m →Kosovo |
→Users editing my biography during disputes: relevance? |
||
Line 896: | Line 896: | ||
:Please be aware that while removing the POV from the BLP was top priority, WLU's 'edits' weren't limited to that article. For example, he also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blanchard's_transsexualism_typology&diff=prev&oldid=476120847 removed Andrea James from both places] where she was mentioned in Blanchard's_transsexualism_typology on the same day (along with a statement of Dreger's non-neutrality, Conway's objection to Dreger, and a citation to a synopsis of the fourteen articles in that ASB issue that were critical of Dreger). [[User:Bittergrey|BitterGrey]] ([[User talk:Bittergrey|talk]]) 14:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC) |
:Please be aware that while removing the POV from the BLP was top priority, WLU's 'edits' weren't limited to that article. For example, he also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blanchard's_transsexualism_typology&diff=prev&oldid=476120847 removed Andrea James from both places] where she was mentioned in Blanchard's_transsexualism_typology on the same day (along with a statement of Dreger's non-neutrality, Conway's objection to Dreger, and a citation to a synopsis of the fourteen articles in that ASB issue that were critical of Dreger). [[User:Bittergrey|BitterGrey]] ([[User talk:Bittergrey|talk]]) 14:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC) |
||
There be ''brief'' mentions of the dreger paper and NY times article, but not the detailed quotes. <small>[[User talk:Nobody Ent|Nobody Ent]]</small> 02:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC) |
There be ''brief'' mentions of the dreger paper and NY times article, but not the detailed quotes. <small>[[User talk:Nobody Ent|Nobody Ent]]</small> 02:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC) |
||
::Question - where does my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WLU&diff=next&oldid=76229603 edit] from six years ago mention Wilfred Laurier University? Why is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WLU&diff=478396047&oldid=478375999 this] relevant since I've never edited the [[Wilfred Laurier University]] page [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/usersearch.cgi?name=WLU&page=Wilfrid+Laurier+University&max=100&server=enwiki]? What purpose did Jokestress' comment on my talk page serve other than alluding to the fact that she's found information which might be useful if someone were trying to find out my real-life identity? And where is the dispute I have with Jokestress that motivated a POV-pushing edit so egregious it warranted starting a section on a noticeboard? Where is the evidence that my motivation was anything other than adding a [http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=3170124 reference] that mentions James by name more than 150 times? |
|||
::Also, my changes did remove James' name from the BTT article, as the sole reference provided was to a [http://www.gendermedicine.com/1st/images/P43.pdf poster presentation], not a reliable source. James did not write a reply to Dreger's article. If this is the limits of my errors, and it's worth taking action over, most of wikipedia's editors would need to have posts made since it's the rare editor that fleshes out, in full detail, a completely neutral article on a topic (and unnecessary since wikipedia is [[WP:NOTDONE|not done]]). In addition, Jokestress' own proposed version of the [[Andrea James]] page includes more detail on Dreger's article than my edit did - so obviously my edit couldn't be that bad. [[User:WLU|WLU]] <small>[[User talk:WLU|(t)]] [[Special:Contributions/WLU|(c)]] Wikipedia's rules:</small>[[WP:SIMPLE|<sup><span style='color:#FFA500'>simple</span></sup>]]/[[WP:POL|<sub><span style='color:#008080'>complex</span></sub>]] 16:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== Main Hawai'i article and Native Hawaiian sovereignty activist == |
== Main Hawai'i article and Native Hawaiian sovereignty activist == |
Revision as of 16:12, 2 March 2012
Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context! | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
- List of oldest universities in continuous operation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Hello,
After a previous discussion about this subject (see the extensible box below), a consensus was reached about the fact that excludinf non-European universities is a POV, and nobody opposed the proposed draft text.
However, some users think that this doesn't represent a consensus and that the previous version of the list is still appropriated. I wonder if the discussion should be re-started or continued, or if we can take a decision based on the previous discussion?
Link to the previous discussion: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 29#The University of Al-Karaouine and the List of oldest universities in continuous operation
Omar-Toons (talk) 11:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
The previous discussion - Click on "Show"
|
---|
Hello, On the articles University of Al-Karaouine and List of oldest universities in continuous operation, I found 4 academic sources, plus the UNESCO and the Guinness Book, stating that the University of Al-Karaouine is the oldest university in the world, but a "freelance historian", Kevin Shillington, edit: and many other historians contests that fact by stating that This case was discussed before but I see, according to the archives of the Talk Page [1][2], that no consensus was found and that the removal of non-European/Christian universities is still contested [3][4], After that,
I hope that we can find a solution to this problem. Regards. Omar-Toons (talk) 00:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Elinruby's assessment. I think the main problem we have to resolve here is what is what is this list about? There is already a List of medieval universities in chronological order which adheres strictly to the "Western" definition. The only difference between that list and this one, is that defunct universities are excluded here. Otherwise, this list does not seem to be supplying any additional information. It seems to me there is room for flexibility in the latter, so that we can have two lists - a list of old Western universities (apples only) and a list of old universities generally speaking (fruits as a whole). Trying to restrict the latter to the Western Medieval criteria seems superfluous replication. Walrasiad (talk) 00:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Can someone please provide some reliable sources other than Guinness and UNESCO supporting this claim? So far I haven't seen anything in the mainstream education history literature. There may be something buried above so please feel free to call our attention to it. ElKevbo (talk) 02:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Additionally, I caution my colleagues that Wikipedia is not the place for editors to push agendas or correct perceived (or actual) wrongs. It may be that the mainstream education history defines "university" in such a way as to exclude institutions outside of Europe and northern Africa. But it's not up to us to correct that; the historians must do that and then we can cite them. That's the crux of WP:OR. ElKevbo (talk) 02:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Christian-Muslim Dialogue," Current Sociology, 54: 112–132. Not history, but looks scholarly.
I support the proposal made above to have two lists: 1. Medieval universities in continuous operation (Christian European sens) 2. List of oldest universities in continuous operation (generic sens). --Tachfin (talk) 06:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Draft text? Thanks for the sources. Can someone please propose a draft of how this will be described in the various articles that this will affect? ElKevbo (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
|
- Ah geez. Are they still saying it's not a university because the pope didn't something or other? I just had to check to see if it was even clear who the pope *was* that year, but apparently there was only one in that particular year. Before that and after that - not so clear ;) The idea that this even matters is making me lose my temper ;) The Church may have been the defining factor in such matters in the Dark Ages, but there's been a Renaissance and an Industrial Revolution and like a thousand years since then, thank God. We are allowed to use university to mean a place of higher learning, in general. Yes we are. I don't remember what the draft text was, but anything that doesn't make the Vatican the authority in the matter is fine with me. Elinruby (talk) 12:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Not the topic of this thread of course, but the term "Dark Ages" is generally frowned upon and has been old fashioned for at least half a century. If you used the term in a university you'd make lecturers cry. Nev1 (talk) 12:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- But appropriate in this instance :P I'll make sure to leave out of the next article I edit about barbarian invasions, ok? I'm fundamentally offended by the notion that nobody was learned in the tenth century but Christians. I mean -- I am sure the *Christians* thought so... but... And you're worried about what to *call* an age like that? How about nasty short and brutish? You've done it now. I'll have to go review a Song of Roland concordance, and make really sure to use the term <g> Yes I am kidding. And yes, you're off-topic :P I agree with you. Elinruby (talk) 13:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- There is a cocktail of arrogance and ignorance in the term the "Dark Ages", but why worry about that. Academic sources seem to be quite clear that universities and madrasahs are separate entities. The sources Omar Toons has been peddling have been often poor and usually tangentially related to the subject; the speciailist sources seem quite clear on the issue. Nev1 (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- The issue as I recall was *very* ethnocentric criteria. Sources for the date are a separate problem and as noted above, this is not the reliable sources noticeboard. I don't think Wikipedia should resort to elaborate constructions like "List of institutions of higher education" over ancient definitions that denigrate learning in other cultures. In fact, Wikipedia should abolish lists altogether as they are magnets for this type of silly discussion about what is a "real" country and what is a "real" university. PS - As a small bit of advice, if you are going to throw around words like "arrogance" and "ignorance" it's best to be oneself humble enough to run spellcheck. I will be quiet now and let other people talk. Elinruby (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- So you're making barbed remarks for a typo? Forgive me for being fallible. So far you have contributed little of worth to the conversation regarding universities, it is perhaps a good call on your part to be quiet. Nev1 (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't ask your opinion. Merely pointed out that calling anyone "ignorant" raises the bar when it comes to one's own posts. Spell-check is good in such cases. Keeps you from looking silly. As for not contributing anything of value, perhaps you mean little that supports your point of view. Look under the hat-note. I was very much involved when this came up before and posted a number of references that are absolutely RS. I thought perhaps you were not involved last time and thus had overlooked them...but I see you did post and therefore knew of the discussion. Why did you not participate then, is my question. In other words, is this same issue back again in hopes of another consensus this time? I don't get it. Elinruby (talk) 01:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- So you're making barbed remarks for a typo? Forgive me for being fallible. So far you have contributed little of worth to the conversation regarding universities, it is perhaps a good call on your part to be quiet. Nev1 (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- The issue as I recall was *very* ethnocentric criteria. Sources for the date are a separate problem and as noted above, this is not the reliable sources noticeboard. I don't think Wikipedia should resort to elaborate constructions like "List of institutions of higher education" over ancient definitions that denigrate learning in other cultures. In fact, Wikipedia should abolish lists altogether as they are magnets for this type of silly discussion about what is a "real" country and what is a "real" university. PS - As a small bit of advice, if you are going to throw around words like "arrogance" and "ignorance" it's best to be oneself humble enough to run spellcheck. I will be quiet now and let other people talk. Elinruby (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- There is a cocktail of arrogance and ignorance in the term the "Dark Ages", but why worry about that. Academic sources seem to be quite clear that universities and madrasahs are separate entities. The sources Omar Toons has been peddling have been often poor and usually tangentially related to the subject; the speciailist sources seem quite clear on the issue. Nev1 (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, academic sources don't agree on this, as you may see by the several sources cited recently at the University of Al-Karaouine talk page. Remember most of our thinking on this is influenced by a tradition of Western exceptionalism. Seen in the round, as what universities do, there were great overarching similarities between what medieval Western institutions, called universities at the time, did, and what took place in Sung China, and the Islamic world. If your definition of 'university' summarizes what these became in modern Western tradition, then it excludes all other institutional forms of higher learning, but risks being ethnocentric nominalism. 'Nationalism' and 'feudalism' have suffered from the same problem: are we referring to nationalism-qua-Western modernization, or feudalism-qua-medieval Western societies, or do the words have analytic value for non-European historical societies. The academic world has no consensus on these issues, and yes/no varies according to scholars.
- Therefore, if several reputable sources describe non-western schools as 'universities', we should leave the conceptual border determination to scholarship, and simply refer what those sources say, case by case. Wiki can't decide these issues, since the academic world itself is conflicted in their regard.Nishidani (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. WP:NPOV requires us to present the scholarly viewpoints that Al-Karaouine was a university founded in the ninth century. NPOV also requires us to present the opposite viewpoint. Completely deleting one viewpoint is a violation of the policy.VR talk 21:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- And this is what was previously proposed and on which nobody was opposed. --Omar-Toons (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. WP:NPOV requires us to present the scholarly viewpoints that Al-Karaouine was a university founded in the ninth century. NPOV also requires us to present the opposite viewpoint. Completely deleting one viewpoint is a violation of the policy.VR talk 21:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- But appropriate in this instance :P I'll make sure to leave out of the next article I edit about barbarian invasions, ok? I'm fundamentally offended by the notion that nobody was learned in the tenth century but Christians. I mean -- I am sure the *Christians* thought so... but... And you're worried about what to *call* an age like that? How about nasty short and brutish? You've done it now. I'll have to go review a Song of Roland concordance, and make really sure to use the term <g> Yes I am kidding. And yes, you're off-topic :P I agree with you. Elinruby (talk) 13:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Not the topic of this thread of course, but the term "Dark Ages" is generally frowned upon and has been old fashioned for at least half a century. If you used the term in a university you'd make lecturers cry. Nev1 (talk) 12:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Problem is, the "inclusionsit" camp has only provided sources that are either not reliable (children's books), not academic (UNESCO, Guiness Book), or generalist in nature. The "exclusionist" camp has provided much higher caliber sources, sources that are scholarly investigations into the history and origin of the modern university. These are presented and discussed in detail at the article talkpage, yet for whatever reason Omar-Toons is avoiding that discussion, instead insisting on coming here. Athenean (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- I seem to recall posting a list of sources the last time this was up on this board that were not only reliable but scholarly. They included a published doctoral thesis, a couple of academic articles in French and hmm maybe a conference paper... I excluded mentions in passing and anything that mentioned Guinness, and only listed texts that used the word "university." This is well beyond the bar for a reliable source on Wikipedia. I suspect that a search on Arabic texts would find many more. Insisting on English-language articles in journals devoted to the history of European educational institutions naturally will skew the results, can you not see that? Elinruby (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- You seem to recall? Well, where are they? Anyway, conference papers and doctoral theses are not on the same level as the sources presented at Talk:List of oldest universities in continuous operation. It's a question of undue weight. The editors agitating for the inclusion of madrasahs in the list of oldest universities want to do so even though the weight of the sources is against that. There is only one table. Either we include the madrasahs or we exclude them. The weight of the evidence indicates that we shouldn't. I will also note that those editors are only interested in adding Karaouine and Al-Azhar, not any of the other many old madrasahs. Why? Because those two are the only two whose date of foundation predates that of the University of Bologna. In other words, they are not interested in the subject per se, or in truly improving the article, but rather only to push the POV that "Muslims invented the University!". Fairly transparent. Athenean (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Click the link that says "show" on the green bar where it says "Extended content". Elinruby (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please note that Athenian has been provided with numerous scholarly and academic sources, but has chosen to ignore them because he insists that they do not specialize in the subject of "history of the university".[18] In Athenian's view sources that deal with "higher education" are irrelevant (even though some are authored by professors). Athenian has also been presented with a scholarly work entitled "The Oldest University in the World" (published in the British Medical Journal, vol. 1, no.1745, p.1269). Athenian's criteria of what a reliable source must be seems to have no basis in WP:RS.VR talk 02:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- It is frankly worrying that it's not obvious to you that the British Medical Journal isn't relevant to the article. Nev1 (talk) 02:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- What about Nick Foskett, professor of education, writing a book on higher education and making the exact same claim?[19]VR talk 02:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- It is frankly worrying that it's not obvious to you that the British Medical Journal isn't relevant to the article. Nev1 (talk) 02:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- You seem to recall? Well, where are they? Anyway, conference papers and doctoral theses are not on the same level as the sources presented at Talk:List of oldest universities in continuous operation. It's a question of undue weight. The editors agitating for the inclusion of madrasahs in the list of oldest universities want to do so even though the weight of the sources is against that. There is only one table. Either we include the madrasahs or we exclude them. The weight of the evidence indicates that we shouldn't. I will also note that those editors are only interested in adding Karaouine and Al-Azhar, not any of the other many old madrasahs. Why? Because those two are the only two whose date of foundation predates that of the University of Bologna. In other words, they are not interested in the subject per se, or in truly improving the article, but rather only to push the POV that "Muslims invented the University!". Fairly transparent. Athenean (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's becoming disruptive how you are repeating the same things over and over. It was explained to you in the article talkpage why a source on the "marketization" of the university is problematic. What do you tihnk you will accomplish by posting it again here? It is also disruptive the way you are pretending that source that refute your POV don't exist. These were provided in the article talkpage, yet you are ignoring them as if they didn't exist. And they are of much higher quality than any of the sources you have provided. Athenean (talk) 02:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- The situation is the exact opposite. I realize that that there is disagreement amongst historians on the oldest university. I have even quoted those sources. I want this disagreement to be reflected in the article. I want the article to acknowledge that the oldest university could be at Fez, Cairo, or Bologna.
- You on the other hand want only Bologna to be recognized as the oldest. You want to exclude reliable and scholarly sources. You want to pretend that reliable sources on the university at Fez don't exist. I want to include all the reliable sources and their viewpoints. That is both the spirit and letter of NPOV.VR talk 02:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's becoming disruptive how you are repeating the same things over and over. It was explained to you in the article talkpage why a source on the "marketization" of the university is problematic. What do you tihnk you will accomplish by posting it again here? It is also disruptive the way you are pretending that source that refute your POV don't exist. These were provided in the article talkpage, yet you are ignoring them as if they didn't exist. And they are of much higher quality than any of the sources you have provided. Athenean (talk) 02:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- That can be done by means of a footnote in the article. But since the visual impact of the table is greater than that of a footnote, preference for the table should be given to side with the weightier evidence, and that side is clearly the University of Bologna. Would not excluding Karaouine and Al-Azhar from the table, but mentioning them in a footnote be acceptable to you? Athenean (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Is it possible that the evidence for Bologna looks weightier to you because you dismiss so much of the evidence against it? I'd like to see a list of the references pro and con, myself, without having to go hunt them through multiple arguments on two discussion pages. Look at the Taliban post above - whatever the merits of the OP's case, that's an organized presentation. BTW, there also seem to be transliteration issues -- I get about 500 more hits on Google Scholar using "al qarawiyyin". Not all of them will meet the criteria I mentioned above, but they don't have to. If the contention is that the sources need to be not only reliable but also scholarly and beyond that only come from journals devoted to the history of education, then I am sorry; you are simply wrong. Elinruby (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- There's a few configurations that we can have, but I'm glad that you've decided to at least include reliably sourced viewpoints.
- 1) put them in the table with the European table, with the notes mentioning that many scholars dispute their status as universities (and many don't). 2) Putting non-European institutions in a separate table and section entitled as such (below the European table, for lesser "visual impact"), with a paragraph detailing the views of historians on this matter.
- Regarding footnote: I don't think, given the number and details of viewpoints, that it would be wise to discuss this there.
- I would like to hear what sort of creative solutions other users can come up with.VR talk 03:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Note the header saying that (for example) definitions of "university" vary; see sidebar for further details. I don't know what the conventions are on lists but I think that the reader, who may be surprised to find or not find something on a list, deserves to know if appropriate that the terminology is, uh...not agreed upon. I also think that the term "madrassah" is to US ears at least associated with the Taliban at the moment. However unfortunate this may be, it's a fact. So care should be used in using it. I saw a comment saying that a madrassah is more like a lycée than a university; not sure if that's true but if those are its associations in Arabic, that's another reason to use the word cautiously if at all. Elinruby (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- That can be done by means of a footnote in the article. But since the visual impact of the table is greater than that of a footnote, preference for the table should be given to side with the weightier evidence, and that side is clearly the University of Bologna. Would not excluding Karaouine and Al-Azhar from the table, but mentioning them in a footnote be acceptable to you? Athenean (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
(unindent) The weight of the scholarly (a word used by VR above) evidence is clearly that the University of Bologna is the oldest continuously operating university in the world. None of the sources in favor of Karaouine are scholarly. Rather, numerous specialized, scholarly sources have been provided in the article talkpage that clearly state that Bologna is the oldest functioning university. As such, I propose that Karaouine and Al-Azhar be kept out of the table, but a footnote explaining that some non-scholarly sources consider Karaouine to be the oldest functioning university be added to the article. Athenean (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Very strong oppose - Many peer-reviewed journal articles have in fact been provided to support Al-Karaouine. If you wish to prove that Bologna is older, then please meet the same standard in your arguments. Possibly "university" is a term of art in the history of education; but mere mortals consider it a synonym for "institution of higher learning", and easier to pronounce as well. There is more than enough RS to support the 9th-century founding in my opinion; the only question in my mind is what criteria should be used for weight? But I guarantee that the answer is not going to be "we ignore everything that hasn't been published in an English-language journal about the history of higher education," no matter who else chimes in. That position is simply bizarre. Elinruby (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- What "many peer-reviewed journal articles"? I only see one, a passing mention in a medical journal, not an education or history of science journal. As for evidence in favor of Bologna, it is presented at the article talkpage. And I've never said that only an "English-language journal about the history of higher education" is an acceptable source, so spare me the straw man argument. Athenean (talk) 04:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
long discussion of sources for purposes of weight - Click on "Show"
|
---|
Sources provided for "Bologna is the oldest university in the world"
Sources provided for "the oldest university in the world is not Bologna":
About B
Mentions in passing with citation
A little weak
Article exists, unable to find referenced text in time allotted Note though, that there is no requirement that a reference be *easily* verifiable. I could go somewhere with JSTOR but am not fanatic enough to do so. These get a maybe, is what I am saying...
|
- summary of the above discussion, which is not closed, but contains some very long posts:
- Athenean has not made his case that a preponderance of scholarly sources support the statement that the university is a European institution and therefore the University of Bologna is the oldest university. Of his three sources, two dealt with medieval Europe only and unsurprisingly do not mention the school at Fez. The third actually discusses the Islamic roots of European universities.
- VR provided a long list of sources ranging from good down to a bit weak. There is enough RS several times over to support the 9th-century founding, and several mentions of al-Karaouine's age and status as oldest university by people with very strong academic credentials.
- I added some references, which I think are RS, scholarly and specific, but someone else should review them.
