice movement. (Note that Abortion-rights movement redirects to Abortion-rights movements and Abortion rights movement redirects to United States pro-choice movement.) Location (talk) 16:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with updating the link and changing the text to "abortion-rights movement" (from "movements"), as the United States pro-choice movement is "also known as the United States abortion-rights movement." On that same vein, we should probably update "eugenics movements" to "eugenics movement." (Notice the link change along with the text.) Any objections? -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes - the film is substantially about how awful birth control is, not just abortion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- The film discusses in great detail the threat to black populations in the US from birth control sponsored by Planned Parenthood and/or supported by government funding. Binksternet (talk) 21:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- And these observations by R&B would lead them to suggest what specific wording for the sentence in question? Badmintonhist (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Please strike the toxic term "R&B" which you obviously intend to attack Roscelese and myself. Belittling two editors is a violation of WP:NPA. Binksternet (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC) My response is at my talk page. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Having not watched Maafa 21 I wouldn't know. Nor do I care. From what sources that have been presented so far the general impression is that the film's raison d'etre is to rail against abortion. But if you have sources that say the film is anti-contraception, then by all means let's see them. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 22:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)- Yes, the film's purpose is to poison the Black community against abortion. It does so by telling them that they have been targeted for elimination by Whites, from instances of sterilization through government-funded abortion and birth control (aka family planning). The folks at Catholic.net, Religion Dispatches and Celebrate Life magazine noticed the same thing as I did. You might want to pay attention to the sources if you are going to discuss the topic. You have been working on this topic quite strenuously for almost two weeks, reverting others and pushing for this or that version, but if you do not know what the film is about you ought to leave the issue for others to discuss. Binksternet (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, contraception is used in the film to inflame, but the sources make the connections, not us. They have made they connection between this film and US pro-life supporters. Where is the connection against contraception? Pro-life does not always (or daresay usuall?) equal anti-contraception. By the same logic we would call this film anti-eugenics as well, however I would suspect that edit wouldn't go over too well with some editors. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 00:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)- You are showing your topic ignorance again by guessing about the film's attitude regarding eugenics. Please research the topic or let others work with it. Regarding eugenics, yes, the film is anti-eugenics. It is anti-anything related to the suppression of Black populations. Its main purpose is to get Black people to push against legalized abortion.
- You know, for most Wikipedia film articles, the "plot" section does not need any cites because the film's content serves as the reference. This film does not have a plot but it certainly has content. It seems to me that a statement that the film presents arguments against birth control and abortion, but primarily against abortion, is so obvious that it does not need a reference. Binksternet (talk) 01:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- There is/was a group of editors who were against plot summaries for the lack of cites. IAR won out I guess. Page view stats indicate that very such articles about movies and films are the most popular. I suppose if someone challenged a plot summary a source would be needed. Did Sight & Sound cover The Waterboy? little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 01:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)- WP:FILMPLOT has been undisputed for many, many years now. Viriditas (talk) 02:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- There is/was a group of editors who were against plot summaries for the lack of cites. IAR won out I guess. Page view stats indicate that very such articles about movies and films are the most popular. I suppose if someone challenged a plot summary a source would be needed. Did Sight & Sound cover The Waterboy? little green rosetta(talk)
- Yes, contraception is used in the film to inflame, but the sources make the connections, not us. They have made they connection between this film and US pro-life supporters. Where is the connection against contraception? Pro-life does not always (or daresay usuall?) equal anti-contraception. By the same logic we would call this film anti-eugenics as well, however I would suspect that edit wouldn't go over too well with some editors. little green rosetta(talk)
- Yes, the film's purpose is to poison the Black community against abortion. It does so by telling them that they have been targeted for elimination by Whites, from instances of sterilization through government-funded abortion and birth control (aka family planning). The folks at Catholic.net, Religion Dispatches and Celebrate Life magazine noticed the same thing as I did. You might want to pay attention to the sources if you are going to discuss the topic. You have been working on this topic quite strenuously for almost two weeks, reverting others and pushing for this or that version, but if you do not know what the film is about you ought to leave the issue for others to discuss. Binksternet (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- And these observations by R&B would lead them to suggest what specific wording for the sentence in question? Badmintonhist (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- The film discusses in great detail the threat to black populations in the US from birth control sponsored by Planned Parenthood and/or supported by government funding. Binksternet (talk) 21:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for the constructive feedback. The reason I choose "reproductive rights movements" over "abortion-rights movements" was not because of political framing, but that I assumed that the movements also encompassed other forms of birth control. Given that abortion is/was certainly the primary issues, I would be OK with "abortion-rights movements". In this case, the appropriate link is likely United States pro-choice movement. (Note that Abortion-rights movement redirects to Abortion-rights movements and Abortion rights movement redirects to United States pro-choice movement.) Location (talk) 16:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
As an uninvolved editor, this is text that I believe to be neutrally worded:
- "It alleges that the eugenics movements that targeted African Americans in the 19th and 20th centuries formed the basis for the reproductive rights movements and in particular for the creation of Planned Parenthood by Margaret Sanger. The film has been enthusiastically received by anti-abortion activists. Esther Katz, founder of the Margaret Sanger Papers Project, has stated that the film incorrectly depicts Sanger's views and works."
