Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context!

Before posting here, consult the neutral point of view policy page and the FAQ explainer. Also, make sure to discuss the disagreement at the article's talk page. Fringe theories often involve questions about neutral point of view. These should be discussed at the dedicated noticeboard. You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so. Additional notes: Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments, not on vote count or sheer size of argument. Consensus in previous discussions does not make policy, but you can generally rely on it. The list of articles where users flagged a point-of-view concern is here. This page is not a forum for discussions unrelated to the neutral point of view. We have a separate noticeboard for concerns about original research (material made up by a Wikipedia editor), and another dedicated noticeboard for questions about contextual reliability of a source. Start a new discussion

FoxNews - lead barely mentions controversy

I believe that the current lead at Fox News Channel inadequately summarizes notable controversies and criticisms. From the second paragraph:

Many observers have asserted that both Fox's news reporting and its political commentary promote conservative political positions. ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}   Fox News Channel denies any bias in its news reporting and maintains that its political commentary and news reporting operate independently of each other. ^{[5] [6] [7]}

My take on that: one sentence merely uses the term 'conservative' then the next counters alleged bias, even though the first sentence barely suggests bias. The following appears to be past consensus at the talkpage FAQ:

• per WP:Lead - Appropriate to overview the controversies / allegations of bias.
• in re "Many observers" - Critics are sufficiently numerous that elevating a single critic or source gives it undue weight and is in compliance with the accepted exceptions to WP:WEASEL.
• The lead should only briefly summarize the notable controversies. See the FAQ for more info, in particular on alleged bias.

Previous discussions: See archives 21, 19, 18, 17, 16 (Includes RfC) and 15. -also 23 & 25

I opened a discussion about this at Talk:FNC-Intro.. butsome others there disagree, apparently ignoring past consensus. One says the lead is the result of past compromise, even though it does not reflect the FAQ points.
Based on text that was already in the Criticism and controversies section, I made the following change [8]:

Many observers have asserted that both Fox's news reporting and its political commentary promote conservative political positions at the expense of neutrality.

but it was quickly reverted by 2 editors [9] [10] (the first revert was a failed attempt, using a different edit). PrBeacon (talk) 05:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It's clear from the body of the article that there have been a lot of voices saying that this news channel represents a conservative viewpoint. The current administration of the USA, no less. The lead para does not have to go into any detail on it and does not need to be referenced because the main body text should be fully referenced. For the lead, I would say that something like "many commentators have said that the station represents a conservative viewpoint". It should probably come higher up before some of the other detail. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I've done a lot of leads, and they should be thorough as well as interesting. There's room to add at least one detail to back up the vague comment about accusations of conservative bias. Leadwind (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

And what would you add? How are you going to pick between the many things that people on the left have a problem with? Are you suggesting leaving the existing phrase and adding a "for example" or "such as" type wording? Because such an approach will result in examples in the lead that provide the FNC point of view that they are balanced resulting in a bloated POV description. Furthermore, you do realize that this will, by extension, open up CNN, MSNBC, and so forth for the same kind of pov of view introduction. FNC does not exist in a vacumn, and to treat FNC differently than the others, regardless of WP:OTHERCRAP will result in a battleground. Arzel (talk) 03:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

". . . as exemplified in its promotion of the Tea Party movement and its subsequent coverage of it"? Tom Reedy (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