I agree that "university" seems to have a specific meaning among medievalists, but universities are important topics in many other fields, such as the broader field of history, education, sociology, area studies (ie foreign service topics), communication theory, philosophy and religion, to name a few. Nor do all medieval scholars appear to subscribe to this paradigm. Based on the literature review above, if anything should be consigned to a footnote it is an exclusionist and demonstrably offensive (see discussion pages for Islamic reaction) view of some scholars in a single field. This is a question of history, but not only of the medieval history of the European university. Athenean said this is not his position, but declined to explain what his position might otherwise be. Caveat: since I went looking for sources, I conceivably am no longer uninvolved. I am not sure of the policy on this. Someone should at least read over the above discussion, as it is also not inconceivable that the name-calling on one side of this question has colored my thinking. But this is my best good-faith attempt to objectively assess the matter. Thanks. Elinruby (talk)
- I think there's enough sources to believe that multiple universities (Fez, Bologna, Cairo) have claims to being the oldest in the world. Good sources have been provided for all of these. We should include all these claims in the article.VR talk 04:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- So, we got the same conclusion than the previous discussion. Great! I hope that nobody will come in 2 weeks a pretends that this is not a NPOV issue. --Omar-Toons (talk) 11:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Your attemps at pretending a consensus which supports your view when there is absolutely none have become a bit tiresome by now. This is no POV but a contents issue which is mainly about historical understanding and semantic differentiation. The issue is chiefly discussed at Talk:List of oldest universities in continuous operation and the participants arguing for a identity of (Muslim) mosque schools with (Christian) universities are invited to bring forward pertinent sources, which they have not done so yet. It is clear that the use of the word "university" as such counts for very little, even (or, rather, particularly) when it comes with the bold claim of priority, because , due to its sweeping historical success, the Western "university" has become today all over the world a generic term synonymous with "centre of higher education" (much like Cola is today a generic term due to the global success of one particular brand, Coca Cola). So what we need are scholarly, preferably specialist sources on the university and its history which make a comprehensive, argumentative case for madrasah = university, none of which, however, has been presented so far. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with Gun Powder Ma on his characterisation of the situation. I would also note that if we are going to extend the definition of university to include madrasahs then we would also have to consider the inclusion of cathedral schools. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- The question here isn not if Medersas were universities or not, but if Al-Karaouine was a university or not, and there are many RS stating that it was a university, while many other RS, stating that it wasn't, exist.
- The fact that these two viewpoints are both relied by RS makes it a NPOV issue, and since only a single viewpoint is shown on these WP articles, that the NPOVN discussion prevails over any other discussion (especially the one on the Talk Page).
- Omar-Toons (talk) 15:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with Gun Powder Ma on his characterisation of the situation. I would also note that if we are going to extend the definition of university to include madrasahs then we would also have to consider the inclusion of cathedral schools. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Your attemps at pretending a consensus which supports your view when there is absolutely none have become a bit tiresome by now. This is no POV but a contents issue which is mainly about historical understanding and semantic differentiation. The issue is chiefly discussed at Talk:List of oldest universities in continuous operation and the participants arguing for a identity of (Muslim) mosque schools with (Christian) universities are invited to bring forward pertinent sources, which they have not done so yet. It is clear that the use of the word "university" as such counts for very little, even (or, rather, particularly) when it comes with the bold claim of priority, because , due to its sweeping historical success, the Western "university" has become today all over the world a generic term synonymous with "centre of higher education" (much like Cola is today a generic term due to the global success of one particular brand, Coca Cola). So what we need are scholarly, preferably specialist sources on the university and its history which make a comprehensive, argumentative case for madrasah = university, none of which, however, has been presented so far. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
As been said, the real discussion takes place here, but just to outline the issue for non-involved and non-informed users: The issue is the very strong claim forwarded by user Omar that certain Muslim mosque schools which were founded in the Muslim world before the first Christian universities were founded in the West were 1. universities and 2. the oldest universities. This is a true logical fallacy (namely a category mistake): The fact that the Christian university and Muslim madrasah were both centres of higher education does not make the madrasah any more a university than the fact that both mosques and churches are places of worship makes a mosque a church: although belong to the same category 'centres of higher education', they are different members of this category just as mosques and churches are different members of the category 'places of worship'.
The historical reality is rather this: the university was the system of higher education peculiar to the Christin medieval West. Nowhere else did universities exist then. Other world regions also had centres of higher education but they were different from the university both in name and structure (just as the mosque is different from the church both in name and structure). The university later was exported from the West all over the world and has become the only system everywhere. But the fact that these early Muslim madrasahs have become today universities does not determine their status in the Middle Ages. Back then, they were a different form of higher education, one which is peculiar to the Islamic world, namely the madrasah. The claim that mosque schools were the same as universities is therefore truly grotesque and monstruous.
The fact that the university and the madrasah are the subject of separate articles demonstrates unassailably that WP consensus is that they are separate institutions. Consequently and logically, we also has two different lists, one referring to madrasahs and one referring to universities. Now what Omar actually argues for is that we should mix these list, namely that we should subsume madrasahs also under universities (although, mysteriously not the other way round). But why should we list mosque schools among universities? Who would think of listing mosques in a list of churches? All this makes absolutely no sense. The answer is clear: we should include madrasahs in a university when and only when they have been refounded and reorganized as universities and that is what we have been actually doing at the List of oldest universities in continuous operation for years now. So, Wikipedia treats them most clearly as two separate institutions and Omar edit-warring against this WP consensus is the real irritating POV here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with Gun Powder Ma's understanding of this issue, but would develop one more point. Not only were madrasah's not universities, but neither were medieval cathedral or monastic schools universities. Some of them developed into universities; the cathedral school of Paris and the monastic school of St. Victor both contributed to the later University of Paris, but we would not think of listing them as universities. Neither would we list the cathedral school of Chartres and the monastic school of St. Gallen, which did not become universities. None of these schools had the corporate autonomy that emerged in the course of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries and became the defining characteristic of a university. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- I would like you, if you would, to expand on this idea of corporate autonomy, which none of its proponents have yet properly explained. Am I correct in understanding that the contention is that European schools were independent of the Church but Islamic universities were not independent of Islamic religious figures? And if the reason to for not listing the cathedral schools is that they did not become universities, then how is this relevant to the current discussion? This is a serious question, not sarcasm. Elinruby (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- Off-topic : The question here is not if Medersas were universities or not, but if Al-Karaouine was a university or not, and there are many RS stating that it was a university, while many other RS, stating that it wasn't, exist. Both viewpoints are relied by RS, both have to be expressed. This is WP's NPOV policy, and it is non-negotiable. --Omar-Toons (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Not off topic at all, since the issue is that, just as the Cathedral School of Paris led to the University of Paris, when and under what circumstances did the School of Al-Karaouine become a university. I'm not familiar with the detailed history of that school, but I notice that its Wikipedia page says it was organized as a modern university in 1947. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- I think that you already know that a Wikipedia page isn't a RS ;) --Omar-Toons (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Not off topic at all, since the issue is that, just as the Cathedral School of Paris led to the University of Paris, when and under what circumstances did the School of Al-Karaouine become a university. I'm not familiar with the detailed history of that school, but I notice that its Wikipedia page says it was organized as a modern university in 1947. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: There is nothing more to say than what's already been said. The title should be changed if the list is going to be restricted to Western Institutions. This should go to RFC, vote count and get done with it. Even if that's not the best option but at least it would give some legitimacy to the Euro-centric team claims. --Tachfin (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- I proposed that Karaouine and Al-Azhar be mentioned in a footnote or somewhere other than the table, but I guess this concession was interpreted as a sign of weakness by the Islamo-centric team. Athenean (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- Strong oppose, contrary to the WP:NPOV policy.
- By the way, the Islamo-centric position would be that Al-Karaouine is undoubtedly the oldest one ; this is the stric opposite of the Euro-centric one which is that Bologna is undoubtedly the oldest one. Each claim is contested by Reliable sources. The WP:NPOV implies that, since both positions are sourced by RS, both have to be mentioned.
- Omar-Toons (talk) 11:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- I proposed that Karaouine and Al-Azhar be mentioned in a footnote or somewhere other than the table, but I guess this concession was interpreted as a sign of weakness by the Islamo-centric team. Athenean (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: Readers might wish to note that VR talk has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: Could we also check Aaljuma. Looks like the Islamo-centrist faction is running here several fight nicks to bolster up its position. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Cough - if you want to accuse other editors of being somehow bad, there are other noticeboards for that. Aaljuma, whoever he or she may be, has not participated in this discussion and so your sniggering suggestions about him or her are off-topic here and would in any event be inappropriate if he or she had done so. Do you wish to address the current paucity of reliable sources in this group of articles? If not, then why are you here? Oh and by the way, the Vice Regent account was unblocked yesterday. Not that he is a "fight nick" -- are you? I do not think the reference to "faction" was polite or constructive. Thanks. Elinruby (talk) 14:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- noted: The sources/links that he provided should be reviewed then. I will take a few minutes and repost the ones that might be reliable. --Omar-Toons (talk) 14:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- They all fall within the definition of reliable source -- with the possible exception of the 1894 journal article, whose existence I could not verify. (Ya, it's in a category that says I did, which is my mistake). But they are references to mainstream and academic publications with no connection to the author, and there is reason to give varying degrees of credibility to his authors. Some of them I'd throw out; if there is no citation for the statement, it is, for all we know, based on the Guinness Book of Records, and we still don't know what their basis is for the statement. On the other hand, some of the authors are very notable and very respectable academically. So sockpuppet or not (whose, by the way?) VR had a point. On the other hand, no single source of his matched Athenean's three for serious academics, but Athenean was trying to prove a global statement with sources whose scope was limited to Europe. Some of the sources *I* found were limited to Africa, but they are, I submit, at least equal academically to Athenean's. So, lacking a source that deals with the overall regional history, except for Athenean's one RS source, which does not support his position, it seems to me that weight is *not* on the side of Europe exceptionalism, even if you limit the sourcing to medieval history, and I see no reason to do so. I suggest a prominent mention somewhere of something along the lines of: "Early higher education had strong ties to religion and was quite different from what takes place in today's universities. Different authors in different fields have used different criteria to arrive at diverging opinions about which university was "first." These include subjects taught, degree granted, charter and (anything else that fits here). This list uses "university" as a synonym for "institution of higher education" and notes the disputes concerning early universities' founding in its footnotes." Or any version of the above that can be agreed upon. That said, the fundamental problem here is that the article is a list, which by definition loses many of reality's shades of grey. There was recently a similar dispute on List of national emblems about whether some places were "real" countries. Elinruby (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- Agree : I made a proposition on the previous discussion, maybe we could start from the previous draft text and edit it to fit the (few) newly introduced elements? --Omar-Toons (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- I just went and looked at your previous proposal. I don't really have an issue with it, except that I don't know what "different historical trajectories" means and neither, I suspect, does anyone else. I am not particularly attached to the specific wording above, by the way; my primary point is that if there are RS for three different institutions then this needs to be said. But I do not think it is reasonable to expect Wikipedia to adopt a specialized definition which does not reflect a consensus in its own field. This can be avoided by using the definition in current use in modern English, and pointing out that some historians use another one, is what I am saying. Since I am philosophically opposed to lists (which create this sort of controversy) I do not want to engage on specific wordings. But the article should not say that *any* of these institutions is or is not a "real" university -- this is a matter of definition better left to footnotes imho. Elinruby (talk) 02:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Agree : I made a proposition on the previous discussion, maybe we could start from the previous draft text and edit it to fit the (few) newly introduced elements? --Omar-Toons (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- They all fall within the definition of reliable source -- with the possible exception of the 1894 journal article, whose existence I could not verify. (Ya, it's in a category that says I did, which is my mistake). But they are references to mainstream and academic publications with no connection to the author, and there is reason to give varying degrees of credibility to his authors. Some of them I'd throw out; if there is no citation for the statement, it is, for all we know, based on the Guinness Book of Records, and we still don't know what their basis is for the statement. On the other hand, some of the authors are very notable and very respectable academically. So sockpuppet or not (whose, by the way?) VR had a point. On the other hand, no single source of his matched Athenean's three for serious academics, but Athenean was trying to prove a global statement with sources whose scope was limited to Europe. Some of the sources *I* found were limited to Africa, but they are, I submit, at least equal academically to Athenean's. So, lacking a source that deals with the overall regional history, except for Athenean's one RS source, which does not support his position, it seems to me that weight is *not* on the side of Europe exceptionalism, even if you limit the sourcing to medieval history, and I see no reason to do so. I suggest a prominent mention somewhere of something along the lines of: "Early higher education had strong ties to religion and was quite different from what takes place in today's universities. Different authors in different fields have used different criteria to arrive at diverging opinions about which university was "first." These include subjects taught, degree granted, charter and (anything else that fits here). This list uses "university" as a synonym for "institution of higher education" and notes the disputes concerning early universities' founding in its footnotes." Or any version of the above that can be agreed upon. That said, the fundamental problem here is that the article is a list, which by definition loses many of reality's shades of grey. There was recently a similar dispute on List of national emblems about whether some places were "real" countries. Elinruby (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's so sad how quick some people are to judge you.VR talk 03:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- noted: The sources/links that he provided should be reviewed then. I will take a few minutes and repost the ones that might be reliable. --Omar-Toons (talk) 14:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: List of oldest universities in continuous operation is in effect a subpage of University. If we are going to have such a list at all (and I can see the strength of the argument that such lists are intrinsically trouble generating) then we should follow the definition of university used there. That is what the current form does. If anybody wishes to change the definition of university used in the list article they should first establish that change at the top article. This procedure ensures that such a proposal receieves full and proper scrutiny from expert eyes. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Good point, although the parties and arguments there seem to be essentially the same. (And to cite the article in question here....) Maybe Omar, who has already participated on that comment page, should point out that the question has been re-opened here. Gunpowder Ma has not actually said anything above as far as I know...On the other hand, other exceptionalists seem to be refusing to participate, which imho should bar them from complaining of a lack of consensus here.Elinruby (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- There are certainly some common themes in recent edits, though the definition of university found particularly in University#Medieval_universities seems stable and well referenced. But my principal point here is that we should avoid List of oldest universities in continuous operation (or, for that matter, the recently renamed List of oldest universities in continuous operation in the Muslim world) becoming WP:POVFORKs from university. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- I can see the concern for consistency but am not sure, without going into this more than I already have, that I see how to resolve this except by expanding the scope of the discussion. The article definition may be stable but it has the same POV problem as the list; one way to resolve this may be to say "earliest european universities" vs "earliest universities" in the medieval section. This would however still leave the article with many of the problems that have been highlighted on the list, particularly the definition. But the article does benefit from a format where we can perhaps better explain the shades of grey. I have not looked at its references, but as noted above, there seems to be plentiful evidence that this definition is not universally accepted, even by specialists in the history of education. But yes, it would seem that this article should not contradict the list. I suggest waiting for comment from some of the involved editors? 21:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- I think the discussion on the nature of universities on the university page is both adequately nuanced and sufficiently referenced; the majority view is clearly explained and justified, and the minority view is covered adequately in my opinion, though there is always room for debate on niceties. The discussion in the sub-articles, by contrast, is far less satisfactory, and improving the clarity of the introductory sections there is the obvious next step. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- On the contrary; I think you should take another look. There is no source provided at all for the definition used on that page, nor for the assertion that the institution was created in Europe and bestowed by it upon a previously benighted world. Almost all of the works cited have titles like "History of the European University," so it is unsurprising that its editors have not found indications of learning elsewhere. I'll say it again. A scholarly source does not mean a reliable source necessarily. A source is reliable, or not, for specific statements. You cannot prove that something did not happen outside Europe with texts that only deal with Europe. In the meantime other scholarly sources exist which do indeed use the word university for early institutions outside Europe. Elinruby (talk) 13:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- The page University was written by the same people than the List. (Sorry to not participate to this discussion as I'm supposed to do (as the one who started it), unfortunately I don't have enough free time these days. I'll probably be back in some 2-3 days)
- --Omar-Toons (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Omar, I opened a mediation cabal case just before you stopped editing about this. Either start that up when you return, or walk away. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- With a biased description? The question isn't if Medersas should be added, but if Al-Karaouine should be described as a University or not. The difference is that Al-Karaouine was a multidisciplinary high-learning institution frequented even by non-Muslims, which isn't the case of "Mosque-schools" (the "central" one of Fez being the Madrasa Al-Bouanania) where only religious teaching was provided. Unfortunately, I see a lack of good faith in this action, especially coming from a user who didn't participate to this discussion. --Omar-Toons (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- So, it seems that nobody's interested in the Mediation Cabal case, and most perople find that there is an NPOV issue. Anyone to oppose that (again)? --Omar-Toons (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- That's a very odd summary of the above discussion. And in any event the discussion has now moved to Talk:University which is where it belongs. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- No, again: There seems to be a NPOV issue, and NPOV issues can only be solved on the NPOVN. You can not decide without reaching a consensus here to close the NPOV case and to move the discussion to an article talk page.
- People opposed to mention non-European universities are free to boycott the NPOVN, but they can not impose by their act the closure of the NPOV case.
- --Omar-Toons (talk) 06:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- So, it seems that the Mediation Cabal wasn't appropriate. Is any one still opposed to the treatment of the article as a NPOV issue? --Omar-Toons (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have been away from Wikipedia as a whole for about a month, as I had things to take care of irl and felt the need to devote my limited free time to speaking out about internet censorship. Just wanted to say that it was not lack of interest that kept me from participating in the mediation attempt. I still feel that both University and List of oldest universities suffer from a glaring Eurocentric bias, which I have not yet managed to get anyone on the other side of the issue to consider let alone acknowledge. My experience with this issue is that they go oh haha you people are so ignorant to think that universities existed outside of Europe, and then they link to some tome entitled A History of the University in Europe or something of the kind. Elinruby (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- So, it seems that the Mediation Cabal wasn't appropriate. Is any one still opposed to the treatment of the article as a NPOV issue? --Omar-Toons (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- That's a very odd summary of the above discussion. And in any event the discussion has now moved to Talk:University which is where it belongs. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- So, it seems that nobody's interested in the Mediation Cabal case, and most perople find that there is an NPOV issue. Anyone to oppose that (again)? --Omar-Toons (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- With a biased description? The question isn't if Medersas should be added, but if Al-Karaouine should be described as a University or not. The difference is that Al-Karaouine was a multidisciplinary high-learning institution frequented even by non-Muslims, which isn't the case of "Mosque-schools" (the "central" one of Fez being the Madrasa Al-Bouanania) where only religious teaching was provided. Unfortunately, I see a lack of good faith in this action, especially coming from a user who didn't participate to this discussion. --Omar-Toons (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Omar, I opened a mediation cabal case just before you stopped editing about this. Either start that up when you return, or walk away. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- On the contrary; I think you should take another look. There is no source provided at all for the definition used on that page, nor for the assertion that the institution was created in Europe and bestowed by it upon a previously benighted world. Almost all of the works cited have titles like "History of the European University," so it is unsurprising that its editors have not found indications of learning elsewhere. I'll say it again. A scholarly source does not mean a reliable source necessarily. A source is reliable, or not, for specific statements. You cannot prove that something did not happen outside Europe with texts that only deal with Europe. In the meantime other scholarly sources exist which do indeed use the word university for early institutions outside Europe. Elinruby (talk) 13:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, some users [28] who boycotted this board seem no not be ready to accept the fact that their opinion is clearly POV [29] and we still have a Euro-centric(*) biased list on the main article [30]
Explanation: Euro-centric = European universities are undoubtedly the oldest ones / Islamo-centric = Islamic universities are undoubtedly the oldest ones / since both opinions are referenced by reliable sources, both have to be shown
Is it too hard to accept that other parts of the world than Europe were civilized?
--Omar-Toons (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- There are certainly some common themes in recent edits, though the definition of university found particularly in University#Medieval_universities seems stable and well referenced. But my principal point here is that we should avoid List of oldest universities in continuous operation (or, for that matter, the recently renamed List of oldest universities in continuous operation in the Muslim world) becoming WP:POVFORKs from university. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Mediation cannot trump the need for scholarly sources that specialize in the topic. Editors cannot resolve the question of whether certain institutions were forerunners of universities. TLDR comments are not required: just provide some scholarly sources that specialize in the history of educational institutions and report what the sources say: Did the claimed forerunners influence modern universities in some way? How? Would modern universities be any different if the claimed forerunners had not existed? Johnuniq (talk) 02:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- @JohnuniqThe fact is that there are scholarly sources supporting both claims (for Al-Karaouine and Bologna as the oldest University in the world), and all the previous comments/discussion were about that, then the NPOV policy has to be applied. As written before, the only question is how and with what wording!
I proposed a draft text, nobody opposed it, but some users (who boycott the NPOVN) refused it to be applied on articles. I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. - @VR: Really, I'm not interested. The NPOV is a core content policy and I think that no discussion or arbitration can pass over it.
- Omar-Toons (talk) 00:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- WP:NPOV requires that these sources be considered; it does not require that they be given equal weight. Indeed WP:FRINGE specifically states that not all views should be given equal weight. The argument here is not whether such sources should be included, but rather how they should be handled. The current clear consensus at university is to include them as a minority view. The treatment on subpages of university simply reflects that consensus. As I have said before if you want to change this you should seek to change the treatment at university rather than trying to turn the list article into a WP:POVFORK. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, but these sources are given no weight, and this is why we are discussing it on the NPOVN : There is no mention of the fact that some non-European universities are considered by some as the older ones.
- As written before, NPOV can't be overpassed through an article's talk page, only the NPOVN can decide since it is a core content policy of WP : only the NPOVN can decide which weight to give to each source, and as you can see on the previous comments, some consider that they are of equal weight.
