|
Welcome to the neutral point of view noticeboard | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||
Additional notes:
|
|||||||
Search this noticeboard & archives |
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 |
Contents
- 1 Pov pushing of Kiluminati in Module:Yemeni Civil War detailed map
- 2 Timothy Leary
- 3 John Dye article
- 4 Discrimination lawsuit
- 5 SodaStream
- 6 Can relevant legal opinions from major legal experts be removed as WP:FRINGE ?
- 7 PokerStars
- 8 RfC update: Ford Pinto section lede of the Fuel system fires, recalls, and litigation section
- 9 DYK: fact or advertisement
- 10 Wikipedia Android app is not neutral on New York Democratic Primary, 2016
- 11 Violation of WP:NPOVTITLE?
Pov pushing of Kiluminati in Module:Yemeni Civil War detailed map
Hi. @LightandDark2000: could be a witness. Kiluminati is a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. He refused sources that mentionned Hadi advance. The account appeared in December and he speaks of vandalism. He removes sources such as Masdar speaking advances loyalists and source map with Al Masira , official media Houthi . This is unacceptable. And he accused the others to vandalism. He had been warned here and here. 2016 (UTC) First, I ask Kilumnati cease to qualify those who do not think like him vandals or saboteurs . This is a personal attack and I demand punishment. For its wars of editions of removing information about advanced Yemeni government , just see his latest contributions . Enough 's enough of this pov pusher . And personal attacks , simply view comments for change , there's always a personal attack. Moreover, it is somewhat strong coffee that has come out of nowhere in December 2015 , already knows the community pages of Wikipedia and has the nerve to accuse of vandalism. So he who does not know the definition. Moreover, it is certain that behind the Kiluminati account hides an experienced account , perhaps even banned.@Jytdog: Hello. I demand an immediate sanction against the puppet socket for general behavior on the encyclopedia. For Warring he did with @LightandDark2000:, where it distorts the meaning of Article to deny that to update the map with the advancing troops Hadi . Furthermore, I demand punishment for his personal attacks, defamation that are calling me a vandal, saboteur and fanatical pro Hadi . Regards. Panam2014 (talk) 09:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, it is true. User:Kiluminati has been POV-pushing on the Yemeni Map Module for months now. Despite being warned by other users and a number of discussions on the modules's talk page, he refused to cease his disruptive behavior, and is continuing to alter the map in favor of his own pro-Houthi views, using unreliable sources or seriously biased sources to carry out the changes. He also mass reverts any other users who make changes in favor of the opposite side, using reliable sources, and he accuses them of "vandalism" when this happens. And if any user happens to revert any of his unreliable or poorly-sourced edits, he reverts them also also hurls similar accusations of vandalism or disruptive editing. This is unacceptable. User:Kilunimati's edits are seriously shifting the Yemeni map module away from a neutral point of view, and sadly, since December 2015, the map has become the most unreliable map module on Wikipedia, except in the instances where I or another user managed to revert his changes or update the map using reliable sources. This needs to stop; this is damaging Wikipedia's neutrality and accuracy policies. Please attempt to mediate a solution with the user in question. If all else fails, I recommend a topic ban on the user for at least 6 months, to end any further disruption. Also, if things get too out of hand in the short term, then please lock the module for 3 days, to kill off any further disruptions or edit wars from this user, until a solution can be mediated. Thank you. LightandDark2000 (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- First of all, i'm so sorry for failure to follow WP:NPOVN laws where strongly been emphasized to notify editor who is the subject of a discussion with red color! given that by coincidence i faced to this topic that it show pretenders legitimacy how observe the law!
- For POV Push accusation with regards to leaving in irrelevent section in noticeboard (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view where place to article content is compliant with the NPOV) should be snapback to Yemen Civil War talk page where editors must be told sources that based on doing edit. but the two not provide anything for their edit and always are be elusive from responding, here is visible. basically, there are not completely impartial resources for validation and accuracy of claims! and the two rely on sources that the majority of them are founder of war and the rest of its supporters. of course we all know they cant be neutral so what's the solution? answer is using all of them as jointly it's means admit one side to domination the other side and vice versa. it's the only operational way-out at the moment. except this method just lead to more chaos and i taked it for reduce disputes (User contributions).
- Now the this two trying with working together and trick handling asperse and defame me and going to introduce me as POV Pusher in public opinios but weak works not benefit. it seems to me can be work out this difficult problem side by side not against. I hope intellection overtake from ignorance, hope.... K!lluminati (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Killuminati is indeed a pov pusher and I have demonstrated. So I will not dwell on it further. Furthermore, he claims that Al Masirah is credible and using as source General People's Congress website of Ali Abdullah Saleh. that's the weakest coffee complaining about defamation when we used to accuse others of vandalism and sabotage. Moreover, Kiluminati appropriates the module by its leader of the discussion by denying the arguments that are not going in his direction. To have searched the talk page I demand punishment under Wikipedia: Harassment and its disorganization of the encyclopedia I also demand a punishment for WP:POINT. Panam2014 (talk) 12:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- why Al Masirah not be credible? let us not forget famous mainstream news media due to lack of journalist on yemen working their own news quoted al-masirah's reports (even al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya). what's wrong with using GPC website? not clear? for what reason the using salih, ansarullah and houthis resources are forbidden but using al-Jazeera, al-arabiya & al-Akhbariyah and all of arabic coalition sources that are starters of war on yemen is obligatory? that's comical analogy! it's clear they misrepresent truth and nutrify misinformation as flipped to audiences, and by this manner put community minds in aberration and brainwash public opinions easy peasy lemon squeezy!!! now at here the two sophistries prevent from being display battlefields realities. in previous some time the two reverted anything they deem to wrong. all of them be there here [1]. with this action, the map instead of be indicative of reality is propagator of errors!