Interested editors can take this back to the talk page for further discussion. I am going to recommend that an administrator close this thread as further progress is unlikely to occur here at this time. Location (talk) 02:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- It looks fine to me. I might have said "eugenics movement" (singular) but that is hardly worth quibbling about. Badmintonhist (talk) 02:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Very nice. Thank you. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 03:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)- Location, I appreciate your efforts at rewording and it's certainly more neutral than the total omission or "whiny pro-choicers 'criticism'" fare we've been getting from disruptive users, but I'm concerned that it's still basically obscuring the issue here: that Katz directly addresses the film's central claim and says that it is unambiguously not true. What do you think of: "It alleges that the eugenics movements that targeted African Americans in the 19th and 20th centuries formed the basis for the reproductive rights movements and in particular for the creation of Planned Parenthood by Margaret Sanger. Historian Esther Katz, director of the Margaret Sanger Papers Project at NYU, has dismissed these claims, stating that the film incorrectly depicts Sanger's views and works. The film has been enthusiastically received by anti-abortion activists." (Note that Katz is the director, not AFAICT the founder, of MSPP; I've added brief explanatory material on the two since MSPP could otherwise sound like an activist entity.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, Location et al, for your assistance as we work through these concerns. As the article currently stands, no additional significant changes need to be made. I believe that we should remove the POV tag. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I have commenced an RfC referencing the appropriateness for inclusion, per WP:NPOV, of a FactCheck.org assertion within the John Kerry military service controversy article. Opinions are solicited from editors who may be both interested and informed in the subject of WP:NPOV. Thank you. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- As an aside, John Kerry-related articles should be placed under some kind of arbcom restrictions. The amount of disruption we've seen since 2004 on Kerry-related articles is too much. For a time, we even had active accounts devoted only to disrupting Kerry articles. Considering this past history, I'm wondering if we can place all Kerry articles under the umbrella of the Obama article probation. It would save everybody a lot of grief. Viriditas (talk) 02:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Of course, your benign "aside" being of the impeccably pure, non-disruptive variety. (insert eyeroll). JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Pure, because I have no interest in this topic nor have I been an active contributor for years on end like you. Do you object to sanctions because you feel your contributions will be impacted? If so, you may want to evaluate your role in this ongoing dispute. Viriditas (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- I believe I read something recently somewhere on this very subject. Ah yes...here it is...
I'm afraid you are distracting from the issue under discussion again. Please refrain from attacking the OP or changing the subject to what you think of me. If you can't do that, then don't reply. I'm only interested in seeing this issue resolved. If you feel that you have interpersonal issues with other editors, then please seek guidance elsewhere.