- Omar-Toons (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- They are given little or no weight on the list page because the list page is a subpage of university and simply uses the definition established there. If you want to change the definition in use then you need to change it on university, otherwise you are going to end up breaching WP:POVFORK. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- I would ask you to read the previous comments on this thread -again- : The fact is that the article University -itself- is a POV sinci it is based on the same sources while not mentioning other sources stating different opinions, but that's not the question.
- Btw, the title of the page is "List of oldest universities in continuous operation", which does mean that it is not a subpage of any other article, but is a Wiki article itself.
- Omar-Toons (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. I went and looked at University and it cites the very same sources. I will also point out that as an uninvolved bystander I spent about three hours doing due diligence and found many many references to universities outside Europe, some of them by authors whose academic credentials at least equal those that the Eurocentrists keep waving around. They are listed above under a hatnote and I suggest that anyone who is trying to argue the weight of authoritative research re-read this thread, because ignoring it is not resolving those issues and while I agree that escalation from this noticeboard *should* not be necessary there really would be little choice if it continues to be ignored. As someone who has followed the thread from the beginning I will say it again:
- WP:NPOV requires that these sources be considered; it does not require that they be given equal weight. Indeed WP:FRINGE specifically states that not all views should be given equal weight. The argument here is not whether such sources should be included, but rather how they should be handled. The current clear consensus at university is to include them as a minority view. The treatment on subpages of university simply reflects that consensus. As I have said before if you want to change this you should seek to change the treatment at university rather than trying to turn the list article into a WP:POVFORK. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
You cannot take texts about the history of European universities and claim that because they do not mention any institution outside Europe, no non-European university therefore existed.
Socialism
There is disagreement over which source to use for the lead to Socialism:
1. Introduction to The Historical Dictionary of Socialism, pp. 1-3, Rowman & Littlefield (2006): "...socialism eludes simple definition.... Then, as now, there was no single agreed-upon definition of what socialism actually was." [The source then outlines different approaches that have been taken by various scholars.][31]
2. Socialism: Today and Tomorrow,p. 33, South End Press (1981): All socialists, ourselves included, agree that the one precondition of socialism is the elimination of the distinction between capitalists and workers based upon private ownership of the means of production by capitalists. However, beyond “socialization of the means of production” which is simply the creation of public ownership, there is considerable disagreement about what constitutes a socialist economic system."[32]
My view is that (1) attempts to provide an objective summary of how the topic is defined, while (2) presents the views of its authors, who saw Marxism-Leninism as the only true socialism and provided the Soviet Union, China and Cuba as paradigms. TFD (talk) 01:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- You aren't presenting this properly. I recommended we use a minimum of 5 sources to establish the definition in the lead. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 08:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Um -- last I looked one editor on other articles insisted on multiple RS sources within a field for any claims - meaning the tertiary source dictionary single non-definition fails ab initio. If the dictionary is used, then its range of definitions should be indicated in the lede. I agree that the definition is complex, and that therefore using multiple sources to show a range of meanings is logical. Is there any concrete reason not to reasonably show such a range in the lede? As opposed to begging the entire question until well into the article? Collect (talk) 13:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Collect, could you please read the sources provided before commenting. The intro to the dictionary is a secondary source, which explains the range of definitions that have been used. Why would we conduct our own original research to synthesize a definition? And I think we can safely ignore your unnamed "one editor". TFD (talk) 05:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- (1) includes within it 3 scholarly studies of socialism as a whole by 3 important scholars - one of the scholars made a study of over 40 different definitions of socialism to come up with a general description of socialism, the other two of these scholars are highly reputable and have articles on themselves on Wikipedia. (1) accounts for many variations in socialism. (2) is a POV source, South End Press openly promotes a specific form of socialism based on Participatory economics, acceptance of the concept of class conflict, and advocacy of revolution to overthrow capitalism, and claims that certain forms of socialism that are claimed to be socialism by their adherants are stated by South End Press to be "in fact" "not socialist". These themes of South End Press of a radical participatory socialism, and support of the concept of class conflict and revolution to overthrow bourgeois capitalism are a far left conception of socialism, it ignores centre left conceptions of socialism that are not committed to class revolution such as social democracy, democratic socialism, forms of religious socialism, etc.--R-41 (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Coming at this from the angle "what statements are being made?", #2 essentially says that anything that does not meet the condition of advocating "the elimination of the distinction between capitalists and workers based upon private ownership of the means of production by capitalists." is not socialism. It sounds like this is an overreaching controversial claim that should be stated as one of many opinions, not as fact, and doubly so not as a definition in the lead. North8000 (talk) 11:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- User: TFD stated, "There is disagreement over which source to use for the lead to Socialism". As I stated earlier, this isn't accurate. I recommended using a minimum of 5 sources. This is what the current article states:
- Socialism /[invalid input: 'icon']ˈsoʊʃ[invalid input: 'əɫ']ɪzəm/ is an economic system characterized by social ownership or control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy;[1] or a political philosophy advocating such a system.
- Please have a look at the source currently being used here [33]. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Regarding South End Press, this is from their website:
- South End Press is an independent, nonprofit, collectively-run book publisher with more than 250 titles in print. Since our founding in 1977, we have met the needs of readers who are exploring, or are already committed to, the politics of radical social change. Our goal is to publish books that encourage critical thinking and constructive action on the key political, cultural, social, economic, and ecological issues shaping life in the United States and in the world. We hope to provide a forum for a wide variety of democratic social movements, and provide an alternative to the practices and products of corporate publishing.
- From its inception, the Press has organized itself as an egalitarian collective with decision-making arranged to share as equally as possible the rewards and stresses of running the business. Each collective member is responsible for core editorial and administrative tasks, and all collective members earn the same base salary. The Press also has made a practice of inverting the pervasive racial and gender hierarchies in traditional publishing houses; our staff has been majority women since the mid-1980s, and has included at least 50 percent people of color since the mid-1990s. Our author list—which includes Arundhati Roy, Noam Chomsky, bell hooks, Winona LaDuke, Manning Marable, Ward Churchill, Cherríe Moraga, Andrea Smith, and Howard Zinn—reflects the Press’s commitment to publish on diverse issues from diverse perspectives.
- To expand access to information and critical analysis, South End Press has been instrumental to the start of two on-going political media projects—Speak Out and Z Magazine. We have worked closely with a number of important media and research institutions including Alternative Radio, Political Research Associates, the Committee on Women, Population and the Environment, and INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- South End Press specifically advocates revolution - in particular its motto is "read, write, revolt", and it recognizes class conflict, and many of its contributors are anarchists - thus their interpretation is a far left conception of socialism - this does not represent socialists on the centre left that support reformism, or social democrats that support class collaboration. The first source in fact is a source containing 3 sources - 3 major studies by respected scholars (2 of which have their own Wikipedia articles) and one of the studies analyzed over 40 different definitions of socialism to determine socialism's common elements. The first source, that in fact is three sourced based upon major studies by respected scholars in political science is a superior source to the second source by South End Press - a political advocacy group with a clear POV and agenda - to promote a radical participatory economics socialism and support the overthrow of capitalism. Plus South End Press is associated with the controversial Z Media and particularly Z Magazine, Z Magazine produced material questioning the accounts of the Srebrenica massacre - claiming that the accounts were exaggerated by the West to make an excuse to attack Serb forces whom Z Magazine says the West unfairly villified the Serbs, claiming that the western perception of the Bosnian War is a "myth" - that the Bosniaks were the aggressors and the Serbs were the victims (a reverse of common interpretation) - this provoked outrage in Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as by Bill Weinberg, a left-wing author who opposed US intervention the Balkans but denounced this Z Magazine story by one of its leading editors,Edward S. Herman, claiming Herman's article was genocide denial [34]. One of the authors Somedifferentstuff mentioned, Ward Churchill has claimed that the September 11, 2001 attacks were a natural and unavoidable consequence of what he views as unlawful US policy, and he referred to the "technocratic corps" working in the World Trade Center as "little Eichmanns".[2]. Thus Ward Churchill was saying that the September 11th attacks were justified and legitimate and that he holds no sympathy for the people in the WTC who were killed. Z Media including South End Press and Z Magazine has made many callously biased, controversial, and hugely inaccurate articles and books that should not be considered RS.--R-41 (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
South End Press's qualities do not have to be evaluated here. The "Introduction" to The Historical Dictionary of Socialism (2006) comprises a field review of the academic discourse over what socialism is, and we should rely upon that discourse. The South End Press source is at least 20 years out of date (1989), comes from one perspective within the scholarly discourse (rather than describing the entire scholarly discourse), and offers a novel interpretation that has limited general reception in the field. The Historical Dictionary of Socialism is suitable for working on the entire weight and structure of the article. Socialism: Today and Tomorrow may be useful for talking about Western bolshevist interpretations of socialism from the 1980s, deep within the article. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- South End Press won't be decided here. You need to take the text and the source over to RSN. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- The Historical Dictionary of Socialism is one of many sources that should be used in the article. It may be very useful for the historical section seen here [35]. Regarding the definition in the lede, we should use a minimum of 5 sources for this contentious issue. Here is the Encyclopædia Britannica source that is currently being used in the lede [36]. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- From the Encyclopædia Britannica source:
- socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.
- This conviction puts socialism in opposition to capitalism, which is based on private ownership of the means of production and allows individual choices in a free market to determine how goods and services are distributed. Socialists complain that capitalism necessarily leads to unfair and exploitative concentrations of wealth and power in the hands of the relative few who emerge victorious from free-market competition—people who then use their wealth and power to reinforce their dominance in society. Because such people are rich, they may choose where and how to live, and their choices in turn limit the options of the poor. As a result, terms such as individual freedom and equality of opportunity may be meaningful for capitalists but can only ring hollow for working people, who must do the capitalists’ bidding if they are to survive. As socialists see it, true freedom and true equality require social control of the resources that provide the basis for prosperity in any society. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels made this point in Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848) when they proclaimed that in a socialist society “the condition for the free development of each is the free development of all.”
- This fundamental conviction nevertheless leaves room for socialists to disagree among themselves with regard to two key points. The first concerns the extent and the kind of property that society should own or control. Some socialists have thought that almost everything except personal items such as clothing should be public property; this is true, for example, of the society envisioned by the English humanist Sir Thomas More in his Utopia (1516). Other socialists, however, have been willing to accept or even welcome private ownership of farms, shops, and other small or medium-sized businesses.
- The second disagreement concerns the way in which society is to exercise its control of property and other resources. In this case the main camps consist of loosely defined groups of centralists and decentralists. On the centralist side are socialists who want to invest public control of property in some central authority, such as the state—or the state under the guidance of a political party, as was the case in the Soviet Union. Those in the decentralist camp believe that decisions about the use of public property and resources should be made at the local, or lowest-possible, level by the people who will be most directly affected by those decisions. This conflict has persisted throughout the history of socialism as a political movement. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Correct. And on all issues. Yet folks continually think of it as "reliable" per WP:RS when they are confusing the WP policy with the fact that the EB does not intentionally goof on articles. Strangely enough, the early editions did use signed articles! Collect (talk) 12:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- In the mid-20th century the EB took great pride in having eminent individual write signed articles. So Henry Ford wrote about automation, Ferdinand Foch wrote about armies, Edward Weston wrote about photography, Cecil B. DeMille wrote about motion pictures, etc. Many of those are still excellent articles. However in at least one case I know about the eminent individual had his assistant write the articles. But the volumes were the product of the times. There were great on some topics and lousy on others. Will Beback talk 19:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Correct. And on all issues. Yet folks continually think of it as "reliable" per WP:RS when they are confusing the WP policy with the fact that the EB does not intentionally goof on articles. Strangely enough, the early editions did use signed articles! Collect (talk) 12:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Moving on from Britannica, here's another source, Socialism (Political Systems of the World). 2007. See page 13 here [37] - "In pure Socialist theory..."
- Here's another one, Political Science: An Introduction. 1995. See page 27 here [38] - "Socialism, often contrasted with Capitalism..."
- We need to focus on weight when defining socialism. What is socialism generally understood to mean? I think we should use a minimum of 5 sources, while being welcoming to more than 5, in order to formulate this contentious definition. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Pedagogical, ie First Year textbooks, ie Political Science: An Introduction. do not carry weight. They are barely reliable for fact. They are aimed at a general public and do not truthfully record the academic practice, but record what is useful for teaching. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- The other text you suggest, Socialism in the series Political Systems of the World is a secondary textbook aimed at students in the ninth year of study, and "Fulfills needs of high school U.S. and world history, government, politics curricula"!!!! This is not a scholarly field review or a signed tertiary source aimed at the scholarly or professional-in-practice public Neither source you suggest can carry WEIGHT. Neither is infact reliable. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
|} First, it appears to me that user: Fifelfoo is being somewhat disruptive and will need to back up his claims. Second, it clearly states at WP:RS that textbooks "may be used to give overviews or summaries" which is partly what is being done over at the lead of the socialism article. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- RS/N has repeatedly rejected the use of secondary textbooks and first year textbooks. I suggest you retract your accusations—particularly your accusation of intentionality—or demonstrate them. My claims are backed up by RS/N consensus and by quotation from the publisher's websites. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Somedifferentstuff: Never refactor my comments. Never do what you just did to another user, ever. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I see that user Fifelfoo hasn't provided direct links to the claims he made above after I posted the 2 sources. Hopefully he will. And it clearly states at WP:RS that textbooks "may be used to give overviews or summaries" which is partly what is being done over at the lead of the socialism article. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 08:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- I suggest you read 24 months of RS/N archives. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Not gonna happen. The burden of proof lies on you. I'm not going to spend my time trying to locate references for claims that YOU MADE. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. If you're unaware of the community's consensus you need to educate yourself; I'm not your mother. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Let me know on my talk page if you post the links. Any further discussion is a waste of my time. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Let me know if you ever use sources like this, because RS/N will reject them with an immediacy that will obviously puzzle someone so oblivious to consensus as you. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- You can claim anything you want and not back it up, but only RSN has authority. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Let me know if you ever use sources like this, because RS/N will reject them with an immediacy that will obviously puzzle someone so oblivious to consensus as you. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Let me know on my talk page if you post the links. Any further discussion is a waste of my time. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. If you're unaware of the community's consensus you need to educate yourself; I'm not your mother. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Not gonna happen. The burden of proof lies on you. I'm not going to spend my time trying to locate references for claims that YOU MADE. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- I suggest you read 24 months of RS/N archives. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
If the issue is that what User:Somedifferentstuff quoted from Encyclopedia Britannica on 09:08, 23 January 2012 needs additional sources, then by all mean let's hit the books (or at least exercise our search engines). But after reading descriptions of socialism for over three decades, I feel the quoted text was pertinent and comprehensive, especially the first three paragraphs.
- Could the problem be that some socialism advocates don't want the aims and/or justifications described too clearly? In the sciences, a researcher will generally expose all his methods, evidence and reasoning; scientists have the common aim of comparing their ideas with reality, and the typically appreciated any feedback from their colleagues. This is less often true in fields touching on politics. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- You might want to take your own advice regarding insulting conduct. You might also want to read some Feyerabend on the actuality of scientific conduct. Many socialists expose their methods, Marxism is fairly famous for this with some of the most vehement critiques of "actually-existing socialism" coming from within Marxism or even from within Soviet Union aligned parties. Similarly the anarchist socialists tend to expose their own methodology quite publicly. Part of the domain specification problem is the multiple uses of socialism, varying between capitalism with state ownership of as little as the banking sector, through generalised state ownership, and towards societies of workers councils. Another major part of the domain problem is the very loose use of socialism, and the failure to expose methodology, appearing in the labourite and social-democratic movements. Generally this problem has become worse over time. Finally, a third domain problem is the number of non-socialist analyses that vehemently claim that socialism has certain characteristics; often (though not always, points to the Austrians here) without clear analytical tools or methodologies being exposed. Sadly there is no Leszek Kołakowski or Colin Ward of socialism as a whole. In part this is because each of the major streams within socialist advocacy (Marxism, Social-Democracy, Labourism and Anarchism) is sufficiently deep and broad in itself to require a magisterial work each. Comparative evaluation of these on the basis of agreed magisterial analyses of the world-wide and total variety of conduct and theory is a long way off; at least on the basis of proper historical analysis. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Let's all sink back into reality here people, and stop the insult throwing (Fifelfoo and Somedifferentstuff in particular). First of all Somedifferentstuff wants five sources - the first "source" technically includes 3 sources - 3 major studies on socialism as a whole by reputable scholars on the subject - one of the studies based its description of socialism on analysis of 40 different definitions of socialism - that is very indepth research. So we already have 3 sources. The other two should at least be of the same calibre as the 3 major studies described in the Historical Dictionary of Socialism - which means that they should be studies of socialism as a whole by reputable academic scholars.--R-41 (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- If socialism is so vast a topic that it requires a Historical Dictionary, then we really need to roll up our sleeves and get to work. Portal:Socialism says: "Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community."
- I submit that if there is a "broad array" then we are going to be dealing with numerous viewpoints, likely to be overlapping and even contradictory. I agree with R-41 about the cessation of insult-throwing, by the way. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Collapse per SOAP - material deemed SOAP removed by user who posted it |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Could an uninvolved third party please collapse this repeated violation of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, so we can get back on topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
|
Can I suggest that the OED is a useful and reliable guide. I'll not post its definition (copyright reasons) but it takes roughly the same line as the current article: common or state ownership/control, with an addendum to suggest liberal/social democratic governance. It also notes "The range of application of the term is broad."--Red Deathy (talk) 08:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Henri de Saint Simon - the first founder of the original socialism - utopian socialism supported private property, Charles Fourier - another prominent founder of utopian socialism also strongly supported private property. It was only after the influence of Robert Owen and Marx that socialism began to move towards anti-private property stances and pro-public property stances - in the last thirty years these anti-private property stances have been changing in the socialist political community. Saint-Simon and Fourier never supported the replacement of private property with public property even within the means of production - only the utopian socialist Robert Owen universally condemned private ownership of the means of production, of the three original socialist leading figures - Fourier was a staunch defender of the right to own private property.[42]. The following source on Saint-Simon states: "Saint-Simon had defended private property as the proper reward for achievement, but he by no means saw it as a sacred or natural right".[43]. In modern-day contemporary times, British anti-Third Way social democrat Robert Corfe has advocated a socialist form of private property as part of a "New Socialism" (though he technically objects to the term "private property" to collectively describe property that is not publicly owned as being vague) and rejecting state socialism as a failure.[44][45]. Please don't use Oxford English Dictionary (OED) - on complex political topics it is woefully inadequate and its definitions of ideologies are stereotypical - and not based on scholarly research of the ideologies.--R-41 (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- User R-41 has been trying to redefine socialism for over a month now. He often talks about Saint Simon, not understanding that utopian socialism has its own article for a reason. Socialism today is most often understood as common ownership of the means of production, which is why you see this so often in its definition [46] [47] [48] [49]. This is a reflection of the large amount of weight carried by this view which will always need to be reflected in the article's lead. He'll probably respond with his theorizing but it won't change anything in regards to this. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- You are being extremely uncivil Somedifferentstuff with the statement "He'll probably respond with his theorizing but it won't change anything in regards to this". Utopian socialism is a form of socialism and I demonstrated to you with sources that there are socialists today who advocate socialist private property. Plus why should we rely on a source like this: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/socialism.asp#axzz1mAiPGTpa? "Investopedia" is not a reliable source or a scholarly source. You have been the one insistent on using the controversial South End Press, on claiming that social democracy is a form of capitalism, and you have been trying to assert that socialism always requires public ownership of the means of production - this has been disproven by multiple examples shown by scholarly sources. You appear to have a POV dedicated to a very orthodox Marxian interpretation of socialism. You ignore Saint Simon and Fourier - they are founders of the original socialism - should we then ignore Edmund Burke as a founder of conservatism and his views? Or should we ignore Marx becuase far less people today accept Marxism? I and TFD supported the use of the three major studies of socialism by scholars in the Historical Dictionary of Socialism because they represent wide studies of socialism as a whole - analyzing multiple definitions. Why do you oppose the conclusions of these three scholars? After all that is what I added that you claim is evidence of me "redefining" socialism - assuming that socialism has been clearly defined - which it has not - it is not easily defined, scholars have done indepth studies to make definitions of socialism.--R-41 (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- R-41 is correct regarding the use of scholarly field reviews, or surveys taken from scholarly signed tertiary sources aimed at a scholarly public, to correctly weight article coverage. While other field reviews will exist, and I suggest that users attempt to search for such high quality field reviews, the quality of the three field reviews listed exceed by far a single time specific secondary-practitioner work like the South End Press volume. Moreover, the scopes differ. Field reviews investigate and weight the scope and coverage of entire fields. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- You are being extremely uncivil Somedifferentstuff with the statement "He'll probably respond with his theorizing but it won't change anything in regards to this". Utopian socialism is a form of socialism and I demonstrated to you with sources that there are socialists today who advocate socialist private property. Plus why should we rely on a source like this: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/socialism.asp#axzz1mAiPGTpa? "Investopedia" is not a reliable source or a scholarly source. You have been the one insistent on using the controversial South End Press, on claiming that social democracy is a form of capitalism, and you have been trying to assert that socialism always requires public ownership of the means of production - this has been disproven by multiple examples shown by scholarly sources. You appear to have a POV dedicated to a very orthodox Marxian interpretation of socialism. You ignore Saint Simon and Fourier - they are founders of the original socialism - should we then ignore Edmund Burke as a founder of conservatism and his views? Or should we ignore Marx becuase far less people today accept Marxism? I and TFD supported the use of the three major studies of socialism by scholars in the Historical Dictionary of Socialism because they represent wide studies of socialism as a whole - analyzing multiple definitions. Why do you oppose the conclusions of these three scholars? After all that is what I added that you claim is evidence of me "redefining" socialism - assuming that socialism has been clearly defined - which it has not - it is not easily defined, scholars have done indepth studies to make definitions of socialism.--R-41 (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- If you look at the current article you'll see that the South End Press resource is NOT being used, and whether or not it can be would need to be determined at RSN, not here. At the beginning of this thread I recommendeded we use a minimum of 5 sources to establish the definition in the lead. Socialism today is most often understood as common ownership of the means of production, which is why you see this so often in its definition [50] [51] [52] [53]. This is a reflection of the large amount of weight carried by this view which will always need to be reflected in the article's lead. I am not suggesting we use these definitions provided here as resources in the article, they are being used for the purpose of illumination. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Weight also should depend on informed views of the topic. For example: many people believe that a tomato is a vegetable, when in reality - by scientists' analysis, it is a fruit. In a more related area - there is incredibly strong and widely popular misconception of the the political concept of corporatism - many associate it with being business corporation dominated politics - when in reality corporatism is a form of politics involving viewing society as a body "corpus" - the root of "corporat" - and seek the inclusion of employers, employees, and others in government processes. Common misconceptions can be contested by scientific or scholarly evidence.--R-41 (talk) 15:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- There is no need for a minimum of x sources; the sources used to structure and weight an article need to represent the scholarly (and here practicioner) field's variety of views. Investopedia, thefreedictionary dictionary.reference.com and merriam-webster are not appropriate sources to use—they are generalist tertiary works without any standing in the field. They can carry no weight here. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- We need to use multiple sources because there is not consensus to use only the historical dictionary, as is evidenced over at the article, and it's not just me who has objected. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Laying down the facts: history of the development of socialism, and variations of socialist stances
First of all we need to lay down the facts. In its history, socialism in the past and even present has not universally nor consistently advocated public ownership of the property of the means of production.