- Stretches this sealed ring endangers the main objectives of Wikipedia that's surely “public access to correct information”. The this point to be taken seriously otherwise will have troubling consequences. K!lluminati (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- This individual has lost all credibility. Sabanew (pro Hadi) or Sabanews (pro Houthis) and Al Masirah (pro Houthi) do not have to be used since these are the officials media of the belligerents. And their information is never taken up by the mainstream media. If they were credible, the information should have been included. I am proud of the confession of this POV pusher. The media like Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya are international sources and their information is taken over by large groups such as NY Times. Put the same level as the propaganda war is the POV pushing. Finally, Al jazeera contradicts Kiluminati but its information is recognized. --Panam2014 (talk) 11:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
Can someone please lock the map module for 1 week? I'm sick and fed up with all the POV-pushing and edit warring that I'm still witnessing there. Despite the discussion here and the repeated attempt to discuss with User:Kiluminati, he is still using unreliable or seriously biased sources to reshape the map to his own views. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Kiluminati is a Pov Pusher. Now, he used biased sources such as Saba News Agency which is the official agency of the Houthis. [2], [3], [4] and [5]. --Panam2014 (talk) 07:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Finally, he continues to use the biased sources and without consensus. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- New evidence of POV- pushing , now , he left off topic to promote the idea that the " government of the Houthis ' is legitimate and that Hadi is " a self-proclaimed former president " as he is recognized by the international community. --Panam2014 (talk) 10:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Timothy Leary
An IP editor (it could be one person or multiple people using IP addresses) is currently pushing the idea that Timothy Leary is a philosopher (see here, for instance). I think this is pretty obviously outrageous, and a violation of WP:NPOV. Leary has absolutely no recognition as a philosopher: his name is not mentioned in works of reference dealing with philosophy, and not one professional philosopher would recognize him as one. An IP has added a citation for the philosopher claim here, but in my view the source used is in no way reliable enough for this kind of extraordinary claim. I think the IP's edits need to be reverted, and if need be the article should be protected. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- I was patrolling recent changes when I noticed that you had disputed that Leary is a philosopher. I easily found and added ref currently number one, a bibliography of Leary where I also added a quote stating that he is a philosopher, and btw "philosophy was found 29 times in that page that I ref'ed. He has been repeatedly "recognized as such".2601:80:4003:7416:5812:70AA:330D:D068 (talk) 03:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- And-FKC--why did you bring this here? How would this be NPOV-related? You make no sense here. Why not on the Talk Page? Here is something that may help you understand, List of Dewey Decimal classes#Class 100 – Philosophy and psychology2601:80:4003:7416:5812:70AA:330D:D068 (talk) 03:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- I repeat my points: Timothy Leary is not regarded as a philosopher by any professional philosopher, and he is not mentioned in any work of reference dealing with philosophy. Ergo, he is not a philosopher. It destroys Wikipedia's credibility for it to include the inane suggestion that this promoter of drugs somehow qualifies as a philosopher, and simply increases the level of ignorance and misunderstanding of philosophy in this world. The fact that you can find somewhere a source calling Leary a philosopher doesn't change this; the source (written by Leary's admirers, I'm sure) is insufficiently reliable to support the claim being made. Maybe if you looked, you could find a source calling Lyndon LaRouche a philosopher; that wouldn't justify slapping the "philosopher" label on LaRouche either. Per WP:NPOV, "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." One dubiously-reliable source calling Leary a philosopher isn't good enough. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- I am the ip who added the ref to the bibliography. You did not see who authored that-or did you just not look at it? Still not seeing why you didn't go to the article TP-although you are clearly the one with an agenda here. There is no "takes one to know one" policy on WP as far as I know? Or must have a degree in philosophy to be considered a philosopher? He AUTHORED and TAUGHT, and LECTURED philosophy, how many refs do you need? Maybe in climate change scientists or something,but for this I thought that something said in a reliable reference is acceptable. 2601:80:4003:7416:5812:70AA:330D:D068 (talk) 04:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Per WP:NPOV, "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Is the view that Timothy Leary is a philosopher a significant view in reliable sources? You have provided no proof of this, and I see no reason to believe it's true. Your assertions that Leary is a philosopher ("He AUTHORED and TAUGHT, and LECTURED philosophy") are irrelevant and unsupported. Consequently, I shall revert your edits at the article. Per WP:BRD, you should have discussed your proposed changes on the talk page after I reverted you, instead of edit warring. I've taken the issue here to draw your destructive behavior to the attention of a larger number of editors. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- I am the ip who added the ref to the bibliography. You did not see who authored that-or did you just not look at it? Still not seeing why you didn't go to the article TP-although you are clearly the one with an agenda here. There is no "takes one to know one" policy on WP as far as I know? Or must have a degree in philosophy to be considered a philosopher? He AUTHORED and TAUGHT, and LECTURED philosophy, how many refs do you need? Maybe in climate change scientists or something,but for this I thought that something said in a reliable reference is acceptable. 2601:80:4003:7416:5812:70AA:330D:D068 (talk) 04:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- No evidence has been provided that he AUTHORED and TAUGHT, and LECTURED philosophy. The source provided says he was an "activist philosopher," whatever that is. So I would take it out. TFD (talk) 04:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- How is this? http://articles.latimes.com/1987-12-22/entertainment/ca-30476_1_timothy-leary2601:80:4003:7416:5812:70AA:330D:D068 (talk) 04:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- A single reference in a newspaper? Please. If that were enough, nearly anyone could become a philosopher. It doesn't even call Leary a philosopher; rather, it says that he did "his stand-up philosopher act", not quite the same thing. As I said, we need high-quality references: works of reference dealing with philosophy, and other sources written by people who have a legitimate claim to know what they're talking about. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- How is this? http://articles.latimes.com/1987-12-22/entertainment/ca-30476_1_timothy-leary2601:80:4003:7416:5812:70AA:330D:D068 (talk) 04:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- AND- FKC-you didn't rv me-I added a ref because you rv some other IP editor. I will rv you if you do that just so you know2601:80:4003:7416:5812:70AA:330D:D068 (talk) 04:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Doing a google search (yes, not exhaustive) clearly shows that if the word "philosopher" is used with Leary's name, its a self-ascribed label that he called himself and not a professor that we could call him as such. The LA Times article above, for example, shows how he used "Stand-up Philosopher" to describe a stage act. He had a specific philosophy, but that's not same as being a philosopher by profession. --MASEM (t) 04:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