- Mind if I borrow that? JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that a Kerry-article sanction would be a good idea. Activist editors need to be reined in. Binksternet (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oh dear. And editors who first cite, then will not or cannot, when WP:V challenged, identify the purported content within the source they cite with anything more than "my dog ate my homework"? These entertaining and non-disruptive "asides" can certainly become...um...disruptive?...can't they? JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Pure, because I have no interest in this topic nor have I been an active contributor for years on end like you. Do you object to sanctions because you feel your contributions will be impacted? If so, you may want to evaluate your role in this ongoing dispute. Viriditas (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Of course, your benign "aside" being of the impeccably pure, non-disruptive variety. (insert eyeroll). JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Lest the subject of this section be lost in further non-disruptive "asides"... I have commenced an RfC referencing the appropriateness for inclusion, per WP:NPOV, of a FactCheck.org assertion within the John Kerry military service controversy article. Opinions are solicited from editors who may be both interested and informed in the subject of WP:NPOV. Thank you. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Jake, out of curiosity, how many Kerry disputes have you been involved in and for how many years? Check your talk page and AN/ANI archives for reference. Viriditas (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Viritidas, out of curiosity, do you have anything at all to contribute to the question posed within my RfC...or will non-disruptive "asides" be the extent of your contributions here? JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- The only disruption I could find was this. Viriditas (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- You forgot this. I guess I should feel better now. It seems your baseless accusations aren't personal, you've made them before. An unsavory habit, but we all have feet of clay. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 22:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)- In this little thing called reality, Jake's ongoing campaign against John Kerry has lasted eight years and has disrupted multiple articles and wasted a great deal of time by editors and admins alike. His latest RfC has failed in the most spectacular fashion, and even though it is advertised appropriately, he is here spamming the RfC across Wikipedia in the hopes that someone, anyone will support his battle. That a fellow POV warrior has stepped up to volunteer for his cause is not at all surprising. That Jake was last blocked for disrupting another noticeboard is par for the course. Viriditas (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Although this isn't the place for it, I'll note that I'd also back a Kerry-based sanction. Dougweller (talk) 09:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- In this little thing called reality, Jake's ongoing campaign against John Kerry has lasted eight years and has disrupted multiple articles and wasted a great deal of time by editors and admins alike. His latest RfC has failed in the most spectacular fashion, and even though it is advertised appropriately, he is here spamming the RfC across Wikipedia in the hopes that someone, anyone will support his battle. That a fellow POV warrior has stepped up to volunteer for his cause is not at all surprising. That Jake was last blocked for disrupting another noticeboard is par for the course. Viriditas (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- You forgot this. I guess I should feel better now. It seems your baseless accusations aren't personal, you've made them before. An unsavory habit, but we all have feet of clay. little green rosetta(talk)
- The only disruption I could find was this. Viriditas (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Viritidas, out of curiosity, do you have anything at all to contribute to the question posed within my RfC...or will non-disruptive "asides" be the extent of your contributions here? JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Flavio Briatore opinions
Hi all. I've been working to correct factual errors at Flavio Briatore, based on an OTRS ticket. I believe I've reached an outcome that everyone is happy with on every point bar one. The final point is an NPOV issue, so I thought the best solution is to get some outside eyes on it. It concerns the Nelson Piquet Jr quote, the last paragraph of this section. It is a very negative quote with regards to Briatore, made soon after Piquet Jr was sacked. The request is that it is either removed from the article, or balanced with some more positive quotes (I've been sent a few very positive pieces, but haven't seen any that were directly relevent to his skills as an F1 manager).
My thoughts were 1) leave as is or rather 1a) move the quote to the departure section to give it more context or 2) remove it. I'm not keen on adding random quotes to balance things. I'd appreciate any thoughts, alternative solutions or just anyone doing the hard work for me . WormTT(talk) 13:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Option 1a, context is appropriate. I would also remove the bit about his sister. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 13:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Piquet Jr's own website is not notable, and should not be quoted except as much as it was quoted by Autosport in the August 2009 article. I went in and greatly trimmed the Piquet Jr comments because this is an encyclopedia. We summarize the contents rather than putting in extensive quotes. The essence remains, of course, that Piquet Jr was angry and critical. Binksternet (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Ticonderoga attack date
I don't know the history here, but I've seen a mistake (I think) that needs correction. The biography states that the USS Ticonderoga was attacked on September 30, 1918. This appears to be in conflict with the citation noted which says the date was October 4, 1918. It's clear from the report that this was not a 5-day battle so one of those dates is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.224.6.26 (talk) 04:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Dealing with criticism section of a private prison company
Hi! At Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#GEO_Group there was an issue over a private prison company trying to scrub its controversies section.