- 1) Of first socialists, Saint-Simon and Fourier never supported the replacement of private property with public property even within the means of production - only Robert Owen universally condemned private ownership of the means of production, of the three original socialist leading figures - Fourier was a staunch defender of the right to own private property.[54]. The following source on Saint-Simon states: "Saint-Simon had defended private property as the proper reward for achievement, but he by no means saw it as a sacred or natural right".[55]
- 2) That being said above, there has been a long period in the history of socialism where public ownership of the property of the means of production was a very common component of socialist economic policy - as communists, anarchists, radical socialists, and for a significant time by social democrats, mutually advocated public ownership from the mid 19th century to the early to mid 20th century.
- 3) However this changed, particularly in the social democratic socialist current, with the development of liberal socialism, a socialist ideology that includes liberal principles within it, that has been a particularly strong current of socialism since the 1920s in British and Italian politics. In particular, the liberal socialist ideology of ethical socialism developed by R. H. Tawney supported a mixed economy - Tawney supported a substantial role for public enterprise in the economy, but Tawney also stated that where private enterprise provided a service that was commensurate with its rewards, then a business could be usefully and legitimately be left in private hands.(Source: Noel W. Thompson. Political economy and the Labour Party: the economics of democratic socialism, 1884-2005. 2nd edition. Oxon, England, UK; New York, New York, USA: Routledge, 2006. Pp. 60-61.) Ethical socialist T. H. Green the right of equal opportunity for all individuals to be able freely appropriate property, but claimed that acquisition of wealth did not imply that an individual could do whatever they wanted to once that wealth was in their possession. (Source: Matt Carter. T.H. Green and the development of ethical socialism. Exeter, England, UK; Charlottesville, Virginia, USA: Imprint Academic, 2003. Pp. 35.) Green opposed "property rights of the few" that were preventing the ownership of property by the many.(Source: Matt Carter. T.H. Green and the development of ethical socialism. Exeter, England, UK; Charlottesville, Virginia, USA: Imprint Academic, 2003. Pp. 35.) Tony Blair has described himself as a supporter of ethical socialism. Italian liberal socialist Carlo Rosselli defined liberal socialism in his work of the same name: Liberal Socialism (1925) in which he supported the type of socialist economy defined by socialist economist Werner Sombart in Der modern Kapitalismus (1908), that envisaged a new modern mixed economy that included both public and private property, limited economic competition, and increased economic cooperation. (Source: Stanislao G. Pugliese. Carlo Rosselli: socialist heretic and antifascist exile. Harvard University Press, 1999. Pp. 99.)
- 4) There are socialists who advocate a socialist form of private property. Anti-Third Way social democrat Robert Corfe advocates a socialism that involves "a socialized form of private property as an individual right". Here is the source: Robert Corfe: The spirit of New Socialism and the end of class-based politics (2005): [56]. China justifies its officially socialist economic system that has adopted private property into the means of production, by claiming that they support a "socialist private property" that is different from "ordinary" (capitalist) private property in that individual shares "cannot be sold, transferred, mortgaged or circulated".[57].
- I am highly skeptical about China's present claim to be supporting socialism its recent economic actions are widely seen as capitalist, but there it is - an officially Marxist-Leninist state officially supporting what it calls "socialist private property". I added the China example as an example from a major officially Marxist-Leninist state, but please focus on addressing the other examples. So historically socialism initially did not universally oppose private property - two of the three major founders of the original socialism supported private property rights, then under the influence of Marxism - both communism and social democracy supported complete public ownership of property of the means of production, then since the mid 20th century socialism has become divided between those who still support complete public ownership of the property of the means of production, and others who advocate alternative systems such as indirect control over the means of production, and a socialist form of private property.--R-41 (talk) 03:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I just read Christian Concern, and there appear to be OR/bias issues in play.
It is an offshoot of The Lawyers' Christian Fellowship, which contains the same source.
'It was incorporated as an independent body, CCFON Ltd (Christian Concern For Our Nation), on 24 June 2008,[4] after the Channel 4 documentary In God's Name'
This seems like OR, to link the two events?
The 'Controversy' section relates almost entirely two the 'In God's Name' documentary and Andrea Williams. Although I have not seen the documentary in question, reports: [58] [59] are quite clear that 'The most significant activist, however, was shown to be Andrea Williams, Public Policy Director of the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship.' 'Williams is also keen to warn Christians about the dangers of Islam, and one LCF event gave a platform to Sam Solomon, a former Muslim who teaches that Muslims are brainwashed to hate, and that the situation in Nigeria shows that hospitable Muslim neighbours are likely to become killers.' Note that the Telegraph article is by the documentary's producer, and it does not mention CCFON at all. It seems like OR to me to present this as activity of Christian Concern, although perhaps a shorter sentence describing Williams' views might be apt.
The second sentence 'Barrister, Mark Mullins, who left LCF with Williams, and who is listed on the CCFON website as a 'Public Policy Adviser',[17] was reprimanded by the Bar Council in July 2006, after he refused to represent a gay client.[18]' is obviously both OR, in generating 'controversy' that is not cited outside the Wikipedia page, and secondly in misrepresenting the case, he did not it seems refuse to represent a gay client, as much as refuse to defend an immigrant 'who wanted to use his homosexual relationship as grounds to stay in this country.' In any case, Mullins no longer appears on the organisation's personnel list.[60]
I am not entirely clear also whether the unrelated groups Christian Institute and Christian Voice should be listed as 'See Also'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.31.250 (talk) 13:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- There seem to be original research and synthesis issues here, compounded by missing sources. I've cut out some unsourced material. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- I am not sure that 'profiled the activities of the group (then part of LCF)' is supported by the sources. According to the sources, the actions were taken by The Lawyers' Christian Fellowship. As 'Christian Concern for our Nation' existed then[61], distinct from LCF, albeit as part of LCF, it seems like an unsupported claim to say that the actions were in fact taken by CCFON, and an unreasonable assumption to assume that a documentary maker claiming that he profile LCF actually was profiling only the CCFON aspect of LCF.
- Saying for instance 'In particular, the programme highlighted the involvement of the LCF in lobbying the British Government on issues such as abortion, gay rights and the enforcing of laws relating to blasphemy' doesn't demonstrate relevance to the page 'Christian Concern', because as far as I can tell, while CCFON was a part, or offshoot of LCF, there are presumably some activities relating to the CCFON aspect, and some to the LCF aspect. If the source says 'LCF lobbied', that doesn't seem a great source for 'Christian Concern'. 81.141.31.250 (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that without an independent reliable source identifying this organisation as having been specifically discussed in the film, discussion of a film about the LCF from a time before CCFON was formed is undue. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that it was OR to make a causal link between the Dispatches programme and the separation of CCFON from LCF. The timing did amount to circumstantial evidence giving credibility to the alleged link, but I do not know of any direct evidence, so it was right to remove that.
- I also agree that Mullins' reprimand was irrelevant to the article.
- However, I do not see that there was any need to expunge Willams' and Mullins' names from the article as founding members of staff. The LCF notice about Williams and Mullins' original role was a valid source, even though it is no longer online. CCFON's website has many mentions of Mullins confirming that he formally represented CCFON and CLC, and still credits Williams explicitly as a co-founder. This edit recorded with the edit summary "rm per WP:BLP, source cited has gone 404" is therefore hard to understand. WP:BLP does not appear to require excision of cited material just because a link has gone dead.
- Taking the 28 October edits together, they could be interpreted as a deliberately planned series of edits designed to remove every mention that connected Williams or Mullins to CCFON, along with some mentions of LCF, with the end goal of entirely removing the "Controversy" section of the article in the next edit. This would not appear to be editing according to WP:NPOV.
- The matter has since been overtaken by subsequent edits, discussion on the talk page and additional citations. However, Cusop Dingle appears to have set himself up for a warning about POV editing. Also, 81.141.31.250 has made few other edits, so a WP:CHECKUSER might help to clear Cusop Dingle of the apparent coincidence of interests between the two accounts. – Fayenatic (talk) 14:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- The only point of view that I have here is that material must be duly related to the subject of the article and supported by reliable sources, and I have edited the article accordingly. Do you have a problem with that? Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- To be honest the balance of evidence is making it difficult for me to WP:AGF. It looks to me as if you made a series of edits claiming to be implementing policies but actually pursuing a POV agenda. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cusop Dingle should at least clear the air about the apparent consensus at the start of this section. – Fayenatic (talk) 18:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's worth noting that the criticism section was originally added as part of the move to provide citations in evidence of notability, to rescue the article at AfD, as well as to add balance in order to present a NPOV view of the organisation rather than citing only primary or supportive sources.
- As for WP:DUE, since the LCF's public policy work seems to have been hived off to CCFON, it is arguable that the Dispatches programme only needs to be covered fully in the Christian Concern article, leaving just a brief mention of it in the LCF article. LCF's public policy page has said very little since late 2008. (archive) – Fayenatic (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- And it looks to me as if FL has launched a series of unfounded allegations, culminating in a meritless SPI in a deliberate attempt to distract or silence an editor who has edited this article in a way they don't like. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- The SPI is not a culmination, it's a spin-off following CD's request on my talk page to put up or shut up. That seems to be unfounded; good. Are the other allegations unfounded, though? It wasn't the edits that I didn't like, but the disingenuous edit summary linked above, citing WP:BLP but removing inoffensive, verified (in the past) and still-demonstrable facts, with no apparent aim in sight except to attempt to justify removing all criticism of the organisation. On the article's talk page, another editor has likewise taken issue with CD's claim to be relying on WP:BLP when removing verifiable NPOV information. – Fayenatic (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- The edit that FL complains of [62] removes assertions about living people because there was no verifiable source for those assertions at the moment of the edit -- the citation was to an online press release which had gone 404. Our policy on BLP applies to all articles whether or not the subject is a living person and states that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed" and further that "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion". This material is controversial: I followed BLP exactly: I gave an edit summary which precisely summarised my reasons: and removed no other material in the process. If other editors have found good sources for that material then that's fine. FL's description of my edit summary as "disingenuous" is unsupported, false, insulting and a personal attack on my integrity as an editor. FL's insinuation that there was "no apparent aim in sight except to attempt to justify removing all criticism of the organisation" is equally unsupported, equally false, equally insulting and equally a personal attack. FL's pattern of repeated indirect and direct attacks on me, including this meritless SPI, now seems like harassment. FL needs to consider very carefully indeed why they persist in making false assertions about my motivation rather than on the content of this article. Cusop Dingle (talk)
- The material removed in that edit [63] was neither contentious nor likely to be challenged. Therefore it was spurious to justify it by reference to WP:BLP. Therefore I do not withdraw my use of the word "disingenuous".
- I interpreted this set of CD's edits and edit summaries as indicating a clear motive, but he denies it. I was not the only one to see it that way; see User talk:Obscurasky#Christian Concern. In terms of the editing relationship, the personal slights are escalating with no sign of resolution. Nevertheless we have reached consensus on the article itself (CD referred at the SPI page to it looking better now), so we might as well wrap up this discussion. I hope that if we meet again that this spat will not prevent us co-operating effectively. – Fayenatic (talk) 09:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- The edit that FL complains of [62] removes assertions about living people because there was no verifiable source for those assertions at the moment of the edit -- the citation was to an online press release which had gone 404. Our policy on BLP applies to all articles whether or not the subject is a living person and states that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed" and further that "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion". This material is controversial: I followed BLP exactly: I gave an edit summary which precisely summarised my reasons: and removed no other material in the process. If other editors have found good sources for that material then that's fine. FL's description of my edit summary as "disingenuous" is unsupported, false, insulting and a personal attack on my integrity as an editor. FL's insinuation that there was "no apparent aim in sight except to attempt to justify removing all criticism of the organisation" is equally unsupported, equally false, equally insulting and equally a personal attack. FL's pattern of repeated indirect and direct attacks on me, including this meritless SPI, now seems like harassment. FL needs to consider very carefully indeed why they persist in making false assertions about my motivation rather than on the content of this article. Cusop Dingle (talk)
- The SPI is not a culmination, it's a spin-off following CD's request on my talk page to put up or shut up. That seems to be unfounded; good. Are the other allegations unfounded, though? It wasn't the edits that I didn't like, but the disingenuous edit summary linked above, citing WP:BLP but removing inoffensive, verified (in the past) and still-demonstrable facts, with no apparent aim in sight except to attempt to justify removing all criticism of the organisation. On the article's talk page, another editor has likewise taken issue with CD's claim to be relying on WP:BLP when removing verifiable NPOV information. – Fayenatic (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- And it looks to me as if FL has launched a series of unfounded allegations, culminating in a meritless SPI in a deliberate attempt to distract or silence an editor who has edited this article in a way they don't like. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- The only point of view that I have here is that material must be duly related to the subject of the article and supported by reliable sources, and I have edited the article accordingly. Do you have a problem with that? Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that without an independent reliable source identifying this organisation as having been specifically discussed in the film, discussion of a film about the LCF from a time before CCFON was formed is undue. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
The Dispatches material is obvious WP:synthesis. The content pertains to LCF--not CCFON. Nothing has been provided to prove otherwise. – Lionel (talk) 12:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think you're on your own in finding that "obvious", Lionel. Cusop Dingle seems to have agreed with Obscurasky and I that the Dispatches programme was critical of Andrea Williams' work leading the Public Policy division of LCF, which was hived off to CCFON around the same date that the documentary was made. There is now a current online citation in support of that separation. Williams is co-founder and CEO of Christian Concern.[64] Therefore the encyclopedic content about Williams' public policy work for the LCF now belongs mainly on the article about Christian Concern. If this section could conclude with a consensus to cover the documentary on the page Christian Concern and prune most of it away from Lawyers Christian Fellowship, in accordance with WP:DUE, it would be a useful outcome. – Fayenatic (talk) 13:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- "Cusop Dingle seems to have agreed" -- I have expressed no such opinion and do not agree with FL's conclusion. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- I was referring to CD's comment "Subsequent edits by other users have found better sources for some of those assertions and the article is looking better IMHO" on the SPI page. I thought that meant he was satisfied that the criticism should remain now that an additional citation had been provided. I give up; he doesn't listen; so let him now have the last word. – Fayenatic (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- To deduce from a comment about an article looking better with improved sources that I am happy with a particular section is a form of logic I am unfamiliar with. I note with regret that FL chooses to use his Parthian shot to make yet another personal comment on me. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- I was referring to CD's comment "Subsequent edits by other users have found better sources for some of those assertions and the article is looking better IMHO" on the SPI page. I thought that meant he was satisfied that the criticism should remain now that an additional citation had been provided. I give up; he doesn't listen; so let him now have the last word. – Fayenatic (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- "Cusop Dingle seems to have agreed" -- I have expressed no such opinion and do not agree with FL's conclusion. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
(←) It seems to me that this can be resolved by returing to first principles: verification by reliable sources. It is claimed that the section "Criticism" should discuss a film made about the activities of the LCF at a time before CCFON was founded. For this to be sustainable we need to find independent reliable sources that verify (1) that the film is criticism (2) that the film is substantially about an identifiable group X and (3) that X is substantially identical with CCFON. Ideally we would have a single source for all three assertions, since to source each spearately runs the risk of synthesis, expecially this there is scope for undistributed middle term between 2 and 3. Currently the section is sourced to two stories in reliable newspapers, each of which is a first-person article by the film-maker, David Modell, and each of which predates the formation of CCFON. It is therefore questionable whether they can be regarded as independent. Even if they are, each story states that the film is about LCF and in particular Andrea Williams, its public policy director; neither story claims that the film is "Criticism" of LCF; neither story identifies any group within LCF as the subject; and of course neither mentions CCFON. So currently we have nothing in independent reliable sources that sustains this section. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Correction: the section is "Controversy". Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- The heading "Controversy" seems IMHO to be a fair summary of the drift of the articles, or snippets like "impose her narrow beliefs on the rest of society" or "so offensive they're barely printable." I've partly rewritten the section using the cited sources more closely, removing the word "critical".
- The programme was about people that Modell saw as "Christian fundamentalists" seeking influence in public policy. A large part of it was taken up with Williams' public policy work. WP:SELFPUB says we can rely on the existing cited sources that describe this work being hived off from LCF to CCFON.
- As this discussion is still going on, please would you finish explaining your view that the following is both contentious and likely to be challenged (those being your reasons for excising it under WP:BLP): [65] ... (text removed from the open record on this page by user:Fayenatic london on 14 February)
- It still strikes me as entirely inoffensive. – Fayenatic (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- "WP:SELFPUB says we can rely on the existing cited sources" Which existing sources can we rely on and for what? It is impossible to address or assess such an imprecise claim.
- "contentious and likely to be challenged" It is unsourced (or at least, sourced to a non-existent URL). It is contentious because it refers to real-life people leaving their jobs and the reasons for that; and because Williams and Mullins are considered controversial figures by some; it was not only likely to be challenged, it was challenged, by me, implicitly, when I removed it. See also this. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Before this section gets archived, let me say for the record that I fully accept this explanation from Cusop Dingle, and apologise without reservation for questioning his integrity. – Fayenatic (talk) 13:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Inter-Services Intelligence
Does the following comply with NPOV?
The ISI's aid to and creation of terrorist and religious extremist groups is well documented.[3] The ISI have close ties to Lashkar-e-Taiba who carried out the attacks in Mumbai in 2008.[4] Pakistan denies all such claims.[5][6][7] The ISI have also given aid to Hizbul Mujahideen.[8] The ISI has a long history of supporting terrorist groups operating in Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir which fight against Indian interests.[9][10] Pakistan claims to give them moral support only.[9]The ISI also helped with the founding of the terrorist group Jaish-e-Mohammed.[11] The ISI also founded Al-Badr Mujahideen who were involved in the genocides in Bangladesh in the 1970s.[12]
As it was removed Here under the pretext it violates NPOV. An RFC was started but nobody appears interested. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't comply. You should never present something contentious as fact. Because "Pakistan denies all such claims", you therefore need to add in-text attribution to the claim(s)—i.e., "according to so-and-so, ...". Also, are there some relevant quotations/exerpts from the book references you can provide us with? Nightw 18:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- it is hardly contentious as all mainstream sources say this. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- This article has an RFC specifically for this. Consider adding a comment there, This is what I told DS, why do we need to go over the same Taliban article exercise each time. Thanks NW, for clarifying here. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Has some fairly blatant POV issues to say the least. Any attempt to remove one clear section ("Goals") is reversed, and that is not even a big part of the problem. I am not in any way connected with the issue, and the POV was noted by me in a flash - so others who also seek NPOV are encouraged to have a look. Collect (talk) 13:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
A couple of editors seem to regard this edit as being absolutely NPOV: [66]
I suggest the text in Wikipedia's voice seems to represent one particular point of view without any semblance of trying to be neutral. I have been reverted on its removal, and reverted on it being even tagged as POV, so ask that denizens here venture into those woods. Thanks. Collect (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- In my opinion, the "goals" section is pertinent to the article, which is devoted to some conflict (which implies the existence of some opposing parties with conflicting goals). However, as soon this section has been added, the goals of each party should be described. In the version reverted by you, only a Serbian position has been described. I think, the solution may be in expansion of this section, not in this removal. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- My attempted edit stating which side held the "goals" was, indeed, reverted. Might you see about making the side which is being represented is properly identified there? And the very name "goals" is POV as far as I can tell. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Frankly speaking, the subject is not a field of my interests, so I am not sure I can help. The only thing I can say that the "Goals" section is supposed to describe the goals of at least two parties. In that situation, I see two possible solutions: either to add a sourced description of the goals of the Kosovar Albanian administration (with subsequent re-wording in a more neutral manner), or (if no such sources can be found) to rename "Goals" to "Goals of North Kosovo Serbs".