That is not a strictly conservative movement, it is more of a libertarian movement (ie small government). And is really more of a reflection of the left's hatred of the Tea Party Movement. What diferentiates this from the left's belief that FNC supported the Iraq War? Or the left's belief that FNC supported Bush 43, or the many other things for which the left dislikes FNC.....To which the corresponding response from FNC would be that other news media portrayed the Tea Party (or whatever) with a strong bias against and that FNC is the only station to provide coverage to the other side. Regardless of what you choose, you will have issues of recentism. Certainly the left is currently up in arms about the Tea Party or perhaps about perception of the treatment of Obama (compared to perception of fawning by the rest). But during the Bush years the left was absolutely enraged by the perception that FNC was promoting the war in Iraq. All of that aside, if you include specific issues, then you will have to clarify just who was critical. Arzel (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not the place to proselytize, and using such charged language does you no service on a POV noticeboard. What is undeniable is that the Tea Party began and was promoted on the Fox news channel. Any article about a contemporary television network will have problems with recentism. You might want to check around for neutral sources such as factcheck.org/ or pewresearch.org/Tom Reedy (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The Tea Party began on Fox News? Really? Now who is proselytizing? As for your second point. Articles are to be written from a historical context, not what is currently driving partisan conjecture. Arzel (talk) 00:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks that way to me, but I'm no authority. I was merely suggesting an example. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem with this article is that it overly relies on questionable sources for allegations of bias by Fox, notably from its competitors, rather than using high quality reliable sources, such as articles in peer-reviewed journals about the media. The first sentence for example is sourced to a movie review of Outfoxed, a news story about the OJ Simpson book, a broken link to Politico, and an article in Slate. It is wrong to back up a claim that "Many observers have asserted...." by providing many sources. You need a source that says "many observers" and even then must be cautious per WP:Weasel. TFD (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Critics don't have to be neutral to be reliable, but I agree that the lead could be better sourced. There is more criticism at the FNC controversies article which might be satisfactory: Report on American Journalism and conservative Jonah Goldberg writing for the LA times, to name just two. -PrBeacon (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Once again Arzel uses the faulty tactic of putting words into others' mouths then arguing against those words. The lead can be improved with further detail about FNC's bias without using specific examples. PrBeacon (talk) 01:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you ever considered that they just report the news? They are normal people, not pompous, bloated liberals who think that everyone's too stupid to make their own decisions. The reason that it seems to have some kind of bias against left wing politics is because (and this is FACT) whenever these ideals are picked apart for details and facts, there are no valid points. Left-wing politics appeals to emotion, not logic. They use every dirty trick in the book to discredit anyone who opposes them, and will use any kind of activism to get what they want. Feminism, the majority of environmentalism,"Change",and even the minority rights movements today, I'm sorry to say this, but the left DOES NOT CARE about any of these movements, they USE these movements to force people to agree with them, or be called a racist or hatemonger. Hyblackeagle22 (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hyblackeagle22, I can sympathise with your opinions, but to be frank: Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs that you see are being perpetrated, despite the fact that others may appear to be doing so. Please calm down and address issues within the frame of Wikipedia policy (they do make the rules here after all), and try to be sure that things stay as neutral as we can make them. Good luck and happy editing! Rapier (talk) 18:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Second that. --Ludwigs2 18:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, forgot that wiki isn't a political debate forum.:P Hyblackeagle22 (talk) 13:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

East Africa

There is currently a disagreement on neutrality that is hindering improvement to the East Africa page. It centres around whether or not to mention an unrecognised state within the outline of this geographic region's composition.

The bulleted part (see top) of this outline is based on the United Nations geoscheme for Africa, which is a geographical grouping of countries for statistical purposes. Because the UN does not recognise the existence of Somaliland as a separate state of its own, its name will not be mentioned in this source. No editor is proposing tampering with this definition, which is strictly a reflection of the source. The second part of the outline (see directly underneath) defines the region in a purely geographic sense, and uses multiple sources. Inclusion of the red text is disputed on the grounds that it doesn't belong on a list of countries:

East Africa is often used to specifically refer to the area now comprising the countries of Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda, and (in a wider sense) also Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia (including the breakaway republic of Somaliland), Djibouti, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Sudan. [citations omitted]

Inclusion was proposed initially because neutral policy would normally dictate that all sides to a dispute be represented. Sovereignty over Somaliland is a prominent dispute in current affairs. It is listed in the List of states with limited recognition and List of sovereign states.

Sources used will also need to be checked for neutrality.

No discussion has taken place on the talk page because an identical (and rather lengthy) argument surrounding the inclusion of the same name on a template took place here and concluded here, and involved the same editors. Night w (talk) 05:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The point of the sentence is to let readers know the area that is commonly defined as East Africa. It does its job whether Somaliland is mentioned or not. NPOV is met with the disputed clause either in or out. It isn't worth warring about. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Would you say the same for any of the other names in the list? How is NPOV met if one state is exluded? Somaliland is quite obviously part of East Africa, many don't consider it to be part of Somalia–which is the de facto situation regardless of opinion–, and many others do... So what would be the best way to present both of those views? Analogous situations would be the article on the Caucasus: Abkhazia, South Ossetia and the NKR are listed in parentheses; and the Balkans: Kosovo is listed separately with a qualifying attachment on its international status. Night w (talk) 13:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, when referring to actual countries (as is done in the East Africa article), the term East Africa is rarely if ever understood to include the Somaliland region of Somalia since Somaliland is, of course, not recognized by anyone as a country of its own. It is internationally recognized as a part of Somalia (albeit, one that's trying to secede). This includes the United Nations, whose geoscheme serves as the basis for this and all of the other Wikipedia geographical articles on the various regions in Africa (North Africa, West Africa, Central Africa, Southern Africa, East Africa), as indicated in the article's introduction. Contrary to what has been indicated above, there is also no dispute whatsoever about Somaliland's status as a part of Somalia -- the international community as a whole (every country & international organization, including the UN, the African Union, the European Union, and the Arab League) recognizes it and has only ever recognized it as a part of Somalia. As Tony Blair himself explains it:

"The Government does not recognize Somaliland as an independent state, neither does the rest of the international community. The UK has signed up to a common EU position and to many UN Security Council Presidential Statements, which refer to the territorial integrity and unity of Somalia."