But I heard that it is usually better to have the controversies and praise mixed together throughout the article. How should the criticisms section be re-arranged? WhisperToMe (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Why not include a reference the article on Deadspin? Rather than continue with the on-and-off changes, provide an objective account about this "edit war" happening in the first place, including both critics' and the prison's viewpoints (if they've said anything).
Hi, i asked here last month (to no avail), but now another editor is adding similar unencyclopedic/poorly sourced content and puffery to the Tishma article. history. benzband (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Kosovo
I recently attended a workshop in Kosovo, where I taught students to edit Wikipedia. A number of articles were created, and some of them are now subject to NPoV disputes:
- Bifurcation of Nerodimka river (note recent rename)
- Monuments of Kosovo
- Timeline of Kosovo history
It would be good if they could have some attention from neutral editors, especially these with an understanding of the politics of the region. Please bear in mind that the article creators are all young, and new to Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Have put all three on 'watch list', and will follow developements with interest. RashersTierney (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Hoax Categories vs NPOV - Bat Creek inscription
The Wikipedia article on the controversial Bat Creek inscription is included in the Wikipedia categories Archaeological Forgeries, Hoaxes in the United States, and 19th Century Hoaxes. Although archaeologists Robert Mainfort and Mary Kwas of U. Ark. and Hebraist P. Kyle McCarter of Johns Hopkins argue that it is a fraud, it was found and certified as genuine by the Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology's authoritative Mound Survey in 1889. This Mound Survey is still considered authoritative today by archaeologists such as Stephen Williams of Harvard and Kenneth Feder of Central CT State Univ. Furthermore, the Bat Creek inscription itself is accepted as genuine by the late Cyrus Gordon of Brandeis and NYU, by Prof Emer. (Archaeology) Robert Stieglitz of Rutgers, and by U. Iowa archaeologist Marshall McKusick. I have also supported its authenticity in two articles in Tennessee Anthropologist and Biblical Archaeology Review.
According to wp:Neutral Point of View, "Articles mustn't take sides." Furthermore, wp:Categories states that "Categories must maintain a NPOV". By including this article in these categories, Wikipedia's voice is used to endorse the position that this controversial artifact is a hoax. I had proposed on Talk:Bat Creek Inscription (at "Hoax Categories vs. NPOV") to remove the article from these three categories, but Wikipedia administrator Dougweller, who often posts there, believes it is a hoax and can presumably override me.
A further issue is that none of these three hoax categories explains the criteria for inclusion, as required at wp:Categories. A category like "Artifacts of disputed authenticity" would be fine, since indeed some authorities argue it is a fraud. Other artifacts, such as the AVM Runestone, Cardiff Giant, and Piltdown Man are clearcut hoaxes, so there is no need to eliminate these hoax categories altogether, provided they explained their criteria.
So should I go ahead and remove the article from these three categories, or wait for some kind of decision here? I've never done this before. (I'm not sure how to notify Dougweller with the provided template, since the user to be notified is not one of the fields, so I'll just let him know over on the Bat Creek Talk page.) HuMcCulloch (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- I think this is already being discussed over at the fringe theories noticeboard. bobrayner (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- I prefer to get a ruling on this here, on purely NPOV grounds. "Fringe Theories" is already a loaded term that prejudges the outcome. See WP:Label. HuMcCulloch (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- In this instance, there is significant coverage of the POV that it is a hoax. While that may not be universally accepted, there is enough of it where the categorization serves as an appropriate navigational aid. One consideration is to place a hat or text within category pages like this to indicate that the pages listed have significant acceptance as hoaxes or forgeries. Location (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Wouldn't that be equivalent to placing it in a category, "Artifacts of disputed authenticity," but without the appearance of implying "Artifact of proven inauthenticity"? HuMcCulloch (talk) 02:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have no objections to creating Category:Artifacts of disputed authenticity if there are enough articles to tag with it. Still, Category:Archaeological forgeries and Category:Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact, even though they seem to be mutually exclusive in this context, are both equally acceptable as navigational aids to people looking for information on those things. Are you in favor of removing one and keeping the other? Location (talk) 03:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I am asking to remove Archaeological forgeries (along with the 2 other fraud categories), while retaining Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact (and most others). If you or Dougweller or someone else wants to create "Artifacts of disputed authenticity" and include the page in question, I would have no objection. HuMcCulloch (talk) 03:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- I