- Of course, I by no mean is an expert in this field, so I may overlook some important aspects of the issue, however, these two solutions may resolve the dispute, in my opinion. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- My attempted edit stating which side held the "goals" was, indeed, reverted. Might you see about making the side which is being represented is properly identified there? And the very name "goals" is POV as far as I can tell. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- I read the Goals section in the article. The language and tone of the section does not sound neutral. North Kosovo is portrayed as good. The others are bad. Even if this is the case, the tone of the Wiki article should be neutral. It might be possible to re-write the section so that the tone does not sound biased. I found these relevant provisions of the Wiki neutrality policy, [[WP:NPOV}: "Prefer non-judgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone...
Impartial tone: Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." You might also review WP:Words to avoid to get an idea of words that are considered to create a biased tone.Coaster92 (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- I tried to have that vicious POV-fork article deleted and its relevant material put into the Kosovo article. The article's editing has been dominated by Serb editors or pro-Serb editors and being very denigrating and offensive to the Albanian side in the infobox, should Albanian editors start to arrive in significant numbers there will be an all-out edit war.--R-41 (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Editing based on your own beliefs
Editing based on your own beliefs is against Wikipedia policy, in my opinion. But I've just been informed by an experienced editor "If editors believe something to be outright false, for example, they should not include it, regardless of whether it is WP-verifiable." [67] Please comment. Be——Critical 23:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds redundant to me. If someone sincerely believes a statement to be false, I suspect they won't include it, making the question of whether they should or shouldn't redundant. Either that, or they'll add the statement in the voice of a third party as opposed to Wikipedia's voice (e.g. "Smith asserts that the sun rises in the west, despite being proven wrong each morning"). ClaretAsh 04:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Apply common sense. If a fact is obviously wrong then everyone will agree and the point will be omitted. If it is only one person's opinion that the point is wrong, then editors need to find consensus. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
RFC (Indians in Afghanistan)
An RFC is taking place for the article Indians in Afghanistan which has some main disputes regarding India-Pakistan relations. Please comment there. WP:NPOV issues with the dispute make this a relevant noticeboard to inform. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Currently has one editor repeatedly adding "fleeing Lindberghs" to the article - unfortuneately the sources do not use that eponym, and I suggested "left" is preferable to "fled" for Lindbergh's leaving the US whilke under huge pressure from the tabloids after the murder of his son. [68] is the talk page discussion thereon. [69] is his latest revert with the claim "Four reliable sources are cited that all use the term "fleeing", "flight" and/or "fled" (see talk) Please do not revert this again unless you can achieve a clear consensus to do so". Unfortunately I do not see that "flight" is the same as "fleeing" nor do I see that the other 200+ sources (including the Anne Morrow Lindbergh obit from the New York Times) I found remotely use such language <g>. Fresh eyes would be welcome on any position about this. Collect (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- No opinion on the specific content, but "flight" is a perfectly good (and theoretically neutral) word to describe fleeing. "From the Random House Unabridged Dictionary: flight (def. 2) "an act or instance of fleeing or running away; hasty departure". Similar entries at other major dictionaries. Rivertorch (talk) 05:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Both flight and fleeing can have awkward multiple meanings: they sailed on a steamer rather than flew, and fleeing can mean drunk. However, in the context all terms seem clear enough, "leaving" itself doesn't convey the retreat from pressure unless adequate context is given. . dave souza, talk 08:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- As I am the editor referred to by the poster of this thread it would have been nice for him/her to have advised me of the discussion (as WP policy requires) as opposed to my having to find it serendipitously on my own days later. That being said, the sources I cited refer to and support that the Lindberghs were viewed both at the time and later by historians as "fleeing" (or having "fled") under pressure from the United States to Europe in December, 1935, because, as Lindbergh himself told NY Times aviation writer Deac Lyman, that he felt forced to take his family into voluntary self exile in England to "seek a safe, secluded residence away from the tremendous public hysteria" that surrounded him in America and because "Americans exhibit a morbid curiosity over crimes and murder trials, and lack respect for law and the rights of others." (Lyman, Lauren D. "Lindbergh Family Sails for England To Seek a Safe, Secluded Residence; Threats on Son's Life Force Decision." The New York Times, December 23, 1935, p. 1. ; Butterfield, Roger. “Lindbergh: A Stubborn Young Man of Strange Ideas Becomes the Leader of the Wartime Opposition", LIFE, August 11, 1941. ; Whitman, Alden. "Daring Lindbergh Attained the Unattainable With Historic Flight Across Atlantic" (Charles Lindbergh obituary). The New York Times, August 27, 1974, p. 18). For those reasons the family sailed in secret from New York for Liverpool, England on December 22, 1935 as the only three passengers on board the freighter S.S. American Importer. The Lindberghs remained living in exile in England (and later France) for more then three years before returning in April, 1939.
*Among the sources I have cited in the article that support the contemporary and later view that the family had indeed "fled" the United States under pressure and in secret are:
- The January 6, and January 13, 1936, TIME Magazine articles "The Press: Hero & Herod" and "The Press: Hero & Herod (Pt 2)" include the following statements on this issue:
- "At 2:53 a. m. on Sunday, Dec. 22, Charles Augustus Lindbergh, with his wife Anne Morrow Lindbergh and their 3-year-old son Jon, sailed furtively out of New York Harbor toward Europe aboard the S. S. American Importer." ...
- "News of the Lindbergh flight broke in the final Monday edition of the New York Times, on the streets at 4 a.m.. The New York American, morning Hearst paper, cribbed the Times' copyright story, slapped it on the front page of an extra edition. The rest of Manhattan's morning newspapers were left sitting on their hands. Since Colonel Lindbergh had offered no public explanation of his departure, and radiograms sent to him on the American Importer were returned with the notation "Addressee not aboard," the Times' story remained the scripture on which the week's exegesis was built." ...
- "International News Service was led to believe that the Lindberghs had fled simply to escape the approaching tumult over Murderer Hauptmann's execution scheduled for this month." ....
- "Quitter? Coward? Editorial sentiment was overwhelmingly but not unanimously with the fleeing Lindberghs." ...
- "Having been convulsed by the flight of Hero Charles Augustus Lindbergh's family from the Herods of U. S. lawlessness and yellow journalism, U. S. editors, who spent last fortnight proclaiming their country's inferiority to Great Britain in manners and morals (TIME. Jan. 6), maintained almost unanimous silence last week as they watched the Lindberghs run to ground like rabbits by the British Press."
- (NOTE: While these TIME articles are not individually signed (no TIME articles are), the names of the editors and reporters responsible for them are included in the magazine's masthead and TIME has always been accepted by Wikipedia as a "reliable source" for articles.)
- The Universal Newsreel story reported by Graham McNamee showing the arrival of the Lindberghs in England is entitled:
- The 1993 book "Crime of the Century: The Lindbergh Kidnapping Hoax" by Gregory Ahlgren and Stephen Monier reads at page 194:
- "In fact, Charles Lindbergh fled the country. It is no coincidence that his escape from the United States occurred just before Hauptmann's scheduled execution, and at a time when Governor Hoffman's investigation into the evidence was bringing greater public scrutiny. Charles Lindbergh did not want to be around during that scrutiny."
But the NYT and most other sources do not use the term "fleeing", the biography is overladen with purple prose <g> and has even got a nice copyvio from "We" which has no business in the article in the first place. Biographies should be encyclopedia overviews - not a collection of every factoid flavoured with the editor's POV about the family. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Again, I have provided four reliable published sources that describe both the contemporary and historic views that the Lindberghs indeed "fled" from the United States to Europe in December, 1935, because (in Lindbergh's own words to NYT writer Deac Lyman) he felt that remaining in the US had become untenable. (See above) This characterization is thus not my personal POV, but is instead a well sourced statement of a fact verified by multiple reliable contemporary and historic literary reference sources. Although you keep claiming that "most other sources" do not use these terms (which, by the way, would also be irrelevant), you do not provide any examples of what these alleged "sources" are other than a single 4,300 word obituary of Lindbergh's wife, Anne, published 66 years after the family's self exile written by somebody who was not even born in 1935 and that includes exactly one 25-word sentence that relates in any way at all to the subject under discussion. You have offered no explanation or evidence at all to support your claim that there are "200+ other sources", and you have also failed to in any way refute the sources which I have provided which do use the terms. (See above)
- As for the brief three sentence boxed quote from Lindbergh's 1927 book "WE", it is directly on the point (and in his own words) of Lindbergh's view as to why he considered his year of Army flight training to be the critically important one in his development as both a focused, goal oriented individual, as well as a skillful and resourceful aviator -- something without which he would have never been able to make the non-stop solo flight to Paris which changed his life and made him world famous. The quotation is fully identified as to its origin, and its brevity and manner of use falls fully within the meaning of 17 USC §107, the "fair use" provision of the U.S. Copyright law. That being the case, it is most assuredly not a copyright violation.
- As for "POV", with respect, sir or madam, I really think you need to take a look in the mirror on this point. Your claims that this long standing and mature article is "overladen with purple prose" and constitutes "a collection of every factoid flavoured (sic) with [other] editors' POV about the family" is really just an expression of your own personal POV and is not supported by either objective facts or WP guidelines. A review of your edit history reveals that you seem to spend a great deal of your time on WP seeking to pablumize biographical articles and render their language as sterile and unexpressive as possible. While WP articles should not contain the personal POVs of their editors (and this one does not, at least not mine), that does not mean that the verified and reliably sourced points of view of WP articles' subjects, those with whom they interacted, and often the public at large, are not appropriate to be included. In fact these are often essential elements of WP biographies if they are to accurately reflect the lives of the persons who are their subjects.
- People who have done enough in their lives to deserve biographical articles on Wikipedia are by definition accomplished individuals with complex backgrounds, personal histories and relationships, political and social views, and many other aspects to themselves that make them notable. To accurately describe them and their lives therefore actually requires the use of descriptive (or what you might call "purple") language and their articles thus properly include adjectives, anecdotes, quotations, etc. to flesh them out as notable persons. That is all that has been done over the years by the many contributors to the Lindbergh article to reflect both his personal accomplishments and interests as well as the many more controversial aspects of his life, times, and relationships. Any failure to include such well sourced and verified material about these aspects of Lindbergh's (or any other subject of a WP biographical article) life would be both misleading and a disservice to those who come to Wikipedia to learn about them.
- With respect, it seems to me that you are really just beating a dead horse here now by your relentless campaign to pablumize this article and remove verified material about Lindbergh that for some unstated reason you find "too colorful" or descriptive. I have spent a great deal of time providing you with extensive verified and reliable sources for that material to which you have responded not with any evidence to the contrary but only you own POV that you just don't like it. I think it's really time for you accept the documented evidence provided that in December, 1935 the Lindbergh's "fled" from the United States to Europe to go into voluntary self exile for more than three years, and to move on to tilting at a different windmill. Centpacrr (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Counting both edits and verbiage on the biography and here - all I need say is "Quod Erat Demonstrandum." Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- You are, of course, entitled to their own personal opinions (or POV), but without presenting anything to support them (or, for that matter, to refute the sources offered by others) that's all they are -- your own personal opinions or POV. As you have again failed to respond to any of the points I have made above, however, I will take that as your having nothing to say in defense of your position.
- I invite your attention to a posting made by yourself in another thread on the general topic of verifiable "truth" just today that supports my position in this instance, to-wit: "Alas - too good an example of how some presumably reasonable editors can act when what they know is shown not to be so. This is not the only example thereof, but one where a specific author as an expert ran into the "brick wall" of Wikipedia guardians (several of whom are prominent, and communally self-protective) against being shown to be wrong on matters of fact. On matters of opinion - "chacun a son gout" is reasonable, on stuff like "no connections were shown at trial" then we do, indeed, need more than "a majority of our sources say the White House is purple." The reliable and verifiable sources cited in the article (see above) show that your contention that "you know" the Lindberghs were not generally viewed both contemporarily by the press and public, as well as by later historians in books on the topic, to be "fleeing" to Europe because life had become untenable for them in the United States (and not just "leaving" the country) is in fact untrue, and that you have provided no sources that refute the verifiable contemporary view that they were indeed seen as "fleeing."
Pakistan's denial of Taliban support before 2001
- There's a deadlocked debate at Talk:Taliban#POV tag (Pakistan's denial of Taliban support pre 2001) and Talk:Inter-Services Intelligence#New content about what was Pakistan's official position to allegations of Taliban support before 2001 (ie. before 9/11). It has been established that Pakistan strongly denies "even providing a single bullet" to Taliban as of now, but the official position on this before 2001 is still disputed and is a point of contention on Taliban article and Inter-Services Intelligence article. I've provided two reliable sources which say Pakistan official maintained that it did not support Taliban before 2001. User:JCAla claims that the president (Musharaf) said other wise in his biography. Which would be the official position? --lTopGunl (talk) 12:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- A quote from Mullen (about an accusation of Pakistan currently supporting Taliban) has also been added to the ISI article while it was already mentioned in the article that Mullen accuses Pakistan of such. I've objected to a full quotation as another quotation from Obama is there too. This is becoming a quote farm. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- The terms "widely alleged" were first being used for the support, this has now been replaced by "widely accepted" by JCAla. This also has POV issues. The term "widely alleged" was put in Taliban article after much effort and consensus. This should be reflected in the ISI article too instead of going over all that again. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- We also have a previous related consensus at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 28#Taliban. How much that is related to this should be judged by uninvolved editors so that JCAla doesn't object. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- That "consensus" is not related as you have been told a thousand times. The time period before 9/11 was not discussed there. The situation for source availability and what is actually said in those sources is completely different for the different time periods. All reliable sources state as a matter of fact that Pakistan supported the Taliban before 9/11 (Pakistani President even admitting to it), while they state as an allegation that Pakistan continues to support the Taliban today. Wikipedia needs to reflects the reliable sources according to policy. JCAla (talk) 12:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Just to be clear, the following is the sentence introduced by me: "The Taliban regime is widely accepted to have been supported by the ISI and Pakistani military from 1994 to 2001, which Pakistan officially denied during that time, although then Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf now admits to supporting the Taliban until 9/11."
- We have all reliable sources stating as matter of fact that Pakistan supported the Taliban before 9/11.
- We have reliable sources stating as matter of fact that Pakistan had an explicit official policy of denial with regards to its support during that time.
- We have a source describing Pakistan denial during that time while explicitly stating "although the contrary was the case".
- We have Pakistan's President and Interior Minister (during that time) admitting to "siding with" the Taliban "our boys" in order "to defeat" anti-Taliban forces.
If wikipedia wants to present what is the majority position among reliable secondary sources, then it needs to state that Pakistan supported the Taliban before 9/11, while it maintained a policy of official denial, although senior Pakistani officials admitted to the support even calling the Taliban "our boys". Given that an expert such as Ahmed Rashid (a Pakistani who is being consulted by major international government agencies) talks about a number of 80,000-100,000 Pakistani nationals fighting alongside the Taliban from 1994-2001, stating anything else will make a joke of wikipedia's factual reliability and will put it into opposition to all reliable sources. JCAla (talk) 12:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'll make some further clarifications to above. Statements like "although Pakistan actually supported" and the kind were not attributed to Pakistan's views by those sources but said by the author. So they can not be expressed as Pakistan's views. Pakistan's position was still denial regardless of being correct. And then there was consensus for using "widely alleged" as the allegation. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, simply "is accepted" would be factually accurate, as it is even accepted by Musharraf himself. The "widely" is only there for you. But really, it should also be removed. JCAla (talk) 12:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- We went over a lot of exercise to end up with a consensus on "widely alleged" (which is still in place on that article). Simply use that one here too. Even you admitted to it there. Why change it? --lTopGunl (talk) 12:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- I did not admit to it there. I said, it was ok as a preliminary compromise with you. But since then a whole lot of new sources have been provided including one where the Pakistani president himself admits to the support. JCAla (talk) 12:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- And why do you want to change that compromise (as you would term it)? After all it is there at Taliban about the exact same sentence. That is called consensus (and those new sources are there on that article too). No use putting a changed sentence about the exact same thing after forming a consensus at one article. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- I did not admit to it there. I said, it was ok as a preliminary compromise with you. But since then a whole lot of new sources have been provided including one where the Pakistani president himself admits to the support. JCAla (talk) 12:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- We went over a lot of exercise to end up with a consensus on "widely alleged" (which is still in place on that article). Simply use that one here too. Even you admitted to it there. Why change it? --lTopGunl (talk) 12:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, simply "is accepted" would be factually accurate, as it is even accepted by Musharraf himself. The "widely" is only there for you. But really, it should also be removed. JCAla (talk) 12:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'll make some further clarifications to above. Statements like "although Pakistan actually supported" and the kind were not attributed to Pakistan's views by those sources but said by the author. So they can not be expressed as Pakistan's views. Pakistan's position was still denial regardless of being correct. And then there was consensus for using "widely alleged" as the allegation. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Sources
Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf
- "When we sided with the Taliban, it was for good reasons: first, that they would bring peace to Afghanistan by bringing the warlords to heel; second, that the success of the Taliban would spell the defeat of the anti-Pakistan Northern Alliance."
United Nations
- "The [UN security council] resolution imposes an arms embargo against the Taliban, including foreign military assistance that UN officials say comes mainly from Pakistan."[70]
- "United Nations officials say that the Taliban gets their strongest sustained support from Pakistan."[71]
- "In a statement on 22 October, the Security Council also expressed deep distress over reports of involvement in the fighting, on the Taliban side, of thousands of non-Afghan nationals." [72]
- "Pakistan's intelligence agency and army were involved in planning major Taliban military operations. The extent of this support has attracted widespread international criticism. In November 2000 the U.N. secretary-general implicitly accused Pakistan of providing such support."[73]
Human Rights Watch
- "Of all the foreign powers involved in efforts to sustain and manipulate the ongoing fighting [in Afghanistan], Pakistan is distinguished both by the sweep of its objectives and the scale of its efforts, which include soliciting funding for the Taliban, bankrolling Taliban operations, providing diplomatic support as the Taliban's virtual emissaries abroad, arranging training for Taliban fighters, recruiting skilled and unskilled manpower to serve in Taliban armies, planning and directing offensives, providing and facilitating shipments of ammunition and fuel, and ... directly providing combat support."[74]
- "Pakistani aircraft assisted with troop rotations of Taliban forces during combat operations in late 2000 and senior members of Pakistan's intelligence agency and army were involved in planning major Taliban military operations. The extent of this support has attracted widespread international criticism."[75]
Academia
- In 1996, Pakistan and the emergence of Islamic militancy in Afghanistan: "The Pakistan government's then Interior Minister Naseerullah Babar reportedly justified Pakistan's crucial backing for the militia with the claim that "our boys" (Taliban) were protecting Pakistani "interests". Pakistan's diplomatic machinery especially its representative at the UN was instructed to persistently deny any Pakistani role in the militia's victories."
- Amin Saikal in Modern Afghanistan: A History of Struggle and Survival (2006): "Although publicly maintaining a policy of denial of any support for the Taliban, her government expanded its logistic and military assistance to the militia, as was subsequently confirmed by hundreds of Pakistani officers, troopers and volunteers who were captured by anti Taliban forces."
- "Pakistan became directly involved in the conflict in Afghanistan, supporting the Taliban in the 1990s …" (Modern Afghanistan: A History of Struggle and Survival (2006 1st ed.). I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd., London New York. p. 352.)
- "Bhutto’s interior minister, General Nasirullah Babur discovered and empowered a group of former Mujahideen from the Kandahar area as Pakistan’s new strategic card in the Afghan conflict. … In the late 1990s, Pakistan continued to support the Taliban regime in its war against the Northern Alliance."[76]
- "The Taliban were made into an effective political and military unit by the Pakistan government, the ISI and other parts of the Pakistan government. Would the Taliban have been able to come to power without Pakistan's help? Of course the Taliban could never have come to power without the help of Pakistan."[77]
- "Throughout 1995, the collaboration between ISI and the Taliban increased, and it changed character. It became more and more of a direct military alliance. ... They received guns; they received money; they received fuel; they received infrastructure support. They also, we know, had direct on-the-ground support from undercover Pakistani officers in civilian clothes who would participate in particular military battles. ... They were an asset of the ISI. I think it's impossible to understand the Taliban's military triumph in Afghanistan, culminating in their takeover of Kabul in 1996, without understanding that they were a proxy force, a client of the Pakistan army, and benefited from all of the materiel support that the Pakistan army could provide them ..."[78]
- "The ISI was trying to create a puppet state in Afghanistan? Yes. And they created the Taliban in order to facilitate that? That's right. ... You had an unholy alliance combining ISI, Al Qaeda and the Taliban. But then [and] right up until 9/11, this unholy alliance was dominated, directed, guided mostly by ISI in Pakistan."[79]
Encyclopedia
- "Although it is officially denied, there is widespread agreement that the Taliban gained crucial early support from the Pakistani army and intelligence services, especially in helping make the Taliban a highly effective military force." International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences
- "The Taliban emerged as a significant force in Afghanistan in 1994 ... which marked the beginning of a long-term alliance between the group and Pakistani security forces." Columbia Encyclopedia
Media (New York Times, Washington Times, etc.)