The reason why Somaliland is even featured on those Wikipedia articles linked to above is because it was specifically added to them by Wikipedia users, including some involved this very edit conflict on the East Africa article -- not because Somaliland enjoys any recognition at all as a country of its own. The fact remains that the real dispute is over whether Somaliland ought to be recognized as a country of its own, not over whether it already is a country of its own. Regarding the latter, there is, again, no dispute to speak of; regarding the former, Wikipedia is no place for exploring such decidedly POV political questions (that is, not without breaching WP:NOTADVOCATE). Middayexpress (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The above by Midday clears up any confusion as to what the definition of East Africa is in mainstream literature, several wikipedia lists or templates where the inclusion of Somaliland is systematically pushed from a biased perspective through sheer weight of numbers(which is wrongfully portrayed as being 'concensus') does not equal 'a new mainstream definition' that is used by 'neutral sources' --Scoobycentric (talk) 14:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Outback the koala

I agree with everything stated above by Night w regarding the circumstances in this case. I would direct commenting editors to the List of states with limited recognition page for some background in this area of International Politics and very strongly encourage a reading of the prev. discussion here and here as noted above also. The treatment of disputes from an objective perceptive is key for any encyclopedia. I strongly believe we should not take sides in international disputes. Treating states with limited recognition as equal to one another is therefore very important. Those who take sides in these conflicts should really try to check their POV at the door when they come to improve the project; in this case, that has not happened. Wikipedians are people, and people can be very nationalistic sometimes leading them to become very combative in their editing. Taking sides in international disputes on wikipedia is rarely productive.

In regards to pages that have to do with this state I have had been told/called so many things and quoted so many WP policies guidelines (though often incorrectly). Some times I am spreading propaganda, sometimes I am the 'separatists' themselves, sometimes I am soap-boxing, sometimes when I use sources provided by others arguing - those sources are no longer valid, sometimes I am an advocate, and on and on. I really want this issue settled, because there are many pages across the project that need to be rendered neutral. Hopefully in this discussion, excessively long repetitive comments will not rule the day. I do not want to find consensus on a subject, only to move on to another page and have the same edits challenged by the same few editors.

Be wary, this discussion is NOT about Somaliland's international status. No one disputes the fact that no state recognizes it currently. No one disputes the fact that no international organization recognizes it currently. Somaliland exists as a de facto state only, and is defined as such by outside observers. The best article on the subject that I have found is here: http://yalejournal.org/article/de-facto-statehood-strange-case-somaliland[11]

As far as edits of mine above are concerned as quoted by Midday; the first is me adding a redirect on the list of sovereign states page. I do not understand how that is relevant. The second confirms only that I am involved with this dispute. I did not add Somaliland to Wikipedia, it was on those lists long before I came along. Please do not break up my comment. To all editors here, feel free to talk to me on my talk page. Thanks. Outback the koala (talk) 02:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Other comments

To Middayexpress:

• As was stated in my nomination above, the UN geoscheme serves as the basis for the political definition in the introduction, which is not being disputed here. The geoscheme does not dictate the remainder of the article (rightly so, as it is not a neutral source), nor does it serve as the basis for the geographic definition, which also includes Sudan and Egypt (as are listed). Please familiarise yourself with the article.
• There quite obviously is a dispute about Somaliland's status (attempting to ignore it solves nothing), and you've just provided two references verifying the prominence of the dispute in international politics and media. Diplomatic recognition isn't being disputed here; the political opinions of governments and organisations—which don't have an impact on the reality of the situation—are represented by the name being displayed in parentheses, with the qualifying word "including". Please familiarise yourself with WP:ASSERT.
• Somaliland was added, along with other unrecognised states, to the List of sovereign states in this revision from 2004, not by Outback.

I sympathise with Outback's frustration over this. I always try to assume good faith when disagreeing with editors, but on rare occasions you come across certain users who will persist again and again, no matter how many instances occur in which they're forced to concede to policy and consensus. In this case, there are editors involved who are incredibly knowledgable on the subject, and have the potential to make great improvements to the site, but their ability to make unbiased, encyclopædic edits is thwarted by a conflict of interest with their subject. Night w (talk) 06:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

To Outbackkoala

• There is not a single neutral source that you can find that includes Somaliland as a seperate distinct country part of East Africa, the only sources you have provided are heavily biased articles supporting/promoting Somaliland's bid for recognition. This in itself does not constitute evidence that Somaliland is included under the geographic term; East Africa or that we at wikipedia have to change the mainstream definition for a fringe one. On the other hand there is not a single pro-Somali government source or Unionist literature being used in the article to highlight the fact that 'Somalia is one of the countries falling under the geographic term East Africa', no the article was build on mainstream neutral sources, hence why from a encylopediac persepective neither me or Middayexpress are taking a side in any dispute, because we are simply upholding wikipedia's rules of accuracy.