understand which three you wish to remove, but that is not my question. If the factual reference to Category:Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact is subject to similar dispute, why would you wish to retain that? Location (talk) 03:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I am asking to remove Archaeological forgeries (along with the 2 other fraud categories), while retaining Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact (and most others). If you or Dougweller or someone else wants to create "Artifacts of disputed authenticity" and include the page in question, I would have no objection. HuMcCulloch (talk) 03:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have no objections to creating Category:Artifacts of disputed authenticity if there are enough articles to tag with it. Still, Category:Archaeological forgeries and Category:Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact, even though they seem to be mutually exclusive in this context, are both equally acceptable as navigational aids to people looking for information on those things. Are you in favor of removing one and keeping the other? Location (talk) 03:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Wouldn't that be equivalent to placing it in a category, "Artifacts of disputed authenticity," but without the appearance of implying "Artifact of proven inauthenticity"? HuMcCulloch (talk) 02:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- The shortcut WP:Label, relevant to "Fringe Theories" doesn't really go to the point it is supposed to. Scroll up 2 screens to "Contentious label". HuMcCulloch (talk) 03:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- In this instance, there is significant coverage of the POV that it is a hoax. While that may not be universally accepted, there is enough of it where the categorization serves as an appropriate navigational aid. One consideration is to place a hat or text within category pages like this to indicate that the pages listed have significant acceptance as hoaxes or forgeries. Location (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- I prefer to get a ruling on this here, on purely NPOV grounds. "Fringe Theories" is already a loaded term that prejudges the outcome. See WP:Label. HuMcCulloch (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
The presentation here and the discussions at the article talk page don't make much of a case for removal of the category. Seems like editors are having difficulty understanding NPOV and the other relevant policies/guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 00:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- You don't think "Category:Suspected hoaxes" would be less overtly biased? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- One problem associated with implementing Category:Suspected hoaxes is that it still requires Wikipedians to evaluate the available information and determine whether something is a hoax or "merely" a suspected hoax. If there are two opposing views, does an article get labeled with both? Category:Artifacts of disputed authenticity might work better if there is substantial debate between substantial numbers of academics, but (as Dougweller has pointed out below) that categorization can be troubling with subjects - and I'm not saying that this one of them - that have fringe adherents. Location (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- You don't think "Category:Suspected hoaxes" would be less overtly biased? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- The problem with a category such as "Artifacts of disputed authenticity" is that virtually all archaeological hoaxes have some adherents, as exemplified by the original poster here who has a major COI as an author of several articles on this subject. Another point mentioned at WP:Fringe is that categories are navigational aids. : "The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to all Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics." A defining characteristic of this topic is that mainstream opinion is that this is a hoax. How would removing the category aid the purpose of categories? Dougweller (talk) 06:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Further to this, mainstream archaeological opinion is that there were no Egyptians, Jews, Romans, Celts, Phoenicians, etc in the Americas before the Vikings or Columbus. Most archaeologists don't see any point in commenting on any specific examples of hoaxes purporting to be evidence for such visits, so the vast majority of the material available is from fringe supporters. If these categories are to be removed from this article then the next step will be to virtually depopulate the 3 categories. I've just added the forgeries category to an obvious hoax, the Tucson artifacts. Are we going to remove it from that, from Ica stones which show men flying dinosaurs, from Newark Holy Stones, etc? These are all held to be genuine by some people, but I don't think that's a reason for removing a category. Dougweller (talk) 09:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be two different issues going on here. First, I don't see the problem with having an unequivocal "hoaxes" category. As several others have said, there are always going to be those who either don't get the message or who are unwilling to concede. And there are cases within the various fields where there is genuine and persistent disagreement among those whose opinion is worth something (see for instance the Secret Gospel of Mark, where there is ongoing conflict over whether it was a fabrication of Morton Smith or not). Perhaps those cases need to be categorized separately.