- "Pakistan's military backs Afghanistan's Taliban rulers."[80]
- "Pakistani military advisers, were spearheading a merciless Taliban offensive against moderate Muslim communities in Northern Afghanistan."[81]
- "The level of support reaching Massoud's men is a fraction of that reaching the Taliban from Islamabad."[82]
International Governments
- "Tehran accused Pakistan of sending its air force to bomb the city in support of the Taliban's advance and said Iran was holding Pakistan responsible for what it termed war crimes at Bamiyan."[83]
- Nicole Fontaine, Head of European Parliament: " …speak firmly to the Pakistani authorities. … I will solemnly ask Pakistan to cease supporting a [Taliban] regime which because of its fanatical and obscure views is setting its fate against international society."[84]
- ”Russia today accused Pakistan of directly participating in the Taliban military offensive in northern Afghanistan close to the borders of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and warned that Moscow reserves the right to take any action to ensure the security of its allies in Central Asia. A spokesman for the Russian Foreign Ministry Valery Nesterushkin accused Pakistan of planning the Taliban "military expansion" in the north of Afghanistan and directly participating in the Taliban military operations and taking care of their logistics…. "Concrete facts, including large number of Pakistani servicemen taken prisoners by the units of northern alliance provide this evidence," Nesterushkin stressed.”[85]
- "U.S. documents released today clearly illustrate that the Taliban was directly funded, armed and advised by Islamabad itself. Obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the National Security Archive at George Washington University, the documents reflect U.S. apprehension about Islamabad's longstanding provision of direct aid and military support to the Taliban, including the use of Pakistani troops to train and fight alongside the Taliban inside Afghanistan." [86]
- "Administration officials told Pakistani Foreign Minister Abdul Sattar during his recent visit to Washington that the White House had a "growing body of evidence" that Islamabad was in violation of U.N. sanctions because of its military aid to the Taliban."[87]
- French media archive video: "Pakistani army personnel captured by Massoud"[88]
JCAla (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- While politicians in Islamabad repeatedly denied that Pakistan supported the Taliban, the reality was quite the opposite."[89]
- "Islamabad denies that it ever provided military support to the Taliban"[90] --lTopGunl (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Note: The first of above sources refers to the historic denial which has been nullified by Pakistani President Musharraf recently admitting to providing support until 9/11. The second of above source is only about military support in the sense mentioned in the source including "direct combat support". Pakistan denies "military support", not support! Huge difference here, as Pakistani President Musharraf (military ruler) admitted to providing support. And Interior Minister Barbar justified "crucial backing".
Also, to make above quote complete:
- "Islamabad denies that it ever provided military support to the Taliban but the newly-released documents ... conclude that there has been an extensive and consistent history of 'both military and financial assistance to the Taliban.'"[91] JCAla (talk) 09:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think above sources are enough to tell Pakistan denied the support whatever was actually said by the accusers. Let some uninvolved editors comment since we've both made our case. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment To write that the ISI and Pakistan did not aid the Taliban, found and train terrorist organizations is historical revisionism at its worst. When all academic sources state as fact that this is true, we reflect those sources in the same manner. That is how an encyclopedia is meant to work. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- That's something you've repeatedly being stating on the article talk page deadlocking the discussion. We are talking here about Pakistan's position on this. Do not try to malign the point in question again. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have said that Pakistan's position is actually irrelevant. We are not here to write a propaganda view of history, we are here to document actual historical fact. When every single source says Pakistan helped found and support the Taliban, so do we. When every single source says Pakistan founded and supports terrorist groups then so do we. When the only sources which say Pakistan has denied doing these things also say the opposite is the truth, then so do we. Both your sources above for Pakistan denial also say the denial is a lie. We must not misrepresent history by giving any credence to them. If you can present 10 academic sources which say Pakistan has not given aid to terrorists and to the Taliban we can talk, until then we need to represent what every source on the subject says. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- That's something you've repeatedly being stating on the article talk page deadlocking the discussion. We are talking here about Pakistan's position on this. Do not try to malign the point in question again. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- The sources given above by JCAla are mostly for whether or not Pakistan supported Taliban, I don't think they have anything to do with the denial from Pakistan which is the topic of discussion here. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- If we are going to show a denial of support then we have to put that in context. Why do Pakistan feel it necessary to issue that denial; what time period is being referred to, etc. To ignore such points would certainly be POV and would also make for plain weird reading. - Sitush (talk) 10:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- There's already a larger consensus for showing denial where ever any accusations are made, so I'll not be discussing that. As for context... all previous discussions on the talk page, where it has been discussed at length, show that lede is too long for larger amendments. The body already has the context. the statement in lead currently says Pakistan claims to have "dropped" all the support - context or no context, that is completely wrong as it attributes an agreement to Pakistan's views. JCAla presented a source for Musharaf agreeing in his autobiography but all the official views in RS say Pakistan denied. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps I am a bit dense this morning, but I cannot make sense of your points above. The lede has to summarise the article; the article has to be balanced - both of these would indicate showing both "sides", provided that they are sourced reliably. There do appear to be reliable sources. What exactly is the problem? - Sitush (talk) 11:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- The lede currently says Pakistan claims to have "dropped" the support. There's no reference saying that Pakistan previously agreed as implied by this statement. The lede is currently incorrect. That is the main issue. Further, yes the lede is a summary but it can not have the whole story, that is meant for the body. A simple denial (which is correct) is just enough. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- There seem to be plenty of sources above indicating a commonly-held belief that there was pre-9/11 support. It would surely be a simple matter to come up with a phrasing to represent the situation. Whatever the official Pakistan position may be - now or in the past - is just a part of that whole. How would you prefer to see it phrased, bearing in mind that it probably should be in the lede in one form or another? - Sitush (talk) 11:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Again, those sources are discussing the support. This discussion is about the denial. Yes, it is a part of the whole, but the issue of how to present the whole is already handled in previous consensus, but JCAla changed it to "dropped" all support as Pakistan's views, which is wrong. I've linked those discussions in the start. This would be a preferred version:
- "From 1995-2001, the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence and military have been widely alleged by the international community to have provided support to Taliban. Many international officials have continued these allegations today, but Pakistan strongly denies supporting the group at anytime."
- Now this one will include the denial for the current support as well as previous in a single phrase in appropriate weight. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- OK, I will have a think. One immediate comment is that the word "strongly" is most likely inappropriate: it appears to be subjective. - Sitush (talk) 12:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Just dumping the current statements here, for comparative purposes.
From 1995-2001, the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence and military are widely alleged by the international community to have provided support to the Taliban. Pakistan has been accused by many international officials of continuing to support the Taliban today, but Pakistan claims to have dropped all support for the group since 9/11. - Sitush (talk) 12:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Just dumping the current statements here, for comparative purposes.
- OK, I will have a think. One immediate comment is that the word "strongly" is most likely inappropriate: it appears to be subjective. - Sitush (talk) 12:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Again, those sources are discussing the support. This discussion is about the denial. Yes, it is a part of the whole, but the issue of how to present the whole is already handled in previous consensus, but JCAla changed it to "dropped" all support as Pakistan's views, which is wrong. I've linked those discussions in the start. This would be a preferred version:
- There seem to be plenty of sources above indicating a commonly-held belief that there was pre-9/11 support. It would surely be a simple matter to come up with a phrasing to represent the situation. Whatever the official Pakistan position may be - now or in the past - is just a part of that whole. How would you prefer to see it phrased, bearing in mind that it probably should be in the lede in one form or another? - Sitush (talk) 11:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- The lede currently says Pakistan claims to have "dropped" the support. There's no reference saying that Pakistan previously agreed as implied by this statement. The lede is currently incorrect. That is the main issue. Further, yes the lede is a summary but it can not have the whole story, that is meant for the body. A simple denial (which is correct) is just enough. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps I am a bit dense this morning, but I cannot make sense of your points above. The lede has to summarise the article; the article has to be balanced - both of these would indicate showing both "sides", provided that they are sourced reliably. There do appear to be reliable sources. What exactly is the problem? - Sitush (talk) 11:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- There's already a larger consensus for showing denial where ever any accusations are made, so I'll not be discussing that. As for context... all previous discussions on the talk page, where it has been discussed at length, show that lede is too long for larger amendments. The body already has the context. the statement in lead currently says Pakistan claims to have "dropped" all the support - context or no context, that is completely wrong as it attributes an agreement to Pakistan's views. JCAla presented a source for Musharaf agreeing in his autobiography but all the official views in RS say Pakistan denied. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Hey Sitush, can't believe someone is finally trying to take part in this discussion. ;) The thing is, all reliable sources state Pakistan supported the Taliban before 9/11, while it maintained a policy of official denial, although senior Pakistani officials admitted to the support even calling the Taliban "our boys". So, that is what wikipedia should reflect. Unfortunately, TG is wrong. I did not introduce the "dropped" into the sentence, that was another editor. This is the sentence I introduced: "The Taliban regime is widely accepted to have been supported by the ISI and Pakistani military from 1994 to 2001, which Pakistan officially denied during that time, although then Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf now admits to supporting the Taliban until 9/11." The sentence is a compromise version for TG. Normally, and factually correct, it should be:
- "The Taliban regime was supported by the ISI and Pakistani military from 1994 to 2001." JCAla (talk) 15:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- I find TopGun's version better since it is more impartial and not judgemental, which is what JCAla's proposal is. Even if JCAla's proposal were to be added, there should be a statement added to make it impartial, suggesting as to why Pakistan viewed the Taliban as a better party to rule Afghanistan i.e. to bring peace to war-ravaged Afghanistan (getting rid of Afghan warlords) as well as kicking out anti-Pakistan factions made up of minority ethnic groups, such as as the Northern Alliance. Mar4d (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- TopGun's version is not even grammatically correct and consequently it makes little sense. I am still thinking about how best to deal with the general issue. - Sitush (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- What do you find grammatically in correct in my version? (PS. The changes I made were only the modification of word 'dropped'). --lTopGunl (talk) 12:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Mar4d, my statement is not judgemental, it reflects what is written by all reliable sources presented. Why Pakistan thinks the Taliban should rule Afghanistan really has no place at all in the lead of the Taliban article. BTW, your statement about the "why" is full of (partly misplaced) judgement and prejudice. JCAla (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Whether or not you added that version, the fact you are defending it puts the burden on you. You're recent suggestion didn't even have any attribution. We do have a previous consensus both here and then a lot of discussion on the article talk page to keep it this way. It will be disruptive to go back removing attribution again. We're discussing denial here. Pakistan never said it 'dropped' the support. Infact all official sources say Pakistan did not support Taliban in the past as well (and the current support is strongly denied). You can not attribute the incorrect statement to Pakistan's views as currently in the lede in terms of 'dropped'. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Also about the use of word 'strongly', it has a previous consensus... someone sneaked it out of the lede without changing that consensus. 'Strongly' is exactly what Pakistan has in its denials for Taliban support. There are reports that say Pakistan denies providing even a single bullet to Taliban. Also this has to be in balance with the 'wide' accusations. This was perfectly in balance. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Whether or not you added that version, the fact you are defending it puts the burden on you. You're recent suggestion didn't even have any attribution. We do have a previous consensus both here and then a lot of discussion on the article talk page to keep it this way. It will be disruptive to go back removing attribution again. We're discussing denial here. Pakistan never said it 'dropped' the support. Infact all official sources say Pakistan did not support Taliban in the past as well (and the current support is strongly denied). You can not attribute the incorrect statement to Pakistan's views as currently in the lede in terms of 'dropped'. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Do you see the sources above? Can you understand what they say? Stop claiming consensus where there is none. JCAla (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- The sources are about support. Can you specify or only add which sources are about Pakistan's views? It seems to be a flood at the moment. About the consensus, we did get a consensus on this noticeboard that attribution is needed. Atleast you will agree to that for the current support, so do not contradict it. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comments from uninvolved editors are much needed here... --lTopGunl (talk) 10:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
2011–2012 Syrian uprising
There is a dispute at 2011–2012 Syrian uprising over whether or not to include mention of CIA support for the March 1949 Syrian coup d'état. The text in question has been removed a number of times, most recently here. Two editors are claiming the material is COATRACK, while a third has objected on the grounds that its inclusion is designed to make a point.Two editors (myself being one) have argued that it is relevant and appropriate to include, per NPOV, as it is mentioned in connection with the current events by experts in the field such as Stephen Zunes (see here) and Joseph Massad (here). Please also see the sources cited in the diff and read the relevant discussion attempting to resolve the issue at the talk page, where alt proposals have been made. Your input would be most welcome. Tiamuttalk 19:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Local consensus to overrule NPOV
Since when can a discussion at an article talk page decide to overrule NPOV. See List of nicknames of United States presidents, which at the top says "This is a list of non-derisory nicknames of United States presidents which were in common usage at the time they were in office or shortly thereafter." Who is judging what is "derisory" and if a derisory nickname is verifiable and notable, why wouldn't we include it? When did we become Hagiograhiapedia? Jehochman Talk 19:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- That's a reasonable point, but why on Earth do we have a list of nicknames any way? Seems utterly trivial. Nev1 (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Two problems with derisory nicknames:
- They're more ephemeral, have reduced reliable sourcing
- Many of them are so non-specific, or rather, shared by all US Presidents, or a great majority of them, that they're not really nicknames but more epithets.
- This shouldn't trouble excellent encyclopaedists when compiling a list of nicknames though, merely make the list of abusive nicknames limited to what is reliably sourced. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. This seems like an RS issue instead of an NPOV one. ElKevbo (talk) 23:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- It seems to be a problem with the article title as much as anything. An article entitled "List of nicknames of United States presidents" should include all nicknames which are reliably sourced and not undue. An article entitled "List of non-derisory nicknames of United States presidents" can reasonably begin with the sentence "This is a list of non-derisory nicknames of United States presidents which were in common usage at the time they were in office or shortly thereafter.", but other editors might well want to balance it with one entitled "List of derisory nicknames of United States presidents". Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. This seems like an RS issue instead of an NPOV one. ElKevbo (talk) 23:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
There has been a major issue regarding this article. We originally had to go to mediation but the "defendant" never placed her own defense and had to be closed. However the others have made it clear merging was strong enough for consensus. And now trying to revamp the discussion, but unfortunately over runned by fans who ignore the policies and give troll-like responces. It would be great if it had more eyes.Lucia Black (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - The article in question has had numerous disputes over the last few years, having been brought up on this AFD, this WikiProject page, this noticeboard, and on this mediation case. The most recent discussion in question is at Talk:Sailor Moon (English adaptations)#Due to closure of mediation... just so everyone's aware of what is going on. I have already informed WP:ANIME of this discussion here, but so far there has been a few responses. Disputes continue despite WP:NPOV and the mediation's consensus that we should merge the article to the main article. This dispute has gone on for years. I am also asking for a solution. Outside input would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
The Heartland Institute
Recently some documents were stolen from this right wing think tank. The article it are popping up in are The Heartland Institute Watts Up With That? DeSmogBlog and Anthony Watts (blogger) The major problem as I see it is that the MSM (notably The Guardian & the BBC) failed to any due diligence. Since they ran with the story the HI has said at least one document is a fake and others may have been altered. We have editors however using these sources in the article above. Given that one of these stolen documents is used to source stuff along the lines of (HI is trying to stop K12 from teaching science) seems to me to be problematic. Another issue which may be a BLP problem is on the Watts article. budgeted two payments of US$44,000 to Watts This appears to be incorrect, the 44k was from a pledge from an anonymous donor with HI saying they would help find funding for the rest. As the original article seemed to have gotte na great deal wrong should they be used as sources at all? We also have editors writing that these documents were "leaked" They were no leaked, they were stolen by a person unknown committing ID fraud. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Show both sides, unless MSM have retracted since the event. The Guardian, for example, runs a daily "corrections" column. - Sitush (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- I did that, I was reverted [92] I am not really that interested in this but assume there will be some here who are. It is important to get things right, and if a source messed up by publishing a story before verifying the authenticity of what it were reporting they should not be used as sources. It is also saying the docs were leaked when they were not that strikes me as wrong. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Several of the MSM articles I've seen have noted that HI has acknowledged several of the documents as real but claims at least one is a fake. That's a hard claim to verify, hence why they note what HI is claiming and what that document contains. Ravensfire (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with Ravensfire. We cannot give more weight to the word of the body that effectively has a COI regarding the issue. It is either show both or show none. Unless, as I said above, the MSMs have actually retracted. Who is saying that they did not do due diligence? Presumably HI, and to paraphrase Mandy Rice-Davies, HI would say that, wouldn't they? - Sitush (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- It is not our function to "get things right", that is the function of the sources we use. News stories of course sometimes turn out to be inaccurate, retractions are published and we can then amend articles accordingly. TFD (talk) 06:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
National Marriage Project
This article needs some help. I tried to balance it a little, but I'm not sure I'm equipped to do this. The organization claims non-partisanship and non-sectarian-ship, but there exist opposing opinions that probably should be taken into account. I tried to outline one at least, but more experienced writers and people involved with these contentious issues would probably do a better job.
69.86.225.27 (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- I looked at the article and the references. So far the article just states a small amount about the existence of the project. I see that the article needs more development but I do not see bias in the references or the article. Could you state more specifically what your concern is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coaster92 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I ran across the article El Rod at WP:COIN when the user Elrodmusic created it (its original form). It was filled with puffery, unreferenced claims, and intricate/unneeded details such as, "He created a Facebook account under pressure from his friends complaining that he should be as active on the internet as he is in real life. He also created a Twitter account but deleted it the very next day." The user was indefinitely blocked per a WP:USERNAME violation and change their username to PaulBarner (talk · contribs). I asked about a connection and they replied that they, "have no relation to the subject." Semantics aside, the issues haven't stopped there. The user has removed maintenance templates several times and has received warning templates regarding those edits. Ignorance of WP policy aside, the user has added references to articles that don't support the claims made, don't even mention the subject of the article, are to non-reliable blogs, don't exist, or some combination of those issues.
The user has accused me of "blatantly ignoring the Wiki rules" by issuing him warnings and claims that "No dialogue is also exchanged". Not only do I feel that I was within reason by issuing the warnings. I also have attempted to communicate with the user here, here, here, and here, as well as this section on my talk page where he and I discussed the issues. The attempts on the talk page of the article and on the user's talk page have been removed by the user (see here and here). He has also uploaded a copyrighted photo that has been deleted then re-uploaded to WP, claiming to know the photographer. Lastly, the user is still an WP:SPA.
The user has recently responded to my comments here, inside of my comments, which I reverted and have attempted to explain on the user's talk page how to better use talk pages to keep them from being too complicated to understand.
Given the evidence, I think that at best, this user is understandably ignorant to WP policies and guidelines, is a fan of El Rod (a musician), and has had issues inserting the correct references in the right place and in the correct format, as well as trouble understanding our policies and guidelines when they're presented. At worst, the issue has a close connection with the subject or is the subject of the article, is attempting to promote that artist, and is willing to lie to do it.
I have worked extensively at WP:COIN, patrolling new articles, and dealing with WP:COPYVIO articles. Mostly due to an influx in new articles and copyright issues related to education programs like WP:IEP, I've burned out and I'm attempting to take a Wikibreak so that editing WP doesn't feel like such a chore. I think this is better for me and more importantly, it's better for Wikipedia. That being the case, I can't keep up working with this user on this article and this seems like the best place to ask for help with this issue as I don't want to just let this article that slips through the cracks. If you wish to contact me, please do so on my talk page as that's essentially the only thing I'll be checking for a while. OlYeller21Talktome 20:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
POV FORK; help needed
We really need help here. A few editors have decided to ignore WP:NPOV and say that only positive content may be included in a list. This clearly violates WP:NPOV and WP:POVFORK. We have an RFC going, but thus far no uninvolved editors have commented. Jehochman Talk 13:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Per WP:NPOV, I agree that the list should not be limited to only positive content. However, I agree with Charles Edward (article talk page) that the nicknames should be widely used and reliably sourced, and not just a reference made in a news article headline. Additionally, WP:BLP needs to be taken into account and honored.Coaster92 (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Quotations required?
There's a claim at Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#Quotations that (what I consider) the very lengthy quotations in List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming are required to satisfy BLP, and that they may not be removed because of the policy. Is this true? (crossposted from WP:BLPN after two days without a response) 86.** IP (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Users editing my biography during disputes
I am a Wikipedian with a biographical article about me. User:WLU began negatively editing the biography about me [93] during a content dispute at Talk:Paraphilia. The dispute was about a problematic article by User:James Cantor, whose edits here are almost invariably promotion of his work and friends, or denigration of his off-wiki critics, which include me. The negative content WLU added has also been added to my biography by Cantor and his alternate accounts, [94][95][96], though it was later removed by others per WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, and other policies. Cantor also removed my academic credentials using a different account [97] and removed my primary occupation and downplayed my accomplishments, among other negative POV changes,[98] despite that information being easily sourced (e.g. [99]). I requested that WLU address my concerns as follows:
- Revert Cantor's removal of my academic credentials and occupation, per NPOV.
- Revert WLU's edit to my bio, per NPOV.
- Barring #2, add my responses per NPOV:
- James, Andrea (2008) Fair comment, foul play. National Women's Studies Association conference.