To Nightw

• I think it's prudent that i highlight to the board your disingenuous behaviour on the East Africa article when you added multiple times inaccurate sources that under no circumstance can interpreted as supporting an inclusion of Somaliland under the geographic term; East Africa. Instead you have used these non-applicable sources as a casus belli to revert me. The most prominent ones being ofcourse the 19th century sources by Richard Francis Burton and E. Arnold, which are actually - if you have read the literature - referring to what is currently known as Greater Somalia = Somaliland, as that is what the country of the Somali people was known as in the 19th century. I fail to see how using these two particular sources lends weight to your argument that the self-declared entity and international recognised region of Somalia known as Somaliland is included under the geographic term East Africa? While you rightfully say that it's good practice to show good faith to another wikipedian, the next examples of sources you added rendered any such good faith towards you on my part moot, and your credibility questioned. You used two articles entitled 14 Italians move on British Somaliland and WWII 50 years on, neither of which referred to the current unrecognised entity but were discussing abolished historic states, therefore you were blatantly synthesizing a new definition of East Africa with sources that are neither discussing nor supporting your POV. --Scoobycentric (talk) 14:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• Regarding Outback's (the other editor involved in this dispute) rather absurd assertion above that he is somehow "neutral" in this affair, I think it is important for readers to realize that he openly admits on his own user page on a template he himself added that "this user recognizes the independence of Somaliland". That's hardly "neutral". This political position also puts him directly at odds with the Somali government, the UN, the African Union, the Arab League, the European Union, and every single country in the world i.e. the entire international community. Although he perhaps may not have added Somaliland to that particular article above -- which, by the way, doesn't negate the fact that the only reason why Somaliland is even featured on those Wikipedia articles listed above is because it was specifically added to them by Wikipedia users, not because the region enjoys any recognition at all as a country of its own -- Outback does, in fact, regularly add Somaliland to all sorts of pages listing actual countries (e.g. 1). The East Africa page is just the latest in a larger pattern.
• Regarding Night's equally preposterous contention that the U.N. geoscheme is somehow "not neutral", please contrast that with Scoobycentric's comments above on just what exactly is the former's idea of "proper" sourcing. Also note that, contrary to what has been noted above, the U.N. geoscheme does indeed serve as the basis for every single geographical Wikipedia article on the various regions in Africa; this includes the East Africa article in question (see the intros to the North Africa, West Africa, Central Africa, Southern Africa and East Africa pages). The U.N. geoscheme is not merely there to serve as the basis for the "political" definition of East Africa; as clearly indicated on the geoscheme's own page, it identifies the "Geographical region and composition of each region". This is why Egypt & Sudan are even included in the East Africa article in the first place i.e. because, while they are indeed usually classified as a part of North Africa, there are certain mainstream geographical definitions of the East Africa region which include them. That and the fact that Egypt and Sudan are still cited by the U.N. geoscheme as actual countries in Africa, unlike the Somaliland region of Somalia. Lastly, there is no dispute at all that Somaliland is a part of Somalia -- the international community as a whole only recognizes it as such (see my quote & links above). The only people that don't with any kind of political clout are the secessionists themselves, and that a "dispute" does not make (nor, incidentally, does linking to random editable Wikipedia articles). Middayexpress (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I know you all are busy arguing points irrelevant to this notice board, but would someone care to explain how the sentence, "East Africa is often used to specifically refer to the area now comprising the countries of Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda, and (in a wider sense) also Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia (including the breakaway republic of Somaliland), Djibouti, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Sudan" violates WP:NPOV. I don't see where that is a declaration of diplomatic recognition, which is what you seem to be arguing here. I'm probably wrong, but I thought the question concerned the boundaries of a geographic area. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure. That statement violates WP:NPOV because, as Scoobycentric has pointed out, 1) The Somaliland region is not recognized as a "republic" or "country" of its own by the international community; it is only recognized as a part of Somalia (see my quote & links above); 2) the countries that constitute the East Africa region are based on the official definition of the region supplied by the U.N. geoscheme, which likewise does not recognize any entity called Somaliland -- it only acknowledges Somalia; and 3) the "sources" presented to support the position in that statement above do not at all indicate that the term East Africa is often used to refer to a whole slew of countries including Somaliland. The latter is, of course, original research, and is therefore by definition not NPOV but quite clearly POV. Middayexpress (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

1) The part of the article the sentence occupies is not the UN list, but the secondary definition: "East Africa is often used to specifically refer to the area now comprising the countries of . . ."

2) The second ref given states "Somaliland located in the north part of Somalia in East Africa is a small country . . ."

3) I am constantly amazed at Wikipedeans failure to find and use up-to-date sources. A simple search on Amazon and using the "Search inside this book" feature turned up Understanding Somalia and Somaliland: Culture, History and Society (2008), which refers to Somaliland as a republic while discussing its lack of diplomatic recognition, and even uses the term "breakaway republic" on p. 121.

3) This article concerns a geographical designation, not a political demarcation. In geography, the term "country" is used to designate a geographical region. The geographical region in question is generally designated by the name "Somaliland," whether it is or isn't an independent nation.