FWIW, there are a few legit sources out there that do describe Leary as a philosopher (among other things). The International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, for example, describes him as "a psychologist, scientist, and philosopher who made substantive contributions to interpersonal theory and methodology and also gained notoriety for his endorsement of and research on hallucinogens." So the IP isn't completely off-base, although I'm skeptical that there are enough sources like this out there to justify using the "philosopher" label. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The ref that I added mentioned philosophy more than 20 times-(the bibliography). LA times calls Leary a philosopher, you don't like that. How about this? https://books.google.com/books?id=-zsuAAAACAAJ&dq=The+Fugitive+Philosopher&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj49r2byN3LAhVE6CYKHTuhBlQQ6AEIHTAA (his book The Fugitive Philosopher) on Google Books listed as :"Biography & Autobiography / Philosophers"? 2601:80:4003:7416:5812:70AA:330D:D068 (talk) 05:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- It's irrelevant how many times it mentions the word "philosophy". The claim that Leary is a philosopher is made just once, by the document's editors, who include Michael Horowitz, a former associate of Leary who is not a professional philosopher. Not being a philosopher, his view is hardly relevant. What the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences says is admittedly much more significant (and I thank Fyddlestix for mentioning it), but the bottom line for me remains that it is inappropriate to call Leary a philosopher given that he isn't seen as such by most philosophers and that it is not what he is primarily known for. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- The ref that I added mentioned philosophy more than 20 times-(the bibliography). LA times calls Leary a philosopher, you don't like that. How about this? https://books.google.com/books?id=-zsuAAAACAAJ&dq=The+Fugitive+Philosopher&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj49r2byN3LAhVE6CYKHTuhBlQQ6AEIHTAA (his book The Fugitive Philosopher) on Google Books listed as :"Biography & Autobiography / Philosophers"? 2601:80:4003:7416:5812:70AA:330D:D068 (talk) 05:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- You brought this to the wrong drama-board. Maybe RS would be reasonable, but I still don't get why you did not put this on the TP. I'm not so sure that the standard that you are asking-for is required here. I think it was you who said that if we didn't have these standards, (paraphrase), "anyone could be a philosopher". Um yeah-so what. But Leary has actually written books, been quoted on, and been referenced-as a philosopher in other classifying bodies. Even-if it is self-referenced, (and that is not the only ref for Leary), again, so what? And please show me where WP Policy backs you up with this? So, by your standards, only another bona-fide philosopher can say that Leary is one too? I need to see where WP requires this please.2601:80:4003:7416:5812:70AA:330D:D068 (talk) 06:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- No, I brought this issue to precisely the right noticeboard, as shown by the helpful comments made by other users. You may believe that virtually anyone should be called a philosopher; I certainly do not, as I believe that Wikipedia should aim to become a high-quality and trustworthy work of reference. I do not think that there is going to be general sympathy for edits such as yours, which frustrate that goal, as well as destroying the meaning of philosophy and contributing to public ignorance and misunderstanding of the subject. Leary calling himself a philosopher is not good enough, his non-philosopher buddies calling him a philosopher is not good enough, and some vague reference to him as a philosopher in a newspaper (which doesn't really call him a philosopher) is not good enough. Find high-quality sources calling Leary a philosopher, or else just drop the issue. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- You brought this to the wrong drama-board. Maybe RS would be reasonable, but I still don't get why you did not put this on the TP. I'm not so sure that the standard that you are asking-for is required here. I think it was you who said that if we didn't have these standards, (paraphrase), "anyone could be a philosopher". Um yeah-so what. But Leary has actually written books, been quoted on, and been referenced-as a philosopher in other classifying bodies. Even-if it is self-referenced, (and that is not the only ref for Leary), again, so what? And please show me where WP Policy backs you up with this? So, by your standards, only another bona-fide philosopher can say that Leary is one too? I need to see where WP requires this please.2601:80:4003:7416:5812:70AA:330D:D068 (talk) 06:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
A similar point came up a while back in respect of more contemporary activist. As I noted in that debate, and as the RFC concluded, we need surely to be quite strict and consistent about what we mean when we describe someone as a "philosopher". The term is often used quite loosely in the real world for anyone who has opinions or theories about life and the wider world, as well as in a more formal academic or historical sense, and it should be latter that we focus on. Sources that may well be "reliable" in the broadest sense can often be found that say X or Y is a "philosopher", but we shouldn't blindly follow one or two randomly selected ones, especially when there's no guarantee they mean the same thing as others. This isn't a matter of sourcing per se but, as noted, a matter of what sources and what is meant by the term. N-HH talk/edits 12:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- OK-well ty for that other closed discussion. But this one is tricky in that I am trying to apply a pretty strict criteria to this, asking questions like, "Was Leary a philosopher in the professional sense?-was he employed as such, gaining income?"--and the answer is yes. Also, although I have not seen him published in philosophy trade journals and publications, (did not look everywhere), he has published works of philosophy, which are categorized as philosophy, and it looks to me like some of his published material is filed in libraries with the Dewey Decimal classification in the 200 division, which is philosophy.