- James, Andrea (2006). A defining moment in our history: Examining disease models of gender identity. Gender Medicine, 3:56 ISSN 15508579
WLU has refused to address my concerns [100]. I'd like uninvolved editors to weigh in and possibly revert these punitive changes made by WLU and James Cantor. Jokestress (talk) 19:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Apart from the problematics of James Cantor editing biographies of someone with whom he is apparently in a personal off-wiki dispute (which is a clear breach of COI and should be pointed out to him) I see no problems with the actual edits. Your credentials weren't sourced and could be removed by anyone. And I don't see how the edit by WLU is negative - it doesn't seem to actually change any content, but to simply tweak citation templates. Also your discussion with WLU on his/her talk page strongly suggests that they were acting in good faith - which should of course also be your assumption. Timing is not indicative of neutrality in anyway - but depends only on the content of the edits. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- I now notice that James Cantor's edit is from 2008! And he has subsequently in 2009 pledged on his talkpage not to edit your biography and a number of other articles in which he has been in a dispute with you and Dicklyons. There is no basis for administrative action here that I can see. [by the way I am not an administrator]. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- I believe the "negative" part of the first diff was linking to an article discussing Andrea James in the Archives of Sexual Behaviour (note the addition at the end of the second paragraph the phrase and citation "...and in 2008 an article appeared in the Archives of Sexual Behavior discussing the controversy in detail"). The actual article [101] is extremely lengthy and does not portray James' actions in a positive light; normally I'd include details on the Andrea James page but frankly, given the actions described in the article I'm simply afraid there may be off-wiki consequences. I read the two suggested sources and didn't see anything specific to add regarding my edit (and don't feel like editing the page further).
- I will comment that I read the policies and guidelines as pretty clearly indicating it doesn't matter who adds content, the actual content is either problematic, or not. Conflict of interest means edits should be scrutinized, not removed. Note in addition, that James Cantor's behaviour regarding his COI has been so far within the requirements of WP:COI and WP:COS I consider it excessive; see this discussion at COIN, based on the fact that James Cantor noted the publication of a new and highly relevant publication on two appropriate webpages [102], [103]. I've had some interactions with James Cantor on-wiki, but don't have any particular opinion regarding his research or off-wiki activities. Also, I iz a he WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, that article does not put Andrea James in a favorable light indeed. Nonetheless it does seem that having one's behavior described at length in a peereviewed scholarly article is significant as a source for a biography. I would, like you, however also think twice before inserting the material into the article myself.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- There are two issues here. One, I don't think it's a coincidence that WLU started editing my biography during an edit dispute, and I consider that a big problem, as are the edits James Cantor made by tagging and then removing easily sourced information in order to make me appear less educated/qualified. Two, I have pointed out that WLU's edit adds only one side of an ancillary dispute and is therefore not a neutral addition. The piece WLU added is a target article, a deliberately provocative non-neutral broadside that was published alongside dozens of responses. Respondent Margaret Nichols summed it up in the same edition: "Under a veneer of neutrality, Dreger has aligned herself with the conservative rearguard of professionals, not realizing that changes in the field are already rendering much of that rearguard obsolete." See Margaret Nichols' "Dreger on the Bailey Controversy: Lost in the Drama, Missing the Big Picture." Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol.37, No.3, June 2008, p.476-480. I chose not to respond in that journal because I thought that would lend legitimacy to the conservative rearguard which controls that publication (including editorial board member James Cantor). That journal has devolved into a bully pulpit for those advocating reparative therapy for gender-non-conforming children and keeping sex and gender minorities listed as mentally ill in the DSM-V. They are on the wrong side of history but do not grasp it yet. The addition is certainly a reliable source under our policies, but it is not a neutral source, even if WLU's summary is. Without providing the other POV in this matter, the changes have a cumulative effect of being a NPOV violation. If the subject of a biography has a concern and proposes changes that would bring balance to a one-sided article, we should be responding to those sorts of proposals. Perhaps this is not the correct venue to get this remedied, but I was hoping that it would be obvious on its face. Jokestress (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- The way to remedy any perceived imbalance is to add the responses to the Dreger article - not to speculate about motivations for WLU's having added them in the first place. James Cantor's edits are 4 years old and they were based in policy since thestatements he removed were unsourced, and any unsourced statement may be removed at any time. The way to remedy that would be by providing a source for your educational background which could then be included. I agree that it seems unsatisfactory for WLU to have edited your biography while in a dispute with you - and I he should be aware that that might be construed as a COI. When in a dispute it is important to assume good faith - for both sides. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- I provided a source for my academic credentials in my first entry above.[104] My primary occupation and credential on IMDb is producer and always has been. I supplied evidence that uninvolved people have published about WLU's addition being a non-neutral piece. I am not as interested in discussing policy and editors on a noticeboard as I am in making the article comply with NPOV. I have explained above what would remedy the NPOV problems, and I was hoping someone on this board could address these concerns in the article itself. If that's not going to happen, perhaps this is the wrong place to seek redress. Jokestress (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- I recall no dispute with Jokestress, I believe this is the sum total of what could, in the loosest possible terms, be called a "dispute". I see no issue with adding Nichols' article to Andrea James if it addresses James specifically; if not, it's WP:OR to include any commentary in my mind. I won't add Nichols' article myself, I don't have a copy and am not interested in reading up on the issue further.
- Calling the activity on Talk:Paraphilia a dispute between Jokestress and myself is an enormous stretch; claiming I went from there to Andrea James and added a neutral reference to a lengthy article that discusses the page's subject at length purely to disparage the subject of the article also seems a stretch (and suggests I was incompetent as well since the summary is in no way critical). I can understand why people dislike having wikipedia pages - it opens them to criticism they may not like. However, I see no evidence that I'm adding non-neutral text to the page out of personal dislike. I simply don't see any issue here. Perhaps Jokestress could use {{Request edit}} to suggest and integrate a wording on talk:Andrea James for the Nichols' paper. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- I am fine with having criticism in my biography, and I take responsibility for everything I say and do. What I am not fine with is people adding negative information to it without balancing it per NPOV after I raise concerns on a talk page or noticeboard. It is historically a punitive measure done by people who don't like my politics or my tactics. It goes with the territory of being an article subject who also edits using her real name. I'll seek other ways to address this problem, as it is probably a more complex issue than this noticeboard is designed to address. Jokestress (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- I provided a source for my academic credentials in my first entry above.[104] My primary occupation and credential on IMDb is producer and always has been. I supplied evidence that uninvolved people have published about WLU's addition being a non-neutral piece. I am not as interested in discussing policy and editors on a noticeboard as I am in making the article comply with NPOV. I have explained above what would remedy the NPOV problems, and I was hoping someone on this board could address these concerns in the article itself. If that's not going to happen, perhaps this is the wrong place to seek redress. Jokestress (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- The way to remedy any perceived imbalance is to add the responses to the Dreger article - not to speculate about motivations for WLU's having added them in the first place. James Cantor's edits are 4 years old and they were based in policy since thestatements he removed were unsourced, and any unsourced statement may be removed at any time. The way to remedy that would be by providing a source for your educational background which could then be included. I agree that it seems unsatisfactory for WLU to have edited your biography while in a dispute with you - and I he should be aware that that might be construed as a COI. When in a dispute it is important to assume good faith - for both sides. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- There are two issues here. One, I don't think it's a coincidence that WLU started editing my biography during an edit dispute, and I consider that a big problem, as are the edits James Cantor made by tagging and then removing easily sourced information in order to make me appear less educated/qualified. Two, I have pointed out that WLU's edit adds only one side of an ancillary dispute and is therefore not a neutral addition. The piece WLU added is a target article, a deliberately provocative non-neutral broadside that was published alongside dozens of responses. Respondent Margaret Nichols summed it up in the same edition: "Under a veneer of neutrality, Dreger has aligned herself with the conservative rearguard of professionals, not realizing that changes in the field are already rendering much of that rearguard obsolete." See Margaret Nichols' "Dreger on the Bailey Controversy: Lost in the Drama, Missing the Big Picture." Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol.37, No.3, June 2008, p.476-480. I chose not to respond in that journal because I thought that would lend legitimacy to the conservative rearguard which controls that publication (including editorial board member James Cantor). That journal has devolved into a bully pulpit for those advocating reparative therapy for gender-non-conforming children and keeping sex and gender minorities listed as mentally ill in the DSM-V. They are on the wrong side of history but do not grasp it yet. The addition is certainly a reliable source under our policies, but it is not a neutral source, even if WLU's summary is. Without providing the other POV in this matter, the changes have a cumulative effect of being a NPOV violation. If the subject of a biography has a concern and proposes changes that would bring balance to a one-sided article, we should be responding to those sorts of proposals. Perhaps this is not the correct venue to get this remedied, but I was hoping that it would be obvious on its face. Jokestress (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, that article does not put Andrea James in a favorable light indeed. Nonetheless it does seem that having one's behavior described at length in a peereviewed scholarly article is significant as a source for a biography. I would, like you, however also think twice before inserting the material into the article myself.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- I now notice that James Cantor's edit is from 2008! And he has subsequently in 2009 pledged on his talkpage not to edit your biography and a number of other articles in which he has been in a dispute with you and Dicklyons. There is no basis for administrative action here that I can see. [by the way I am not an administrator]. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
1. Per WP:SELFSOURCE, "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves." Jokestress, if you'd be willing to provide URLs for the credentials you'd like restored on the article talk page, I and other editors not currently engaged in a conflict against you will be happy to consider the additions. You shouldn't be punished for voluntarily being open about who you are.
2a. Re Archives of Sexual Behavior, WLU wrote "Cantor being on the editorial board puts a different spin on the source...". An RS cited above goes further: "They turned the Archives of Sexual Behavior into the house organ and bully pulpit for knowledge produced by Toronto’s Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.[105]". Clearly Archives of Sexual Behavior is not independent in this mater and not the soundest basis for negative BLP additions.
2b. Re The Northwestren Chronicle, while it might be the best rag for info on "The Fighting Methodist[106]", is the campus paper of Northwestren University, where Baily works[107]. Again, clearly not independent and not the soundest basis for negative BLP additions.
Should the negative BLP additions have been made? Arguably, I would lean towards no, since only questionable sources are being cited. Should WLU have made the negative additions to the BLP while involved in a conflict elsewhere on Wikipedia with, among other editors, the subject of the BLP? Certainly not.BitterGrey (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- This is getting complicated. BitterGrey - you are in a dispute with WLU on Paraphilic infantilism and if I understand your userpage correctly you are involved in advocacy/awareness raising for this particular topic - similarly to Joekestress role in the debate. So are you neutral in this as you claim? Difficult for me to say. Anyyway I disagree that James Cantor being on the board of the Journal or that a source expresses a distaste for the journal makes it an unreliable source for this topic. It is a peer reviewed academic journal and as such among the most reliable sources we recognize. The correct way forward is to add the opposing views from the comments to Dreger's article. There is no justification not to include an article in a peer reviewed journal that treats the subject of the biography at length. There is every justification, even expectation, for including as many and varied opinions about the subject of the biography in addition. So I would strongly suggest to include the selfpublished references regarding academic qualifications, include the alternative views to Dreger's. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly, Maunus. This is extremely complicated, and it's a long-term problem site-wide. The edits to my bio by User:James Cantor, User:WLU and User:Bali ultimate are in my opinion punishment for concerns I have raised on Wikipedia and my off-wiki work. WLU and Bali Ultimate (and others long since blocked) seek to right great wrongs by presenting "one of the most organized and unified examples of transgender activism seen to date" (Surkan 2007) from the point of view of the people engaging in unethical behavior.
- I am not saying that Archives of Sexual Behavior is not "reliable" in the Wikipedia sense. Verifiability, not truth. However, it is an extremely biased bully pulpit controlled by a conservative rearguard of psychologists who have a long-standing grudge with me for calling attention to their unethical behavior. Anyone reading that polemical target article will think a bunch of enraged crazies were assaulting the academic freedom of some poor little college professor for daring to speak "the truth." As many have pointed out, the author used a veneer of neutrality to carry out a personal and professional vendetta against me and others, one which aligned with the interests of the entire editorial board of that journal, including James Cantor. As Kim Surkan notes, this controversy is about the academic exploitation of transsexual people, and Archives of Sexual Behavior is the house organ for this exploitation. If the target article is to be included, Wikipedia policy requires NPOV. There were dozens of published responses to the target article, as well as an entire panel at an academic conference.
- I find it problematic that:
- an editor (James Cantor) involved in an academic dispute with me off-wiki removed my academic credentials and occupation.
- an editor (WLU) involved in an on-wiki content dispute with me added a negative article to a biography about me during that dispute.
- an editor (Bali ultimate) expanded the description of that negative article after I raised these concerns on this noticeboard [108], then to make a WP:POINT expanded it even further. [109]
- As you can see, my off-wiki politics and tactics make editors like YouReallyCan and others very angry. That's great by me, but their expressions of their anger here appear to violate policies. I am seeking someone uninvolved to review these edits I consider problematic and consider rectifying this POV problem. There is this content issue, but there's also a much larger and very complex policy issue that affects any editor with a biography, from Jimmy Wales on down. It contains elements of NPOV, COI, CIVIL, SOAP, BLP, NPA, and others. But for now I'd like to see the content issue addressed, which is why I started here. If that's not going to happen, I will seek redress elsewhere, including the larger policy issue. Jokestress (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see a problem with this as verifying that James has a first degree from Wabash and a Masters from Chicago. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- I am basically sympathetic to your concern, but it is really difficult for me - not having a basic understanding of the extremely complex topic and dispute to address it personally. I do think that editors including exclusively negative information when more supportive information is available in the same source is problematic - and hints at tendentiousness. I think that perhaps at this point you should take it to either the BLP notice board, or even directly to OTRS. Alternatively you can write a short summary of the supportive statements in the Archives issue, as well as of your aricle in Gender Medicine and post it to my talk page and I'll do my best to insert it into the article to create balance. (by the way I can't seem to find it in the database on science direct - only a one page summary of the article you link to - was the full rticle also published in Gender Medicine?)·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think one can go a long way with first principles -- we use material that has already been published by a reliable source. Clearly someone's earned degrees are encyclopaedic and are capable of verification: indeed, it seems they have been verified. As far as scientific or medical theories are concerned, we go with academic and peer-reviewed publications with a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. A mainstream scientific journal will be presumed to be a reliabre source. If User:Jokestress claims that a particular journal is not a reliable source because of some external conflict between her and the journal editors (or any other reason), then she needs to demonstrate evidence, preferably from independent reliable sources, of significant dissent within the expert community from that journal's position. We must simply restate what is said by independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that is what she is saying. In fact she quite explicitly says that that is not what she is saying. She is saying that since the same source includes critical and supportive information and only the negative information has been inserted - by users who are in an editing dispute with her on an other article - she would like to have a more balanced coverage of the issue that includes both criticism and support - and her sourced academic credentials.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Actually Maunus, Jokestress and I seem to have only one thing in common, and that is new: During a conflict, WLU went to other pages and made edits that were questionable at best. With Jokestress, the conflict started in Feb 2012 at paraphilia and was taken to Andrea James by WLU. With me, the conflict started in Feb 2011 at COI_medicine and was quickly taken by WLU to a number of articles that I had long been involved with(e.g. A, B, C, D) eventually spilling over into still more articles (eg E.) Even now, a year later, the main discussion at homosexuality makes it clear that WLU didn't respond to Cantor's post, but was only reacting to my comment. (With a determination to cite an article that he had not read, I might add.) BitterGrey (talk) 05:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that is what she is saying. In fact she quite explicitly says that that is not what she is saying. She is saying that since the same source includes critical and supportive information and only the negative information has been inserted - by users who are in an editing dispute with her on an other article - she would like to have a more balanced coverage of the issue that includes both criticism and support - and her sourced academic credentials.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think one can go a long way with first principles -- we use material that has already been published by a reliable source. Clearly someone's earned degrees are encyclopaedic and are capable of verification: indeed, it seems they have been verified. As far as scientific or medical theories are concerned, we go with academic and peer-reviewed publications with a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. A mainstream scientific journal will be presumed to be a reliabre source. If User:Jokestress claims that a particular journal is not a reliable source because of some external conflict between her and the journal editors (or any other reason), then she needs to demonstrate evidence, preferably from independent reliable sources, of significant dissent within the expert community from that journal's position. We must simply restate what is said by independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- User:Jokestress has a historic extreme attack position against others involved here - the user has attacked living people, and their families and children as I remember - via their blog to an extent that they have no reason to complain about anything in this topic area. - I support a full topic ban for jokestress in this area. Youreallycan 22:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- That seems entirely uncalled for.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Whats not to like about the simple truth. What User:Jokestress published attacking linking people and their children was despicable and not something imo they should ever be forgiven for. Youreallycan 22:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've read the Dreger article just like you seem to have. Your statement that this merits a topic ban is opinion. And an opinion not backed by policy.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have no idea about a derger article - I will only post details of the offending content if I am requested to - if a topic ban for this user is not supported by policy it should be. Youreallycan 23:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- A statement of opinion is by definition not the simple true. You called for a topic ban on grounds of off-wiki conduct, in the wrong forum, when noone has demonstrated any onwiki misconduct or mentioned that possibility. That is uncalled for. If you have a probelm with this user start an RfC providing evidence for on wiki misconduct. Otherwise leave it be.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- This appears to be the sum total of the alleged "dispute" I apparently have with Jokestress. Note that she did not reply to my comment in the section, nor did she edit the section of the paraphilia page I added and KimvdLinde edited. [110][111][112] Even my comment on her comment is conciliatory, there's certainly no criticism. Turning this "dispute" into me being angry enough to edit the Andrea James page out of spite, seems like a considerable stretch. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- I am also not convinced that you have done anything that cannot be solved by simply assuming good faith - but I sense that Jokestress at this point is primarily concerned about someone actually making her entry neutral - it doesn't seem like she is lobbying for any consequences for anyone involved. I could be wrong.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- The issues here are sufficiently serious that it might be worth bringing this to WP:AN. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- WLU: We can do that in the future, especially about the policy, but I think we should try to resolve this content issue here first. Bittergrey says you two are engaged in a long-running dispute, and I believe my biography came to your attention because of this. Bittergrey and I have overlapping points of view on some related issues, and you and James Cantor have overlapping points of view on some related issues. You and James Cantor also have overlapping occupational backgrounds. The timing of your edit to my bio cannot be chalked up to mere coincidence.
- I can't make any guesses regarding your original intent, but I can say that it seems highly problematic to me that you refused to address my concerns after being made aware of them. Whatever your original intent, the reason we are here is because you refused to reach consensus with me via your talk page. That is your most problematic behavior, in my opinion. I am trying to reach consensus through the proper channels of dispute resolution. We can certainly escalate if we fail to reach consensus here, but it seems we are making progress, and I see no need to open up multiple discussions until we reach a resolution or impasse here. Jokestress (talk) 22:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't believe anyone can point to any edits I have made that are problematic in any way. It really doesn't matter how I got onto the Andrea James page, and I'm completely uninterested in editing it again because I'm expecting to cause exactly the drama that is happening right here, right now. Feel free to escalate, I'm not editing James' page again. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Pointer from AN to here, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#More_eyes_at_WP:NPOVN. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- WLU has escalated and claims to believe there is a problem, but has yet to state what he thinks that problem is. Perhaps he wishes to leave the stale, off-wiki-based accusations to Offtoriorob's new login "Youreallycan".
- As already stated, I believe the problem to be that WLU made a negative addition to a BLP, against an editor he was in conflict with, when he had shown no interest in that BLP before the conflict. This addition is obviously non-neutral, sharing only Blanchard and Baily's side of the BBL controversy. It is cited only to Baily's article in the school newspaper and Dreger's article in a journal Cantor reviews. Dreger works with Baily at Northwestern, and Cantor with Blanchard at CAMH. Potentially the most critical review that the articles received was by the typesetters. (The Dreger source was at the root of a 2008 cabal[113]. It turned out the person arguing in favor of the Dreger source, as login:MarionTheLibrarian, was actually Cantor.) Even if we don't consider WLU's history of spreading conflict in this manner, this edit should not have been made. BitterGrey (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- You have yet to answer the question I asked above - considering this is the full total of my edits to Andrea James, please point out the problem with it. Where is the "negative addition" in adding a link to an obviously reliable source? Also, as I asked above, given our total alleged "conflict" involves one talk page comment, in which I'm admitting that Jokestress might have a point, that Jokestress never replied to, how was there a "pre-existing dispute" between her and I? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have to admit, I don't see where WLU made a "negative addition" either. Is it possible that people are confusing WLU with another editor? Blueboar (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Blueboar, WLU has some kind of long-standing issue with Bittergrey, and my bio attracted his attention after I made a response to Bittergrey. WLU may not have been aware of the past discussions surrounding that content when he added it, but his refusal to address my NPOV concerns once made aware seems to me a milder version of the edits made since then by Bali ultimate, also in response to my concerns. Both are examples of the problematic pattern I am discussing. Jokestress (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have to admit, I don't see where WLU made a "negative addition" either. Is it possible that people are confusing WLU with another editor? Blueboar (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- You have yet to answer the question I asked above - considering this is the full total of my edits to Andrea James, please point out the problem with it. Where is the "negative addition" in adding a link to an obviously reliable source? Also, as I asked above, given our total alleged "conflict" involves one talk page comment, in which I'm admitting that Jokestress might have a point, that Jokestress never replied to, how was there a "pre-existing dispute" between her and I? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Pointer from AN to here, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#More_eyes_at_WP:NPOVN. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't believe anyone can point to any edits I have made that are problematic in any way. It really doesn't matter how I got onto the Andrea James page, and I'm completely uninterested in editing it again because I'm expecting to cause exactly the drama that is happening right here, right now. Feel free to escalate, I'm not editing James' page again. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've read the Dreger article just like you seem to have. Your statement that this merits a topic ban is opinion. And an opinion not backed by policy.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Whats not to like about the simple truth. What User:Jokestress published attacking linking people and their children was despicable and not something imo they should ever be forgiven for. Youreallycan 22:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- That seems entirely uncalled for.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- This is getting complicated. BitterGrey - you are in a dispute with WLU on Paraphilic infantilism and if I understand your userpage correctly you are involved in advocacy/awareness raising for this particular topic - similarly to Joekestress role in the debate. So are you neutral in this as you claim? Difficult for me to say. Anyyway I disagree that James Cantor being on the board of the Journal or that a source expresses a distaste for the journal makes it an unreliable source for this topic. It is a peer reviewed academic journal and as such among the most reliable sources we recognize. The correct way forward is to add the opposing views from the comments to Dreger's article. There is no justification not to include an article in a peer reviewed journal that treats the subject of the biography at length. There is every justification, even expectation, for including as many and varied opinions about the subject of the biography in addition. So I would strongly suggest to include the selfpublished references regarding academic qualifications, include the alternative views to Dreger's. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
If the issue is my behaviour, then this doesn't seem to be the appropriate venue. Again, my sole edit to Andrea James was this one, mostly citation improvements and a link to a paper that you currently include in the proposed rewrite of Andrea James. Your proposed version includes more detail actually, since my edit added only "...and in 2008 an article appeared in the Archives of Sexual Behavior discussing the controversy in detail" and right now your proposed page says "Critics of James' tone and tactics accused her of personal harassment that went beyond the limits of civil discourse, and they said her efforts had a chilling effect on academic freedom". If you look at my contribution history for that day, yours was the last page of three I added that extremely lengthy (55 pages) article to Ray Blanchard, Blanchard's transsexualism typology, search for PMID 18431641 or DOI 10.1007/s10508-007-9301-1 on James' page. There may be a user conduct issue here (I don't see it, but perhaps the community will) but there really doesn't seem to be any neutrality issues resulting from my edit. NPOV is generally seen as a content issue, not a conduct one. Not to mention my immediate attempts to address an issue I had thought I found with an oversighted edit requested on the talk page [114], [115]. Note that the time stamp places those edits less than a minute apart. Obviously I'm biased, but I simply don't see any evidence of malice on my part towards Jokestress. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- As I've said, there are two problems: one is the content issue, which this board is supposed to address. Whether you were aware of it or not, there's been a lot of previous discussion and oversighting on my bio because I am controversial to some people. Your edit shifted the neutrality of the article by adding a source that multiple published sources state is biased. When I made you aware and suggested remedies, you refused to take action. That's why I brought it up here, and the subsequent conduct by Bali ultimate is an even better example of the same problem. We will discuss that at a future time and place. We are all aware you feel you've done nothing wrong, but we'll get to that after we resolve this neutrality matter regarding the content. Please focus on the content here, as I feel we are making progress on that front. Jokestress (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I did mention a couple days ago a possible solution [116], and your rewrite on a subpage is another solution. As for why I refused to take action, I have no obligation to edit a page I don't want to, particularly when I have expressed discomfort at editing the page further because, based on Drege's article, I'm afraid there may be off-wiki consequences [117], and you have indicated you located information that may be related to determining my real-life identity [118]. Another issue I've indicated I find disturbing [119]. Accordingly, I see no further reason to respond to your statements regarding neutrality.