4) The sentence doesn't say Somaliland is a sovereign nation, so any objections based on that reason do not apply. In fact, it states that Somaliland is part of Somolia with the status of a "breakaway republic", which appears to be a correct description. Somaliland appears to engage in informal diplomatic activities; it has been autonomous since 1991 with no effort on the part of Somalia to force it back into the state of Somalia that I have been able to discover; it has its own army; and the people don't pay taxes to Somalia. But it's not recognised by other countries, so its status is a kind of twilight zone of sovereignty. It's not a matter of urgency to other countries because it is small and poor.

5) The purpose of Wikipedia is to convey information to as many people as possible. Some of those people, obviously, consider Somaliland to be an independent, sovereign nation. Others don't, so it is a matter of dispute. Most people don't care and haven't thought about it. The purpose of the sentence is to convey what geographical regions are included in the term "East Africa." Those who consider Somaliland an independent nation would wonder why it wasn't on the list if it were left off; those who don't consider it an independent nation would note that it is designated as part of Somalia.

The sentence as quoted would satisfy everyone except those who are active partisans on either side. Wikipedia is not written to settle scores, succor either side in a dispute, or declare which side is correct; Wikipedia is written to convey correct information to the largest number of people. By doing so in no way does it portray a slanted point of view by using the language in the sentence, in my opinion.

To recap, the sentence does not state Somaliland is an independent nation; Somaliland is the term used to describe the geographical area in question as evidenced by the ref in 2) above, and the article is about the definition of a geographical area. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

That pretty much sums up the situation. Everything has been said, and I'm not getting into yet another repetitive argument over this same subject. Just to make sure this is clear: the second definition in the article (i.e. that which is different to the U.N. definition, and also includes Egypt and Sudan) is what is being discussed here. Once again, nobody is arguing about the lack of political recognition; it does not make a difference when looking at the situation from a purely objective perspective (one of the cornerstones of (neutral editing). Night w (talk) 05:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The part of the article the sentence occupies is not the UN list, but the secondary definition: "East Africa is often used to specifically refer to the area now comprising the countries of . . ."

The entire article is based on the U.N. geoscheme, not just the intro. This is why every single Wikipedia geographical page on every single region in Africa (that is, North Africa, Southern Africa, West Africa and East Africa) lists only countries that are actually recognized as such by the UN. The latter of course doesn't include any entity called "Somaliland" -- the only territory on any of those geographical articles that isn't recognized as a nation of its own. Middayexpress (talk) 05:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Fine. In that case, to be consistent, why not delete this sentence: "East Africa is often used to specifically refer to the area now comprising the countries of Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda, and (in a wider sense) also Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Sudan." Tom Reedy (talk) 08:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Because, as explained several times before, all of those are alternate groupings of countries that comprise East Africa based on mainstream definitions. The one constant & common factor is that these countries and every other country listed in every single Wikipedia geographical page on all regions in Africa are all recognized as such by the U.N. geoscheme on which all of those articles are primarily based (btw, what's with the bold text?). Middayexpress (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The United Nations is a political forum of governments. It is not an impartial organisation absent of any agenda. If it were the case that the African region articles are exclusively based around the UN definitions, that would be a major cause for concern for neutrality.

1. We never restrict a subject that is so open to interpretation to a single source.
2. The UN, as an inherently opinionated source, will not be regarded as a reliable source for plain geographical information. This is not an article on the UN subregion (which, might I add, is a grouping of states for statistical purposes). This is an article on (quote) "the easterly region of the African continent, variably defined by geography or geopolitics".

Do not persist in insisting that the entire article is restricted to one definition, as that clearly is not the case. Night w (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Like it or not, every single Wikipedia geographical page on every single region in Africa is indeed based on the U.N. geoscheme. They state as much in their intros; even the maps on the articles are based on the U.N. subregions. You argue that "we never restrict a subject that is so open to interpretation to a single source". The problem with this is that the articles are not exclusively based on the U.N. geoscheme and never have been. They are primarily based on the U.N. geoscheme since the latter is a reliable source that outlines all of the continent's regions and their constituent nations. This is why other mainstream, non-fringe definitions of just what countries typically constitute the East Africa region are indeed also included. You now argue (but have not proven) that the U.N. is an "inherently opinionated source" and that its geoscheme is used "for statistical purposes", thus making it unreliable "for plain geographical information". First of all, WP:RS does not insist that all sources be completely devoid of opinions. This, of course, is unrealistic since everyone has an opinion ("we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves"). All WP:RS insists is that "articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" -- no mention of geographical data that may or may not be destined for statistical use not being allowed. Unless you are now arguing that the U.N. does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, you have no cause for complaint here either. Middayexpress (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, primarily based?? Then why do you keep bringing that into this debate; as we've been stating, that definition is not being discussed here. This is about (repeating) "the second definition in the article". Is that clear to you now? Can we cease talking about the United Nations? Night w (talk) 05:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Simmer down; no need to have an aneurysm. Yes, the East Africa article is primarily based on the U.N. geoscheme. This should have been obvious from the article's introduction and the other mainstream definitions and the map that are already in place there. I keep bringing it up simply to highlight the fact that the Somaliland region of Somalia is not included on any mainstream definitions of just what countries constitute East Africa -- it isn't even recognized as a country to begin with. Middayexpress (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The second ref given states "Somaliland located in the north part of Somalia in East Africa is a small country . . ."