But second, the real dispute seems to be over the status of this artifact. I cannot see taking a report from 1889 as some sort of archaeological dogma, no matter what the repute of the reporter. All modern archaeological analysis, if I follow the article correctly, asserts that the stone is a fraud; if there is any remaining dispute, it is over exactly what the fraud was accomplishing. So I don't see any reason not to label this object as a definite hoax. Mangoe (talk) 13:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- "Those whose opinion is worth something"... Geez, biased much? And this is the "NPOV" board! It seems you have a litmus test and the entire school of thought from authors willing to consider this artifact, has been written off by you as "unworthy" by that circular argument. That's not the same thing as honestly admitting to our readership that there really are other points of view out there that conflict with yours, that you don't seem willing to mention or perhaps afraid to mention. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- If you are new to Wikipedia, WP:WEIGHT is part of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Neutrality does not mean accepting every view as being equally valid. Mangoe was likely working off the assumption that everyone here was aware of that. Location (talk) 14:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- I am not new. The point is, there ARE sources that consider these artifacts seriously, but some editors want the article to pretend as if they don't exist because they have concluded that those sources on the subject "don't count". What makes this a suspected hoax is that they have not PROVED it is a hoax, the entire argument that it is a hoax rests entirely on an "appeal to authority" of selected sources that meet the circular litmus test of agreeing it is a hoax. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- OK. I'll pose the same question to you: If we have sources supporting Category:Archaeological forgeries-tag and other sources supporting Category:Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact-tag, why should one be removed and not the other? Location (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Til's not new - first edit under the Til account is 26 April 2007, under the (still active) Codex Sinaiticus (talk · contribs) this editor has been editing since 24 April 2005. I'm not convinced she is happy with our NPOV policy. Dougweller (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, I am a male! I have been online since 1990 but I first saw you in usenet right after Barry Fell passed away talking about that, and you have always been the internet's fiercest opponent of any consideration of the idea anyone could have crossed the oceans in boats before Christopher Columbus, except maybe Leif Ericson. So you're not new, either. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Seriously, I could go to just about any public library in the US and find umpteen of the books that tell people there are reasons to think other crossings may have occurred, so the opinion is not all that hard to find - even for people with no internet access. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Til's not new - first edit under the Til account is 26 April 2007, under the (still active) Codex Sinaiticus (talk · contribs) this editor has been editing since 24 April 2005. I'm not convinced she is happy with our NPOV policy. Dougweller (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- OK. I'll pose the same question to you: If we have sources supporting Category:Archaeological forgeries-tag and other sources supporting Category:Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact-tag, why should one be removed and not the other? Location (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- I am not new. The point is, there ARE sources that consider these artifacts seriously, but some editors want the article to pretend as if they don't exist because they have concluded that those sources on the subject "don't count". What makes this a suspected hoax is that they have not PROVED it is a hoax, the entire argument that it is a hoax rests entirely on an "appeal to authority" of selected sources that meet the circular litmus test of agreeing it is a hoax. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- If you are new to Wikipedia, WP:WEIGHT is part of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Neutrality does not mean accepting every view as being equally valid. Mangoe was likely working off the assumption that everyone here was aware of that. Location (talk) 14:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Til has been defending this fringey material from criticism for a long time. Maybe there is "serious" belief that the Bat Creek stuff isn't a forgery, but if it is coming from the archaeological equivalent of Charles Berlitz, the only need we have of mentioning is to point it out as a widely believed error. Likewise, the legend passed around among Catholics that George Washington was baptized on his deathbed can be dismissed with litter or no comment, and cannot justify reclassifying him as even a possible Catholic. You, Til, are not the standard of proof for Bat Creek; the archaeologists are. There's no circularity here because we aren't selecting sources on the basis of whether they agree with the hoax evaluation, but on whether they have credentials which suggest that their opinion has weight. Indeed, the manifest problem is that the credentials of those who accept the object as claimed are being played up in order to fend off a negative evaluation and thus present a false appearance of substantive disagreement. Mangoe (talk) 15:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- I still have yet to see any proof other than the usual "appeal to authority" of authors saying it is a hoax without demonstrating convincingly why it is one. Ridiculing the studies published that have given it actual attention, and coming up with endless ludicrous arguments by analogy seems to be the best you've got. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Til, if I turn off my "neutraliity" and start analyzing the arguments, I find that the case presented for a forgery is extremely strong. Away from Wikipedia, I am quite willing to stand on my own authority to interpret the works of the experts and dissenters. If you come up with a different interpretation, then in that office I think it reflects on you, not on them. McCulloch is, when all is said and done, an aficionado of crypto-archaeology, and he sits at the junction of notions that do not intersect other than their anti-establishment commitment to evidence of pre-Columbian Eurasian contact. My impression of all this evidence is that, if it makes a picture, it doesn't present the image of multiple glimpses of a single picture. But I also see that McCulloch tries to write as a technical person within the field, as many writers on fringe topics presume to do; for example, he goes on at length about the disputable "paleo-Hebrew" inscription. I'm not an expert on that, but the lay comparison afforded by the article leads me to accept that the craved characters can be readily explained as an erroneous imitation of the printed text also shown there. But more to the point, somewhere along the line I am going to be forced to rely someone's expertise, and having seen similar arguments made in areas where my personal expertise is stronger, I'm going to have to defer to archaeologists over an economist. And yes, obviously that's an appeal to authority, but then, so is using McCulloch. Versions of our article that use his work do, by the nature of the thing, appeal to his authority as an interpreter of the material. And just clicking to the main page of his website makes me reluctant to accept that appeal. Mangoe (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- I still have yet to see any proof other than the usual "appeal to authority" of authors saying it is a hoax without demonstrating convincingly why it is one. Ridiculing the studies published that have given it actual attention, and coming up with endless ludicrous arguments by analogy seems to be the best you've got. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Til has been defending this fringey material from criticism for a long time. Maybe there is "serious" belief that the Bat Creek stuff isn't a forgery, but if it is coming from the archaeological equivalent of Charles Berlitz, the only need we have of mentioning is to point it out as a widely believed error. Likewise, the legend passed around among Catholics that George Washington was baptized on his deathbed can be dismissed with litter or no comment, and cannot justify reclassifying him as even a possible Catholic. You, Til, are not the standard of proof for Bat Creek; the archaeologists are. There's no circularity here because we aren't selecting sources on the basis of whether they agree with the hoax evaluation, but on whether they have credentials which suggest that their opinion has weight. Indeed, the manifest problem is that the credentials of those who accept the object as claimed are being played up in order to fend off a negative evaluation and thus present a false appearance of substantive disagreement. Mangoe (talk) 15:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
From WP:CATEGORIES: "Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view. Categorizations appear on article pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate." Given that the article maintains a balance on this particular Smithsonian artifact and does not use Wikipedia's voice to pigeonhole it as a hoax, it strikes me as inappropriate for the categorization system to perform this back-door pigeonholing. (I don't know what a list article is, but this could be an option for those who want to classify it as a hoax.) HuMcCulloch (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- There are references to support the addition. As I asked you previously, if we have sources supporting Category:Archaeological forgeries-tag and other sources supporting Category:Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact-tag, why should one be removed under the guise of neutrality and not the other? Location (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- If someone wants to challenge the Trans-oceanic contact category, that should be a separately considered question. I think tying the two together involves some kind of a leap in logic somewhere. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- There is no "leap in logic". The two tags are mutually exclusive and this Rfc is asking us to pick one side over the other as an accurate reflection of the "truth". Location (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- A category for 'suspected hoaxes' ie those that are not conclusively proven as hoaxes, would not be mutually exclusive with the other category and should work fine, be more neutral and accurate. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- There is no "leap in logic". The two tags are mutually exclusive and this Rfc is asking us to pick one side over the other as an accurate reflection of the "truth". Location (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- If there were a tag, "Conclusive proof of Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact", I would agree that that would be equally inappropriate for this controversial artifact. But "Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact" is just an umbrella that includes all discussion of whether there was or wasn't such contact. This is a straw-man. HuMcCulloch (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- You're asserting that Category:Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact is "just an umbrella" category for discussion about that subject, but that Category:Archaeological forgeries, Category:Hoaxes in the United States, etc. are not umbrella categories for discussions about those subjects. Is that correct? Location (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see that inclusion in "Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact" is judgmental about whether included items are valid or invalid, whereas inclusion in "Hoaxes in the US" etc. is, so there's quite a difference. The "Pre-Columbian trans-atlantic contact" category is not itself a venue for discussing this subject, but just a list of pages that report such discussion. HuMcCulloch (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Not sure what to say that hasn't already been said. I see the various "hoax" categories as navigational aids for those seeking more information about articles that discuss related subjects. If you posted here wanting additional opinions on whether those categories are appropriate, then my opinion is that they are appropriate. I'm happy to sit back and see what other uninvolved editors have to say. Location (talk) 03:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see that inclusion in "Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact" is judgmental about whether included items are valid or invalid, whereas inclusion in "Hoaxes in the US" etc. is, so there's quite a difference. The "Pre-Columbian trans-atlantic contact" category is not itself a venue for discussing this subject, but just a list of pages that report such discussion. HuMcCulloch (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- You're asserting that Category:Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact is "just an umbrella" category for discussion about that subject, but that Category:Archaeological forgeries, Category:Hoaxes in the United States, etc. are not umbrella categories for discussions about those subjects. Is that correct? Location (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- If someone wants to challenge the Trans-oceanic contact category, that should be a separately considered question. I think tying the two together involves some kind of a leap in logic somewhere. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Article title: Bangladesh atrocities, genocide, or war crimes?
A controversial move/edit was made to 1971 Bangladesh genocide was made on 28 February 2013 and I can't find any discussion in WP to substantiate that there was a consensus. An earlier discussion on the talk page seemed to produce no consensus. I want to know what the procedure was behind this move? See difference [15]
What is the most neutral title? Prior to this diff, the article was called "1971 Bangladesh atrocities" but now it's called "1971 Bangladesh genocide". Perhaps a more neutral term would be "1971 Bangladesh war crimes"? Until this issue is resolved, I've questioned the neutrality of the article and posted a template on the front page.Crtew (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. "War Crimes" makes more sense, I do believe. The Scythian 11:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- According to academia there is a consensus that this was a genocide. [8][9][10] And per common name the article title needs to reflect that. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- I do believe the discussion shows that to be in dispute. The Scythian 11:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- What discussion would that be? There are none in the sources which I presented. Please provide sources which say there is a question over this being a genocide. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- I do believe the discussion shows that to be in dispute. The Scythian 11:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Since this was the original title of the article, I suggest a requested move discussion is more appropriate for figuring out whether genocide, atrocities, or war crimes are better titles. (This is also discussed here.)--regentspark (comment) 13:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- ^ http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_hom_fir_hom_rat_per_100_pop-rate-per-100-000-pop
- ^ Redaccion DJ MX (2012-03-12). "Most Mexicans are unaware that they have the right to keep and bear arms: Ernesto Villanueva". Diario Jurídico México . Retrieved 2012-10-16.
{{cite web}}
:|author=
has generic name (help); External link in
(help)|author=
and|publisher=
- ^ Jorge Humberto Álvarez Moreno (2008-12-22). "The garantee to possess firearms in the home under Article 10". Universidad De La Salle Bajío. Retrieved 2012-12-22.
{{cite web}}
: External link in
(help)|publisher=
- ^ http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2010/12/201012126317334111.html
- ^ SEDENA (2012-07-27). "Transfer of ownership of firearm". SEDENA. Retrieved 2012-12-22.
- ^ http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2010/12/201012126317334111.html
- ^ http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2010/12/201012126317334111.html
- ^ Simms, Brendan (2011). Brendan Simms, D. J. B. Trim (ed.). Humanitarian Intervention: A History. Cambridge University Press. p. 17. ISBN 978-0-521-19027-5.
- ^ D'Costa, Bina (1). Nationbuilding, Gender and War Crimes in South Asia. Routledge. p. 76. ISBN 978-0415565660.
{{cite book}}
: Check date values in:|date=
and|year=
/|date=
mismatch (help); Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help) - ^ Trim, D. J. B. (12). Hew Strachan, Sibylle Scheipers (ed.). The Changing Character of War. Oxford University Press. p. 159. ISBN 978-0199596737.
{{cite book}}
: Check date values in:|date=
and|year=
/|date=
mismatch (help); Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help)