- If there are user issues, then those are a question you are unlikely to get much traction on here and I suggest you bring it up at another venue.
- Based on these points, I see no further reason to continue posting on this noticeboard. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- WLU, you posted that information to Wikipedia yourself here[120] and contradicted yourself on Wikipedia here[121], so all we really know is that you aren't telling the truth. This is relevant because the last time most of these POV items were being pushed, the push fizzled when it came to light that it was actually Cantor pushing them. Now if you, Offtoriorob, etc., will stop using off-wiki matters as an excuse for on-wiki actions, maybe we can get somewhere.BitterGrey (talk) 15:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Because it's certainly not possible that an editor forgot about something he posted 5 years ago? Noformation Talk 10:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Assuming WLU forgot what the letters in his own login stood for wouldn't be AGF, especially since both the contradictory expansions are easily remembered: It would be an assumption of incompetence. If some sitcom blow-to-the-head actually had made him forget his name and alma mater, he shouldn't be editing here, since he also wouldn't remember where his conflicts of interest were. BitterGrey (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Because it's certainly not possible that an editor forgot about something he posted 5 years ago? Noformation Talk 10:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- WLU, you posted that information to Wikipedia yourself here[120] and contradicted yourself on Wikipedia here[121], so all we really know is that you aren't telling the truth. This is relevant because the last time most of these POV items were being pushed, the push fizzled when it came to light that it was actually Cantor pushing them. Now if you, Offtoriorob, etc., will stop using off-wiki matters as an excuse for on-wiki actions, maybe we can get somewhere.BitterGrey (talk) 15:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree with everything that Andrea James/Jokestress has said. I have reverted WLU and Bali ultimate. They should be ashamed. Luwat (talk) 06:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please be aware that while removing the POV from the BLP was top priority, WLU's 'edits' weren't limited to that article. For example, he also removed Andrea James from both places where she was mentioned in Blanchard's_transsexualism_typology on the same day (along with a statement of Dreger's non-neutrality, Conway's objection to Dreger, and a citation to a synopsis of the fourteen articles in that ASB issue that were critical of Dreger). BitterGrey (talk) 14:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
There be brief mentions of the dreger paper and NY times article, but not the detailed quotes. Nobody Ent 02:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Question - where does my edit from six years ago mention Wilfred Laurier University? Why is this relevant since I've never edited the Wilfred Laurier University page [122]? What purpose did Jokestress' comment on my talk page serve other than alluding to the fact that she's found information which might be useful if someone were trying to find out my real-life identity? And where is the dispute I have with Jokestress that motivated a POV-pushing edit so egregious it warranted starting a section on a noticeboard? Where is the evidence that my motivation was anything other than adding a reference that mentions James by name more than 150 times?
- Also, my changes did remove James' name from the BTT article, as the sole reference provided was to a poster presentation, not a reliable source. James did not write a reply to Dreger's article. If this is the limits of my errors, and it's worth taking action over, most of wikipedia's editors would need to have posts made since it's the rare editor that fleshes out, in full detail, a completely neutral article on a topic (and unnecessary since wikipedia is not done). In addition, Jokestress' own proposed version of the Andrea James page includes more detail on Dreger's article than my edit did - so obviously my edit couldn't be that bad. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Main Hawai'i article and Native Hawaiian sovereignty activist
This is re the main Hawaii article. I hope I'm in the right place to ask for help; I was once a high-edit-count editor and pulled back. Not sure that I know the ropes now.
A user named Laualoha has made the same edit to the main Hawaii article three times in a row. He/she appears to be a Hawaiian sovereignty activist and is intent on inserting a claim that the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy was illegal. This has been a prominent theme of sovereignty rhetoric: activists hope to convince others that the act was illegal and that the islands should therefore no longer be part of the U.S. It's seriously unbalanced to insert this claim in the general article, where it is not appropriate to add the counterclaims, a history of the controversy, etc. The article would be hijacked by the argument. There are other articles in which the issue can be discussed, at greater length. And has been, probably. I haven't even looked at those.
It seems to me that Laualoha is edit warring and that the war must be stopped. I'm not going to revert for a third time. I'm going to ask for help outside. If this is not the right place to ask for help, please direct me to the correct forum. Zora (talk) 20:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Zora, I took a look at the article sections that mention overthrowing the queen. I agree the tone could be more neutral but this seems like a topic that would be part of this article. Am I overlooking a policy? Or is would it work to revise the sections to a more neutral tone, keeping the length within reason and guidelines?Coaster92 (talk) 22:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- There is already an article called Overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii in which this issue can be discussed at length. There is no room to discuss it in any depth in the general survey article. If I were to insist on a more comprehensive treatment of the issue, the main article would simply duplicate the breakout article. I have noticed this sort of main article bloat in many articles over the years. Numerous editors add tiny bits of info, which add up to an over-sized main article that is hard to read and hard to keep in balance. I might add that Kaualoha is working on the REST of the main Hawai'i article to introduce more Hawaiian sovereignty viewpoints (Captain Cook did BAD things, etc.). Some years ago, the main article was the scene of extended edit wars between the sovereignty editors (representing a minority viewpoint in the islands, but a strongly held one) and the rest of the editors. Then the article seemed to settle down into something bland and neutral, with the arguments farmed out to subsidiary articles. My heart sinks at the prospect of a renewal of these conflicts. Zora (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- So in this case, the proper course of action would simply be a mention of the issue with the wikilink to the other article? I just reviewed WP:Article size, which says that articles should be 6,000 to 10,000 words max, or 30KB to 50KB. The Hawaii article is 93,995 bytes, which would be almost 92KB. So it seems you are right, the article is too long already and under the Wiki policy should be broken up. Ideally most of the sections in question should be moved to the other article and reviewed to ensure neutral language and tone. Is that what you would suggest, Zora?Coaster92 (talk) 05:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry to be so late in replying. Yes, I think a link to the Overthrow article would be enough to alert readers of the main article that there is controversy. I don't know if I can convince the other editor of that. He/she seems to believe that if people just knew the FACTS, they would support the sovereignty movement, and it is therefore his/her duty to put the FACTS in a prominent place. Sigh. Zora (talk) 03:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- I could post a comment on the article talk page saying that the article is too long per Wiki policy and that I intend to wait a few days and then move the Overthrow sections to the Overthrow article and wait for that (and any other) editor's response. How does that sound? I have seen editors just move large sections without even posting their plans. But I could post the plan ahead of time.Coaster92 (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm unindenting. I'm concerned with the insertion of the claim that the overthrow was illegal -- as if this were something notable about the coup d'etat. Well, yes, all coups and revolutions are illegal, from the POV of the previous regime. It's as if the article about the American Revolution stressed that the revolution was illegal according to British law. The response is, "Yes, that happened a long time ago. Are you arguing that we should undo it NOW?" However, if I add something like this to the main Hawai'i article, we're turning the article into a debating forum for sovereignty activists. I have been reluctant to engage in yet another round of argument on the same old same old, but I suppose I must. I'll try rewriting the section to point to the overthrow article and note that the event still rouses intense passions. Zora (talk) 04:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Zora, I looked at several edits by Laualoha but can't tell for sure which section you are focusing on.Coaster92 (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Al Jazeera as a sole souce
A paragraph in the Israel-Palestine conflict reads: In December 2011, all the regional and political groupings on the UN Security Council named continued settlement construction and settler violence as a principal obstacle to the resumption of talks, a call viewed by Russia as a "historic step".[123][124][125]
Having examined the cited sources and several others, it is only the Al Jazeera article that states that the settlement activity was described by "all regional groups as a principal obstacle to the resumption of talks". This is not quoting from any of the envoy criticisms but appears to be loosely based on the statement issued on behalf of the non-aligned bloc that states settlement activity is "the main impediment to the two-state solution". As such, that "all the regional and political groupings... named continued settlement construction... as a principal obstacle to the resumption of talks" appears to represent only the opinion of Al Jazeera. Is it permissible to use the Wiki voice in asserting this, or is source attribution required. Is using the wiki voice lending this lone view undue weight and providing disproportionate prominence to this viewpoint by characterising settlements according to this singular viewpoint?
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- Single points of view should be attributed, "An article in Al Jazeera said..." WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that's the correct solution. Al Jazeera is a reliable source for the information. And it's a news organisation, so it isn't providing a viewpoint, but a report.
- It's possible that there's a legitimate question of accuracy at the level of detail, but that's a question that's about interpreting the sources alongside each other, and I think it's outside the scope of this noticeboard. Personally, I would approach this by continuing to look for sources giving further information.
- AnkhMorpork: note also the ambiguous wording of the JP report. "Main impediment" could come from the non-aligned statement, but it could also come from the European statement. --FormerIP (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Clearly it is a reliable source. The issue is WP:UNDUE - "The page should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view...To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute." Currently, only the AlJazeera source supports this claim so am I correct in requesting either further sourcing or attribution to AlJazeera before the claim is presented using the Wiki voice? I quote "an article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject... for example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm an involved editor on the page, my main issue here is that I think the substance of the criticism made in the UN statements (as reported by RS) is not accurately reflected in the current text of the article. I think this is an issue for NPOV because if you look at the next paragraph in the article, documenting criticism of the Palestinians, opinions of the Israeli Prime minister and a letter by a minority group of US senators are detailed. Three of the sources used in the paragraph documenting criticism of the Palestinians are Palestinian Media Watch. It seems odd to me that an editor that would use such a source numerous times to document criticism of Palestinians, would then make a claim of WP:UNDUE against a mainstream media organisation.
- To address the specific point about Al Jazeera's use of "a principle obstacle to the resumption of talks" as a summary of the statements, I don't think it is contradicted by any of the other sources. Look at the actual quotes of the different statements from RS:
- Brazil's UN Ambassador Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti said the emerging powers were "deeply disturbed" by events and called the settlements "a major obstacle to peace."[126]
- South African Ambassador Baso Sangqu read a statement on behalf of the 120-nation bloc of non-aligned countries that generally reiterated the European statement, describing settlement activities as "illegal" and "the main impediment to the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.[127]
- Russia's UN ambassador Vitaly Churkin said settlement activity put into question the viability of a two-state solution. "If you look at the map, you start wondering how even theoretically two states can be set up in Gaza and West Bank given this new reality," Churkin said. [128]
- "We believe that Israel's security and the realisation of the Palestinians' right to statehood are not opposing goals. On the contrary they are mutually reinforcing objectives. But they will not be achieved while settlement building and settler violence continues." [129]
- Ankmorpork's latest edit leaves the passage as :- the regional groupings on the UN Security Council named continued settlement construction and settler violence as disruptive to the resumption of talks. To my mind it significantly underplays the criticism described by RS, I would be interested in others opinions. Dlv999 (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- In fact the passage states, "all the regional groupings on the UN Security Council named continued settlement construction and settler violence as disruptive to the resumption of talks, a call viewed by Russia as a "historic step". To clarify, I have never stated that the previous version was contradicted by other sources; rather I was reluctant to characterise all the various criticisms according to the extreme interpretation of a single viewpoint, without source attribution or further supply of sources.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- In fact the passage states, "all the regional groupings on the UN Security Council named continued settlement construction and settler violence as disruptive to the resumption of talks, a call viewed by Russia as a "historic step". To clarify, I have never stated that the previous version was contradicted by other sources; rather I was reluctant to characterise all the various criticisms according to the extreme interpretation of a single viewpoint, without source attribution or further supply of sources.
Seer stone (Latter Day Saints)
Two editors have attempted to add material to the article based completely on primary sources, including Mormon scripture. The excuse is that "in some instances vital information can only be had by sources like Smith and Whitmer."--John Foxe (talk) 16:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- @John Foxe, I have reverted User:SunKider's additions, and have left him a note on his talk page on how to format references. (He said that he was citing Quinn, who is a great secondary source for the topic, but was unsure of how to format the references.)
- As an unrelated side note, of the 21 references currently in the article, at least 7 seem to be to primary sources, with 5 of them being direct references to Mormon scripture. I'm unsure of how to count the primary sources reproduced in works like Vogel's Early Mormon Documents, so I'm not counting those. You seem to be the primary contributer to the article, and I think it's a little unreasonable to expect a new editor to immediately follow higher standards of sourcing than you do yourself (see, for instance, this edit).
- Anyway, you're a good teacher, and SunKider is a fairly new editor who seems willing to learn. You both seem to be rational people, and I see no reason why this can't be worked out with a little effort on both your parts. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Norwegian Defence League biased rewrite attempt
I have just started the section Talk:Norwegian Defence League#Possible COI major rewrite reverted about what may appear to be an underhanded attempt at slanting the article by removing mention of information that could be seen as damaging to the article's subject. I'm also notifying the COI noticeboard (I'm unsure whether it is appropriate to notify both boards, but I'm unsure which is the more correct one). I have ventured to revert the contentious edit. My own connection to the subject has been declared on the article's talk page. __meco (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- OTOH, I found )I saw this on another noticeboard) that a great deal of the article is blatantly violative of WP:BLP and, in some cases, fully misrepresents what the sources state. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Systematic removal of sourced honey bee toxicity info from Clothianidin and Imidacloprid
It seems that a variety of people are acting in concert to try to remove mention of honey bee toxicity from Clothianidin and Imidacloprid, two insecticides which have been linked to bee colony collapse disorder. Please see Talk:Imidacloprid#Systematic repeated deletion of sourced bee toxicity info and Talk:Clothianidin#References from 2012. 222.165.255.198 (talk) 01:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think it would be helpful if you logged back in, to attribute contributions properly and to avoid the appearance that more editors support that approach to toxicity than is actually the case. bobrayner (talk) 16:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/70.59.31.70 may also be of interest to other editors. bobrayner (talk) 16:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Look, there's not a single peer reviewed source from the past year or two which doesn't link the neonicotinoid insecticides to colony collapse disorder, as far as I can tell. Similarly, USEPA James hasn't made a any article edits which don't try to hide that link. Can you find any counterexamples? 222.165.255.198 (talk) 20:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/70.59.31.70 may also be of interest to other editors. bobrayner (talk) 16:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Please comment on a RM
I'm quite surprised that no one had notified NPOVN till now, but there is a large discussion taking place on Talk:Genesis_creation_narrative#Requested_move regarding whether Genesis creation narrative should be moved to Genesis creation myth. Since NPOV is largely related to the discussion your comments would be appreciated. Thanks. Noformation Talk 03:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Neutrality problem with "Kudankulam nuclear power plant" article
The tone and conclusion of the article on Kudankulam nuclear power plant ('Controversy' section alone) goes against the neutral facts on the ground. I have tried editing it to give it a neutral view, but have been threatened with being banned. Anyway. if the article stands as it currently stands, it would mean that the Indian Prime Minister, Home Minister and many other senior people in the establishment are outright liars. Request experienced users help in resolving this matter as per the spirit of wikipedia policy.Nashtam (talk) 06:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
RFC: Leo Wanta systematically edited away from NPOV?
The bio on Leo Wanta, which is related to an Internet conspiracy theory, has (in my view) systematically been edited away from WP:NPOV (and likely factual accuracy) over a period of several years.
Compare, for example, the current article with a 2008 version, the latter being, in my view, much closer to NPOV and factual accuracy. Also see the talk page for additional external citations (and references to citations) disputing the current article's factual basis (and supporting the 2008 version).
Comments are requested. Should the article be rewritten to revert or partially revert to the 2008 version? Asdfi922 (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Falkland Islands
This sentence has been the focus of extensive comment in Talk:Falkland Islands:
“ | After several abortive attempts, Luis Vernet established a settlement in 1828 after seeking authorisation from both British and Argentine authorities. | ” |
The facts - Luis Vernet founded a settlement in the Falkland Islands, specifically East Falkland at the former Spanish settlement of Puerto Soledad, which he renamed Puerto Luis, now known as Port Louis. Vernet sought permission to do so from the British Charge D'Affairs in Buenos Aires Woodbine Parish, equally he was promised tax exemption if he could establish a colony within 3 years by the Republic of Buenos Aires and received a Land Grant from the Republic. Vernet financed the whole operation from his own funds.
See Talk:Falkland Islands#Vernet established an Argentinian settlement
The current discussion suggests we need to either A) add the adjective "Argentinian" in front of settlement or B) remove the reference to the British authorities to a specialised article.
I would appreciate comment as to whether the current sentences satisfies WP:NPOV or whether the suggestions would improve it. Wee Curry Monster talk 01:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Kosovo
"I suggest the article [on Kosovo] be tagged for not adhering to the NPOV requirement. The reasons in a nutshell:
- From the political standpoint, it focuses on Kosovo as a Serbian province before it refers to the Republic of Kosovo, which controls 90 percent of the territory and is recognized as an independent country by 88 UN members.
- As to history, the focus again is on Serbia (or the Serbian presence in Kosovo), not Kosovo. The Dardani had their own kingdom as of 4th century BC; Christianity spread in the early centuries of the common era (Paul preached in Illyricum, which included Dardania); and, many important contemporary figures were from Dardania. These are facts supported by ancient writers and should not be neglected. For most countries where Christianity has played a major public role, history begins with the arrival of the religion; Kosovo's history according to the article begins much later, with the arrival of the Serbs.
--Getoar TX (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)" (from Talk:Kosovo#Article_is_biased; see source for more information)
- ^ socialism Britannica ACADEMIC EDITION. Accessed: 19 January 2012.
- ^ Charlie Brennan (2005-02-03). "College journalist touched off firestorm". Rocky Mountain News.
- ^ Wilson, John (2005). Terrorism in Southeast Asia: implications for South Asia Countering the financing of terrorism. Pearson. p. 80. ISBN 978-8129709981.
- ^ Green, M. Christian (2011). Religion and Human Rights. Chapter 21: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-973345-3.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location (link) - ^ The Independent. London http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/diplomat-denies-pakistan-role-in-mumbai-attacks-1521700.html.
{{cite news}}
: Missing or empty|title=
(help) - ^ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/01/pakistan-denies-governmen_n_147395.html
- ^ King, Laura (2009-01-07). "Pakistan denies official involvement in Mumbai attacks". Los Angeles Times.
- ^ Sisk, Timothy D. (2008). International mediation in civil wars: bargaining with bullets. Routledge. p. 172. ISBN 978-0415477055.
- ^ a b Martin, Gus (2009). Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues. Sage. p. 189. ISBN 978-1412970594.
- ^ Palmer, Monte (2007). At the Heart of Terror: Islam, Jihadists, and America's War on Terrorism. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 196. ISBN 978-0742536036.
- ^ Wilson, John (2005). Terrorism in Southeast Asia: implications for South Asia Countering the financing of terrorism. Pearson. p. 84. ISBN 978-8129709981.
- ^ Schmid, Alex (2011). The Routledge Handbook of Terrorism Research. Routledge. p. 540. ISBN 978-0-415-41157-8.