Exactly. That source states that Somalia is in East Africa and that Somaliland is located in the northern part of it. Nowhere does it state that "East Africa is often used to specifically refer to the area now comprising the countries of..." including Somaliland. That, again, is original research. Middayexpress (talk) 05:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The sense is better expressed with commas or parentheses: "Somaliland (located in the north part of Somalia in East Africa) is a small country . . ." Tom Reedy (talk) 08:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Parentheses maintain that Somaliland is included in the definition via Somalia, and the source provided could not be more reflective of that. Night w (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The source doesn't use parentheses for that passage, nor would there presence have changed the fact that it clearly indicates that Somaliland is located in northern Somalia, and that it is Somalia that is, in turn, situated in East Africa. It is original research to then conclude that "Somaliland is included in the definition via Somalia". Middayexpress (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Not when we're leaving it open to opinion. I wasn't referring to the source when I talked about parentheses, I was talking about the inclusion of Somaliland within parentheses in this article: Somalia (including the breakaway republic of Somaliland). Night w (talk) 05:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

That makes no difference since that passage still refers to Somaliland as being located in northern Somalia, and Somalia in turn as being located in East Africa. Middayexpress (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I am constantly amazed at Wikipedeans failure to find and use up-to-date sources. A simple search on Amazon and using the "Search inside this book" feature turned up Understanding Somalia and Somaliland: Culture, History and Society (2008), which refers to Somaliland as a republic while discussing its lack of diplomatic recognition, and even uses the term "breakaway republic" on p. 121.

Yes, there are indeed some "sources" that refer to Somaliland as a "breakaway republic". However, these are all invariably from people with no political authority to speak of. In many cases, though not always, these authors are also closely affiliated with the secessionist movement itself (such as Matt Bryden, Iqbal Jhazbhay, etc.). The latter unfortunately includes the author of that book you quote from above, the otherwise venerable I.M. Lewis. Its assertions are, therefore, hardly neutral. The fact remains that whether or not a territory actually constitutes a country of its own is not determined by individual authors, but by actual law. If it were, every random mention on every random article of the term "country" or "nation" or some variation thereof in reference to any micronation or secessionist region would be enough to automatically qualify said micronation or secessionist region then and there as a "country" or "nation" of its own. This is, of course, preposterous. Furthermore, for Somaliland to constitute a country of its own, it first needs to break free of the ties that legally bind it to the rest of Somalia in the first place. I am of course referring to the Act of Union which united the former colonial territories of Italian Somaliland and British Somaliland in the 1960's to form the Somali Republic. The secessionists argue that there were, in fact, two Acts of Union and that the government of the former Trust Territory in southern Somalia signed neither, thus rendering the Union null and void. The problem with this argument is that just a few short years after Somalia gained its independence and the former colonial territories unified, an Italian legal expert by the name of Paulo Contini (who served as United Nation’s legal adviser to Somalia at the time) wrote an entire book painstakingly documenting the process. And Contini makes it clear therein that both of these early Acts of Union were repealed shortly afterwards, and a new Act of Union applicable to the whole of the Somali territory was drawn up & applied retroactively:

"Thus when the union was formed, its precise legal effects had not been laid down in any instrument having binding force in both parts of the State. As explained below, the matter was clarified seven months later by the adoption of a new Act of Union with retroactive effect from July 1, 1960 for the whole territory of the Republic ...To dispel any uncertainties, it was thought desirable, as a first step, to enact a law applicable to the whole territory of the Republic, defining the legal effects of the union with as much precision as possible. This was done on January 31, 1961, six months after unification, when the National Assembly adopted by acclamation a new Act of Union, which repealed the Union of Somaliland and Somalia Law, and which was made retroactive as from July 1, 1960."

This final Act of Union was never repealed and, in fact, cannot be without the approval of a four-fifths majority of all Somali voters, something which the separatists obviously have not obtained or even sought to obtain ([12]):

"One component of the structural defects of this vigorous campaign for "Somaliland" administration within the geographical confines of Hargeisa and its vicinities is the infringement of the Act of Union, a fundamental error emanating from an arbitrary means of dissolving the union of Somalia."