- With that being said, I still think that this discussion belongs elsewhere, BUT--I don't have an objection to qualifying Leary if that is appropriate. Rand, for instance is noted as an, "outsider"-in the WP philosophy article. Could we include Leary there? And although I am being accused here of (Npov?), or it looks like I am trying to defend the category for Leary, I'm just trying to apply the encyclopedic WP standards that are usually applied, namely, reliable sources call Leary a philosopher, and he called himself one, and he was employed as one at times. Maybe degree-holding philosophers are the ones who need the qualifier? 2601:80:4003:7416:D424:BA86:FF7D:2779 (talk) 14:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Same IP here--and jftr, I'm starting to lean-towards undoing the revert that I did. The category deletion. I would just like to see if it is appropriate and if WP has any policy in particular that would support it.I think that I found some pretty strong ties to Philosophy for Leary, so it would not be completely out of line to keep the cat. but then again, if there are strict parameters, such-as contributing to the field of philosophy, for instance, then it s/b removed maybe? I guess I just didn't like the original reverting editor's tone there in the edit remarks. It is worth discussing and not being pissy about it like we are all supposed to agree that someone who calls themselves a philosopher, has published, (not in philosophy journals afaik) on the subject, has reliable sources naming Leary as a philosopher, has lectured as one...BUT, not being accepted-or united-with peers of Philosophy who are members of professional groups, contributing to the field.....2601:80:4003:7416:344F:5128:5864:74A9 (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Posted to Talk Page- Talk:Timothy Leary#Bringing it over here. Philosopher? 2601:80:4003:7416:5430:24E8:873B:31D9 (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'd like to ask the editors who have commented here to keep an eye on developments at Talk:Timothy Leary. There unfortunately seems to be some sympathy there for labeling Leary a philosopher, and that's regrettable, because it is the kind of thing that potentially damages Wikipedia's reputation. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Reliable sources describe him as a philospher. Thats the extent of it. Sources are not required to be neutral. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, we do have to consider the nature of a source if it is biased (not neutral), sensationalist, or the like to maintain a neutral tone in WP's voice. And given that there is some contention on "Leary is a philosopher", a careful analysis of the quality of the sources is required to determine if this is something we can say as a fact, or otherwise have to report as a claim per WP:YESPOV. --MASEM (t) 15:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
John Dye article
The final section header in the biographical entry for actor John Dye#After Life contains 11 inline cites, but those are not about the actor, but about the Supreme Court case regarding Obamacare. Because of such overabundance of irrelevant cites, the deletion of this controversial, as well as misplaced, section should have some form of consensus/support/agreement. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Upon closer examination, this matter is revealed to be not a legitimate POV issue, but a continuing revert and reinsertion of the same inapplicable text. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 04:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Roman Spinner In the history it does seem like an edit war is happening over this content about a court case. Since there is not much discussion about this on the article's talk page, I think it would be best to continue discussion there. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Discrimination lawsuit
In the article about University of Tartu one user is trying to force in a section that in its form is damaging to the university and what is based on alleged accusations. Could someone please help with this? Situation itself is hardly of anything important and case itself unproven. User in question has started revert war. See talkpage for more info. Ivo (talk) 11:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Dear Ivo, is not alleged accusations, the case is in court and in ongoing litigation. Once the court case ends and in case the University is found of non-wrongdoing then the entry can be edited as desired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExpatEstonia (talk • contribs) 19:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Considering on entity guilty before it even has a chance to defend itself is by default wrong. Ivo (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- The section as it currently stands appears to be neutrally worded, stating that there is an ongoing suit, that the plaintiff has alleged one thing, and the accused has denied it. As long as Wikipedia doesn't make judgements on the case's merits, or predictions on the outcome, and the content is reliably sourced, there's no issue of bias. Ibadibam (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Considering on entity guilty before it even has a chance to defend itself is by default wrong. Ivo (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Dear Ivo, is not alleged accusations, the case is in court and in ongoing litigation. Once the court case ends and in case the University is found of non-wrongdoing then the entry can be edited as desired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExpatEstonia (talk • contribs) 19:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
SodaStream
I've posted the following in the Village Pump, and was made aware that perhaps this should be here too
The article on SodaStream keeps pressing that they employ 500 Palestinians, and they mention more than once how the company had to let go of them because they had to move the factory from Ma'ale Adumim in the West Bank after boycotts.
The whole tone of the article is biased, it quotes the people, and states the facts that help its case in regards to the Palestinian land situation & the controversy that surrounded it and led to the move in the end.
I find it biased to keep mentioning that they employed 500 Palestinians (and not mentioning other employees, which include Jewish Israelis, and Palestinian-Israelis) without mentioning what the same process might have done to other workers. They also mention that they are expected to employ Bedouins (who are in fact Israeli citizens) in an upcoming plant.
I'm requesting a neutral-party reading of the article. And I need more details on this particular situation (reporting only the facts that give a good image, but not all the facts or the ones related to it), vis-a-vis Wikipedia's editing policy (WP:SOAP, WP:NPV). I'm also asking if the way it's written warrants a {{advert}}, or if it reads like it was written by a PR firm to present a better public image as means of damage control after the controversies and boycotts. ¬Hexafluoride (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Can relevant legal opinions from major legal experts be removed as WP:FRINGE ?
This is regarding the article for the Iran nuclear agreement (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) (link to prior discussion). It has been claimed that legal expert commentary arguing that the Iran nuclear deal violates international law—by failing to prohibit Iran's genocidal threats against Israel—reflects a fringe view and cannot appear at all in the article.
The "major legal experts" in question are extremely renowned Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz (extended bio here), extremely renowned constitutional lawyer David B. Rivkin (extended bio here), former U.S. Justice Department lawyer Lee A. Casey, and Louis René Beres (extended bio here), an international law professor who has written numerous books on nuclear policy as well as hundreds of scholarly and opinion articles in publications like The Harvard National Security Journal (Harvard Law School), the International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, and the Journal of the U.S Army War College, as well as all the top newspapers in the U.S. (NYT, WaPo, WSJ, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, etc.) The disputed views by these highly notable figures appeared in independent reliable sources such as The Wall Street Journal (example) and The Hill (example).
Material reflecting these views has been repeatedly removed because, according to the roughly 2 or 3 members of a supposed consensus against inclusion, the views are "random fringe", "pathetically tenuous", "simply ridiculous", and "tenuous leaps of judgment strung together, not a serious legal claim", and that they "completely lack[] credibility" and "cannot be taken seriously". No pretense is made that these are anything other than the completely uninformed, non-expert opinions of the WP editors themselves. (Separate query: do these really sound like straightforward, unemotional analyses by neutral and detached editors?)
To my mind, the FRINGE policy is quite clear: it deals with pseudoscience, preposterous theories such as Moon landing conspiracy theories, allegations that Paul McCartney has really been dead since 1966, etc.
Major expert commentary with which a Wikipedia editor might disagree is simply not included. This remains true even if the commentary amounts to criticism, and even if the object of the criticism is a diplomatic effort led by a popular U.S. President. I do not think there is any way the above figures and their commentary can be put within one earth orbit of WP:FRINGE, nor does WP:WEIGHT demand that these views be given a minimal presentation.
On a related note, it was even argued that because two of these authors were already cited on a separate point elsewhere in the article, it would somehow be "undue" to cite them again for some other point—a claim that I don't think has any basis anywhere in WP policy. They're major legal experts, and that is why RS's are soliciting and publishing their opinions in the first place. If RS's publish their significant expert opinions on two different issues, there is absolutely nothing wrong with including the published views on both issues, especially in an article that is already complex and deals with a vast array of conflicting viewpoints.
Proposed text is below.
Proposed text 1: In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, attorneys David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey wrote that while the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide imposed an "obligation on all convention parties to prevent genocide and threats of genocide," Iran remained publicly committed to Israel's elimination.[1]
Proposed text 2: In September 2015, emeritus professor of international law Louis René Beres argued that Obama's refusal to demand Iran abandon its genocidal incitement and threats, before being permitted to nuclearize under the deal, constituted a serious violation of U.S. treaty obligations under the 1948 Genocide Convention, and, thereby, also of U.S. law due to the priority given to international treaties under the Supremacy Clause and related case law. Beres also argued that the deal might encourage Iran to quit the Non-Proliferation Treaty entirely, relying on the new deal as permission to nuclearize while abandoning all commitments under the NPT.[2]
Proposed text 3: Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz said in an interview that the convention against genocide prohibits aiding genocide, and that by giving money to Iran under the deal, the U.S. was "aiding genocide. We're accessories to terrorism."[3]
Thanks in advance for feedback on the policy ramifications of these figures and commentary. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 16:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I am just watching this page due to a previous dispute. But I would say the answer is "yes", at least potentially. Credentials don't imply that everything one says should be taken seriously, especially when the statements appear in a blog, a Murdoch paper and rightwing non-RS called newsmax. If a few professors had similarly accused the US of "violating" the genocide convention by threatening (very credibly) Iran with destruction, their opinions would be taken down in a split second as FRINGE. And what's good for the goose is good for the gander. That's the key thing here. Also,seems like these sources trivializing the concept of genocide and using it as a prop for their politicking. We've seen many examples of this recently (comparing Obama to Hitler, PPACA to the Gulag etc.) I don't think we want to play politics with genocide here on Wikipedia. Guccisamsclub (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Er, The Wall Street Journal is quite firmly a reliable source and The Hill is routinely cited—could you rephrase your position based on the actual WP policy instead of citing your own biases and personal dislike of the publisher? Also let's not dwell on hypothetical scenarios about whether a false claim of genocidal threats would be fringe, and instead focus on the actual genocidal threats that were the subject of this commentary. Finally, no offense, but I don't think most people consulting a noticeboard are looking for policy analysis by a user who is new to Wikipedia. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well your account is much younger than mine, although your familiarity with wiki-politics suggests otherwise. The relevant policies here are WP:RS and WP:VERIFIABILITY. According to the former, exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. The claims you're pushing is are clearly strong ones, and the sources that you're using are not sufficient due to bias, polemical tone and lack of peer-review. When you allege a breach of the UN genocide convention, references to at least a few neutral or academic sources are not too much to ask. A million things can and have been labelled "genocidal", but there IS a difference between "genocide" and genocide. That out of this myriad of "genocide" allegations you pick this one, while dismissing the rest as "false" and fringe, is simply indicative of your own politics, and thus completely irrelevant. One could dig up hundreds of similar allegations from biased yet "reliable" sources, and plaster them all over wikipedia. WP:VERIFIABILITY does not guarantee inclusion.Guccisamsclub (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- What are you even saying? There isn't any other genocide threat to discuss in connection with the Iran nuclear deal, thus I haven't ignored one. The hypothetical genocide accusation by Iran against the U.S. that you mention was hypothetical, i.e. completely fake and made-up, and thus it was also unsourced. If you tried to add something like that, of course it would be fringe, and there's nothing politically biased about pointing that out to you. You're suggesting I'm somehow biased for not focusing on other genocide allegations that either don't exist, or have nothing to do with the article in question? That is downright absurd. Look, I didn't ask for people to post nonsense speculation about my motives. If you don't have any actual policy expertise to contribute—and it's pretty clear you don't—please don't clutter this thread with silly insults. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 23:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- I am saying that strong or potentially inflammatory claims require stronger sources than those that you've provided. Interesting that you take that as an insult, but than again - not so much. I'd recommend focusing on controlling your temper - not honing your wiki-lawyering skills. Look, your account is only a few months old, but your posts suggest a long and tumultuous history on this site. If you're a previously banned user, at least have the courtesy to tone it down a notch. Guccisamsclub (talk) 01:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- "That out of this myriad of "genocide" allegations you pick this one, while dismissing the rest as "false" and fringe, is simply indicative of your own politics, and thus completely irrelevant." This was an insult and a personal attack and it was idiotic. I'm also giving your policy interpretations all the attention they deserve. All the best. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 13:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- I am saying that strong or potentially inflammatory claims require stronger sources than those that you've provided. Interesting that you take that as an insult, but than again - not so much. I'd recommend focusing on controlling your temper - not honing your wiki-lawyering skills. Look, your account is only a few months old, but your posts suggest a long and tumultuous history on this site. If you're a previously banned user, at least have the courtesy to tone it down a notch. Guccisamsclub (talk) 01:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- What are you even saying? There isn't any other genocide threat to discuss in connection with the Iran nuclear deal, thus I haven't ignored one. The hypothetical genocide accusation by Iran against the U.S. that you mention was hypothetical, i.e. completely fake and made-up, and thus it was also unsourced. If you tried to add something like that, of course it would be fringe, and there's nothing politically biased about pointing that out to you. You're suggesting I'm somehow biased for not focusing on other genocide allegations that either don't exist, or have nothing to do with the article in question? That is downright absurd. Look, I didn't ask for people to post nonsense speculation about my motives. If you don't have any actual policy expertise to contribute—and it's pretty clear you don't—please don't clutter this thread with silly insults. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 23:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well your account is much younger than mine, although your familiarity with wiki-politics suggests otherwise. The relevant policies here are WP:RS and WP:VERIFIABILITY. According to the former, exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. The claims you're pushing is are clearly strong ones, and the sources that you're using are not sufficient due to bias, polemical tone and lack of peer-review. When you allege a breach of the UN genocide convention, references to at least a few neutral or academic sources are not too much to ask. A million things can and have been labelled "genocidal", but there IS a difference between "genocide" and genocide. That out of this myriad of "genocide" allegations you pick this one, while dismissing the rest as "false" and fringe, is simply indicative of your own politics, and thus completely irrelevant. One could dig up hundreds of similar allegations from biased yet "reliable" sources, and plaster them all over wikipedia. WP:VERIFIABILITY does not guarantee inclusion.Guccisamsclub (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Er, The Wall Street Journal is quite firmly a reliable source and The Hill is routinely cited—could you rephrase your position based on the actual WP policy instead of citing your own biases and personal dislike of the publisher? Also let's not dwell on hypothetical scenarios about whether a false claim of genocidal threats would be fringe, and instead focus on the actual genocidal threats that were the subject of this commentary. Finally, no offense, but I don't think most people consulting a noticeboard are looking for policy analysis by a user who is new to Wikipedia. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that in discussing criticism of an international treaty/deal such as this, removing the legal opinion of recognized experts under FRINGE is stretching what FRINGE is to apply to. Whether the Iran deal was legal/beneficial or not is not yet a well-established fact or widely-held opinion, and remains controversial in the news. As such, presenting what recognized legal experts say are legal issues with the deal seems completely appropriate to include. It would be different if we were pulling from a claimed legal expert with no recognition in the field, but that would be more UNDUE/WEIGHT rather than a FRINGE aspect. And while their statements that there might legal issues with an international deal can be considered an "exceptional claim", their expertise and the sources reporting them are well above the bar for "exceptional sources" to support that claim. Mind you, what they have stated, that there are legal issues with the deal, should still be treated as a claim attributed to these experts; the only way that claim will ever be verified or disproven is in a court of law. --MASEM (t) 15:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Emotional points of view of some Wikipedians can't overbalance legal opinion of recognized experts. And we are not discussing "million things" labelled genocidal, but the incitement to genocide that was well-grounded on evidence and analyzed by professor Irwin Cotler in the book published by Springer Science. I agree that the proposed legal issues are "completely appropriate to include".
- Waiting until the "claim will ever be verified or disproven is in a court of law" may be too late for those who want to prevent genocides before they occur. A bill that is supposed to prevent and punish incitement to genocide is debated recently in Parliament of Canada. Is the Parliament dealing with a fringe theory? Yagasi (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment Yes I think it is fringe, though interesting fringe. I do not think it belongs in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action article and to have it there as well as giving a fringe opinion unwarranted attention it violates undue weight guidance. However what is fringe in one article can be notable in another - maybe a mention of it should be made on another article. It is taking a legal precept, the obligation to prevent genocide, and extrapolating it out into fields beyond that intended under that original legal precept. I do find the concept behind it to be important, but in this case it is just playing rather distasteful politics games at the expense of an important legal concept. However, personally I am encouraged to see it has been used, even if used wrongly and insincerely. I have in the past suggested that Armenia use this concept to demand international recognition of Nagorno Karabakh because Azerbaijan has, without doubt, a genocidal intent against Armenia and its actions if it were to ever regain NK would constitute genocide. From this, under the obligation to prevent Genocide, to support Azerbaijan's territorial position is to advocate genocide. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
References
- ^ Rivkin, David B.; Casey, Lee A. (July 26, 2015). "The Lawless Underpinnings of the Iran Nuclear Deal". The Wall Street Journal (A13).
- ^ Rene Beres, Louis (September 3, 2015). "Looking beyond strategy at the still-hidden legal flaws in Iran deal". www.thehill.com. Retrieved March 13, 2015.
- ^ Greg Richter (11 August 2015). "Dershowitz: 'We're Accessories to Terrorism' if Sanctions Dropped". Newsmax.com. Retrieved 20 September 2015.