Middayexpress (talk) 05:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Didn't read much of that. It's just more irrelevant jibberish. It doesn't make a difference whether the secession was legal or not— nobody here is arguing that. All that matters is that it has seceded—legally or no. And since some consider it a separate state, and Wikipedia policy is to write from an objective perspective, it must be included in the list for reasons that have already been mentioned. The legal perspective is represented by its being displayed on a level that is unequal to the remainder: Burundi, Somalia (including the breakaway republic of Somaliland), Djibouti... Night w (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

That's ok since that comment wasn't addressed to you to begin with. Unfortunately, it is also impossible to dismiss the Act of Union which unites the former colonial territories of Italian Somaliland and British Somaliland as mere "irrelevant jibberish" since secession itself is "the act of withdrawing from an organization, union, or especially a political entity." One can't very well withdraw from a union one is legally bound to. Also, to state that some consider Somaliland a separate state is a gross understatement since the world at large does not recognize Somaliland's independence. The view that Somaliland is a country of its own is thus one held by a tiny minority. And per WP:UNDUE (a sub-policy of WP:NPOV), tiny minority views need not be included at all ("Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. 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"). WP:ASSERT is also a sub-policy of WP:NPOV, and it likewise only applies to mainstream views and views held by significant minorities, not to tiny-minority views. Further, WP:ASSERT is clear that one must quantify the extent of support for an existing view; it is not enough to just claim a significant minority believe it:

"It is not sufficient to discuss an opinion as fact merely by stating "some people believe...", a practice referred to as "mass attribution". A reliable source supporting a statement that a group holds an opinion must accurately describe how large this group is."

Middayexpress (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

An objective observation is not an "opinion". Quoting from the same piece:

An observation (objective) expresses a fact. An interpretation (subjective) expresses an opinion. A fact can be asserted without simon-says inline-text phrasing. An opinion must be attributed to so-and-so said.

Because this fact may be disputed in legal contexts, it is being displayed in a way that equally represents both sides of the dispute. Regardless of the legality or opinions of outsiders, it remains a fact that Somaliland constitutes an separate political entity. A simple analogy: If a man steals a car, regardless of the opinion that he mightn't legally possess this car, it doesn't change the fact that he now possesses a car. Another: if a military junta takes over a state via a coup, regardless of the opinion that they don't legally run the country, it doesn't change the fact that they now run the country. Night w (talk) 05:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

No, the fact that Somaliland's self-declared independence (as opposed to autonomy) is completely unrecognized the world over is not at all disputed (1): "...if an extradition treaty exists with Ethiopia, which like the rest of the world does not recognize Somaliland's independence and therefore cannot enter into any treaty with it." The onus is now on you to prove via actual quotes from reliable sources (not idle talk) that the above is not, in fact, the case, and that the view that Somaliland actually represents a country of its own is not one held by a tiny minority (i.e. the secessionists themselves, their associates & a few sympathizers). Middayexpress (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This article concerns a geographical designation, not a political demarcation. In geography, the term "country" is used to designate a geographical region. The geographical region in question is generally designated by the name "Somaliland," whether it is or isn't an independent nation.

Yes, the article concerns geography. This is why it and every other Wikipedia geographical article on the various regions in Africa is based on the U.N. geoscheme, which, per the latter's own words, identifies the "Geographical region and composition of each region". The part of the article where Somaliland was inserted pertains to actual countries in Africa (it goes "East Africa is often used to specifically refer to the area now comprising the countries of..."), which Somaliland, as a part of the already extant country of Somalia, doesn't fit into either. Middayexpress (talk) 05:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

If that is so, then it becomes even more mysterious why this sentence is included: "East Africa is often used to specifically refer to the area now comprising the countries of Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda, and (in a wider sense) also Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Sudan." My subjective impression is that you move the goalposts at your convenience. When it is inconvenient to talk about sovereignty, switch the topic to geography; when it is inconvenient to talk about geography, switch the topic to sovereignty.Tom Reedy (talk) 08:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The article as a whole has always been about the geographical region of East Africa. It's when the unrecognized entity in northern Somalia called "Somaliland" was introduced into the article that things got complicated since every actual country that was already listed on the page is already recognized as such. The world does not recognize Somaliland's indepedence (re-read my quote below from yesterday for an explicit statement of this), nevermind its place amongst the territories commonly defined as East Africa. This is when the sovereignty issue first necessarily reared its head. Middayexpress (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The sentence doesn't say Somaliland is a sovereign nation, so any objections based on that reason do not apply. In fact, it states that Somaliland is part of Somolia with the status of a "breakaway republic", which appears to be a correct description. Somaliland appears to engage in informal diplomatic activities; it has been autonomous since 1991 with no effort on the part of Somalia to force it back into the state of Somalia that I have been able to discover; it has its own army; and the people don't pay taxes to Somalia. But it's not recognised by other countries, so its status is a kind of twilight zone of sovereignty. It's not a matter of urgency to other countries because it is small and poor.

The sentence may not state that Somaliland is a sovereign nation, but it certainly does imply that it is. This is because it states that Somaliland is a "breakaway republic" (republics are most often sovereign countries), and lists the region right alongside Somalia to boot. Also, do not confuse autonomy with statehood. Merely behaving like a state or state-like alone is not enough to make a territory an actual country. The autonomous Puntland region of Somalia likewise has its own Ministry of Planning and International Relations, as well as its own Ministry of Health, Education, etc.. It also has its own army and flag, no different than the Somaliland region. Like Somaliland, its residents don't pay taxes to the federal government of Somalia, but to the Puntland administration.