PokerStars
This article is squatted on by someone who prevents any attempt to remove non-neutral language, and who may be associated in some way with the subject of the article. The article should obviously start by saying neutrally and verifiably what PokerStars is - an online poker web site. However, the user concerned disruptively replaces this with a non-neutral and uncited claim that it is "the largest online poker cardroom in the world". Over the last two years, they have reverted attempts to change this without ever seriously attempting to justify this in an edit summary. See [6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11]. Further biased edits by this user include [12], [13]. 217.144.146.41 (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
RfC update: Ford Pinto section lede of the Fuel system fires, recalls, and litigation section
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Ford_Pinto#RfC:_section_lede_of_Safety_section. RfC update: To date, this request for comment has brought one (1) new editorial voice to the discussion. The discussion involves issues of due weight and neutrality of point of view in a section lede. Respectfully request editors with experience in issues of neutrality please join the discussion at Talk:Ford_Pinto#RfC: section lede of Safety section. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
DYK: fact or advertisement
Evening Standard, a free newspaper, wrote of a restaurant, mentioning that "according to chef Fergus Henderson, drinking a Black Velvet at Sweetings "puts you in the mood for romance"". There is a debate here whether this sentence can be used as a humorous hook for a DYK or it should rather be regarded as advertisement. Thank you for your comments. Borsoka (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Careful: this is borderline canvassing, because you're recruiting to the discussion in a way that reflects your views on the discussion. Ibadibam (talk) 03:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia Android app is not neutral on New York Democratic Primary, 2016
The Wikipedia Android app. shows candidate preference.
When viewing the "New York Democratic primary, 2016" page using the small screen of and Android device, you only see the picture of Hillary Clinton. The same does not occur from a PC browser where both Clinton and Sanders appear.
I believe this is due to the faulty display of the InfoBox Candidate. It only shows candidate1 which happens to be Clinton.
I find this bug disturbing at best. It should be fixed immediately. Alternately the infobox for candiates should be disabled. Believe it or not, this kind of structural prejudice influences voter choices thus subsequent elections. TimSpangler —Preceding undated comment added 12:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Is it even possible to alter what the android app displays without affecting the normal web-browser version? And is it specific to the App, or does the same thing happen to anyone using the mobile view? Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Granted that it is a potential problem, I can't reproduce it either via mobile view via desktop or on via my own mobile device - both candidate photos are shown. It might be a browser-specific issue, which should be fixed but addressed at WP:VPT or the like. --MASEM (t) 14:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- I dont see it in mobile view on either my android phone or tablet (however they have pretty big screens). If it is a display issue with one of the specific wikipedia Apps released by the WMF, I dont think there is an article-level change that will affect it - short of disabling/removing infobox's completely. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Actually there should hypothetically be CSS code based on the device type that could be added to either the template for the infobox or the images, but again, without being able to reproduce it, its impossible to know what to fix. Hence it's more a VPT issue than a NPOV one. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- I dont see it in mobile view on either my android phone or tablet (however they have pretty big screens). If it is a display issue with one of the specific wikipedia Apps released by the WMF, I dont think there is an article-level change that will affect it - short of disabling/removing infobox's completely. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Violation of WP:NPOVTITLE?
This looks like forumshopping; there's already an RfC going on. Also, Niteshift36 is a pretty seasoned and uninvolved editor whose advice is worth something. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Links to discussion: [14], [15], [16] and [17]
Article: Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War
Perceived problem: The title of this section (as of 21:28 April 8) is "Reports of war crimes and attacks on civilians". The heading looks POV and needs to be-written. Several editors are removing any and all attempts to rephrase the section title — diff, diff, diff.
Proposed changes: Reports of war crimes, Human rights concerns, Allegations of war crimes[18], Civilian casualties and criticism[19], Allegations, accusations and reports of war crimes[20], Alleged violations of international humanitarian law[21].
- WP:TITLE – Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words; for example, allegation implies wrongdoing, and so should be avoided in a descriptive title. (Exception: articles where the topic is an actual accusation of illegality under law, discussed as such by reliable sources even if not yet proven in a court of law. These are accurately described as "allegations".).
- WP:MOS — A title should be a recognizable name or description of the topic that is natural, sufficiently precise, concise, and consistent with the titles of related articles. – The provisions in § Article titles (above) generally apply to section headings as well.
Related Articles:
- Sri Lankan Civil War#Alleged war crimes
- Yemeni Civil War (2015–present)#War crime accusations
- 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict#Alleged violations by Israel
- 2006 Lebanon War#Allegations, accusations and reports of war crimes
- Gaza War (2008–09)#Controversies regarding tactics
- 2016 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes#Alleged atrocities
- Northern Mali conflict#Human rights concerns
Thanks for the help. -- Tobby72 (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I'd suggest Allegations of war crimes as the surest way. Dorpater (talk) 21:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Oh please. This is doubly ridiculous. First, it's ridiculous because the argument is that WP:TITLE prevents a section title from actually describing what the section is about. Which is of course nonsense. Second, it's ridiculous because, after getting completely worn out, frustrated and at the end of my patience with Tobby72's edit warring (which he does across multiple articles, against numerous editors - but always very carefully not to break 3RR or 1RR in this case) I actually started an RfC here. Even though it was really Tobby72's responsibility to start one since he's the one who wanted to make the change. Well, guess what? Unsurprisingly the RfC is not going according to Tobby72's wishes. Probably because it's absurd to insist that a section title cannot describe the contents of the section. So this is just WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Which is bad faithed and disruptive.
(and no, the sources don't say "allegations of", that's a Wikipedia invention, an attempt to POV and WP:WEASEL what sources say).Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Consensus was against you. – User:EtienneDolet: diff, User:Axxxion: diff, User:Macaque123: diff, User:Dorpater: diff, User:Hammer5000: diff. -- Tobby72 (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Nonsense. One user above was a fly-by-night account and two of them weren't even reverting me or disagreeing (for example Axxxion's edit OR Hammer5000's comment on talk (not a revert)). You are just diff-padding - adding irrelevant diffs to make it seem like something is true when it isn't. There's an RfC. If you really think "consensus was against you" then RfC will decide that. You are perfectly aware that's how it works. So why come here and engage in WP:FORUMSHOPPING? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- There is an RfC about this already. Why post it here? My very best wishes (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- I agree that the title is not POV. The reports themselves are much more cautious when blaming Russia or Syria for the civilian deaths.
- WP:TITLE clearly states:
- Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words; for example, allegation implies wrongdoing, and so should be avoided in a descriptive title. (Exception: articles where the topic is an actual accusation of illegality under law, discussed as such by reliable sources even if not yet proven in a court of law. These are accurately described as "allegations".)
- The language in these reports are much lighter than what the section title portrays it to be (i.e. "suspected Russian air strikes", "attack appeared to have been carried out", "evidence suggesting"). Either that, or they are making claims that they themselves admit are hardly verifiable or not of their own independent observation (i.e. "it has not been able to verify whether it was pro-government Syrian forces or Russian forces", "either Syrian regime or Russian warplanes", or "Opposition activists and local witnesses have reported" and etc.). Therefore, I don't see why the title of that particular section should present these allegations as fact. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- There is an RfC. You already commented there (and were corrected). This is just WP:FORUMSHOPPING.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- "Corrected"...not even close. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- There is an RfC. You already commented there. This is WP:FORUMSHOPPING.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree. There's concerning POV issues with the section title. I'd assume this is the proper board for that. A RfC isn't designed and dedicated to assess POV as thoroughly as this board does. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- So why'd you comment there, instead of saying making that very argument? You were fine with the RfC until it started going "the wrong way". Then Tobby72 and you ran over here and started this. There is an RfC. This is WP:FORUMSHOPPING.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't file the NPOV report. But now that Tobby made a pretty reasonable request here, I don't think it was a bad idea. Tchuss! Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- It's not a reasonable request, it's WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Quote:
- " Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators, or any of these repetitively, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus. It does not help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want. " Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- This request is strictly about whether or not the title you suggest is in violation of NPOV. It is done at an appropriate noticeboard: the WP:NPOVN. The RfC is simply about whether "attacks of civilians" should be included in the section title or not. Concerns of POV sprung up there. So in order to determine whether that claim is NPOV or not, we need a proper forum to help us out with that. Hence why we are here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- No, this request is about the same damn thing that the RfC is about. That's why it's WP:FORUMSHOPPING. See also WP:WIKILAWYER.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- This request is strictly about whether or not the title you suggest is in violation of NPOV. It is done at an appropriate noticeboard: the WP:NPOVN. The RfC is simply about whether "attacks of civilians" should be included in the section title or not. Concerns of POV sprung up there. So in order to determine whether that claim is NPOV or not, we need a proper forum to help us out with that. Hence why we are here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't file the NPOV report. But now that Tobby made a pretty reasonable request here, I don't think it was a bad idea. Tchuss! Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- So why'd you comment there, instead of saying making that very argument? You were fine with the RfC until it started going "the wrong way". Then Tobby72 and you ran over here and started this. There is an RfC. This is WP:FORUMSHOPPING.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree. There's concerning POV issues with the section title. I'd assume this is the proper board for that. A RfC isn't designed and dedicated to assess POV as thoroughly as this board does. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- There is an RfC. You already commented there. This is WP:FORUMSHOPPING.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- "Corrected"...not even close. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- There is an RfC. You already commented there (and were corrected). This is just WP:FORUMSHOPPING.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- WP:SEEKHELP – If your dispute is related to the application of a specific policy or guideline, you may wish to post in one of these noticeboards (below) to get input from uninvolved editors familiar with that topic. -- Tobby72 (talk) 10:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- There already is an RfC on the topic. This is forum shopping.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- WP:SEEKHELP – If your dispute is related to the application of a specific policy or guideline, you may wish to post in one of these noticeboards (below) to get input from uninvolved editors familiar with that topic. -- Tobby72 (talk) 10:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(unindent) There is nothing wrong with pursuing more than one form of dispute resolution and trying to get opinions from other users. One Rfc and one noticeboard post are hardly "forum shopping". You keep repeating it and repeating and repeating it, as if that would somehow make it true. It doesn't. Nor is this the first time you "accuse" others of pursuing dispute resolution. You have been warned and blocked recently for making bad faith accusations. Stop. Athenean (talk) 10:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Quote: "Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators, or any of these repetitively, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus. It does not help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want. ". Yes, it's forum shopping. And you really need to quit it with the threats and attempts at intimidation (not to mention false accusations) as you have been in fact warned about that yourself. Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Thank you for the quote, but posting on a single noticeboard, is not "raising the same issue on multiple noticeboards". If you are so certain this is forum shopping you should report this on ANI, or even better, AE. Otherwise, please heed your own advice and quit trying to hijack this thread with irrelevancies. Athenean (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Bringing up an issue here which is already subject of an ongoing RfC, because the RfC might not give you the answer you want, is pretty much a textbook example of forum shopping. That is not an "irrelevancy" nor is this a hijacking. Quite simply, this discussion should be ended, hatted and archived and the RfC should be allowed to run its course. (and as much as I appreciate your advice, please keep it to yourself in the future) Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
ISIL using human shields
Possible violation of WP:NPOVTITLE is just one part of the problem. Could somebody please have a look at above mentioned article? This article, which has obvious POV issues, has been guarded to preserve its current content. Attempts to include contrary well-sourced information have been reverted (for example, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and Jaysh al-Islam militants were accused of using civilians and prisoners as human shields – this information has been repeatedly removed see diff, diff, diff) – link to discussion: [22]. I think this is violation of WP:BALANCE and WP:DUE. -- Tobby72 (talk) 10:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- No, what was removed your WP:SYNTH which tried to combine two completely different stories to suggest that the civilians which were attacked by Russian airstrikes were the ones who were being used as human shield. In fact, one set of sources talks about civilians being used as human shields against *American* air strikes, and a completely different set of sources talks about Russian airstrikes against hospitals. Your combining these two suggest they are related is classic POV and WP:SYNTH. *That* is the problem here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- I see no real issue with "Reports of war crimes and attacks on civilians". Niteshift36 (talk) 00:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.