The sentence specifically states that Somaliland is included with Somalia (". . . Somalia (including the breakaway republic of Somaliland). . . ). It is passing strange how it can imply sovereignty as it is written. Tom Reedy (talk) 08:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Not quite since the passage still clearly describes Somaliland as a "breakaway republic". What exactly did this alleged "republic" "break away" from if not the country of Somalia? Middayexpress (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Puntland has not seceded from Somalia, and its leaders have made repeated statements formalising that fact. There is no dispute to the contrary; therefore, the view does not need to be represented. As for your statement on taxes: not that it's relevant, but I'd really like to see a document stating the last time a resident of Hargeisa payed taxes to the government of Somalia. Ha! Are you kidding me? Night w (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You are correct in noting that Puntland's leaders have repeatedly asserted that they would never attempt secession from Somalia (nor have I suggested anything to the contrary, actually). Puntland was brought up because Tom was under the impression that because Somaliland maintains some informal diplomatic activities, has its own army, and its residents don't pay taxes to the federal government, that it automatically qualifies as a country of its own -- things which the autonomous Puntland region also has. What you are incorrect on, however, is the notion that Somaliland has already seceded from Somalia. It hasn't. It only declared independence (unlike Puntland) -- a declaration which still remains unrecognized the world over -- and operates autonomously (like Puntland). To secede, Somaliland first needs to invalidate the Act of Union that legally binds it to the rest of Somalia, something which has yet to happen. Middayexpress (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

So no reference for that tax collection? Night w (talk) 05:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It was already provided yesterday. The "State" referred to on Puntland's Ministry of Finance webpage is the Puntland State of Somalia (the region's official name): "To give you a more clear Picture, as to the role of the Ministry it is worth mentioning that 85% of the State Revenue is gotten from this Ministry through the customs and Inland Taxations." Middayexpress (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Similarly, Somaliland's "relations" with foreign governments are no different to those of Puntland. Somaliland government officials are regarded and dealt with as regional representatives by actual federal governments such as the U.S. government:

"While the United States does not recognize Somaliland as an independent state, we continue regularly to engage with Somaliland as a regional administration and to support programs that encourage democratization and economic development in the Somaliland region. We have consistently voted for United Nations Security Council resolutions reaffirming respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity, political independence, and unity of Somalia.

This applies to the Somaliland region's president as well:

"The Somaliland president, Dahir Rayale Kahin, is regarded more as a governor by other nations, even though he considers himself to be as much a president as, say, Thabo Mbeki of South Africa, Mwai Kibaki of Kenya or Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria, three prominent presidents on this continent."

The passports the Somaliland government prints are likewise unrecognized:

"The Somaliland passport — which bears the region's logo and looks as official as any other nation's — is not recognized by any country in the world, although the neighboring countries of Ethiopia and Djibouti do allow people to travel with it while still not officially recognizing Somaliland as a country."

The fact is, the Somaliland region has no diplomatic recognition at all. Actually, Somaliland doesn't even have any de facto recognition as a country of its own:

"Independence does not rely solely on whether it is deserved, but on the existing realpolitik. Sadly for Somaliland, they fall between the cracks in international law and cannot win the argument for de jure recognition while Somalia remains without a viable government, so they must instead push for de facto recognition – which no one is willing to offer."

There has been no effort on the part of the Somali government to force Somaliland back into Somalia because it never had to: the international community as a whole (every single country & international organization) recognizes and has only ever recognized it as a part of Somalia. The international community also does not refuse to recognize Somaliland merely because the region is, as you say, "small and poor", but out of respect for the territorial integrity of Somalia (c.f. 1). The Somali constitution likewise recognizes Djibouti as bordering Somalia to the northwest, not Somaliland. Middayexpress (talk) 05:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You are correct in all that you say about the lack of sovereignty of Somaliland (except for your last reason about "respect for the territorial integrity of Somalia"; Robert W. Maggi, the U.S. Department of State’s coordinator for counterpiracy, said Somalia has no government, "It is an ungoverned space."), and all this would be great if sovereignty were the subject here, but my main point is that the sovereignty or lack of it is not the question in the informal secondary definition of East Africa that makes it clear the country is part of Somalia. (And even Lloyd Pierson of the U.S./African Development Foundation calls it a country.) Tom Reedy (talk) 08:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I am correct in everything I've said, including my assertion that the international community as a whole refuses to recognize Somaliland out of respect for the territorial integrity of Somalia. This includes the United States (yes, Lloyd Pierson's offhand remark does not represent the official U.S. position on the Somaliland issue; he also, incidentally, refers to Puntland as a country); kindly refer again to that quote above from Ambassador John Yates, the Secretary of State's special envoy for Somalia for the lowdown. Robert W. Maggi also does not state that Somalia has no government. In fact, he mentions its federal government (the Transitional Federal Government (TFG)) by name in that same paragraph you partly quote from above. Its the lack of governmental involvement in fighting piracy & the TFG's general ineptitude that he expresses frustration over (the TFG itself is, by the way, backed by the U.S.). The sovereignty point is addressed in my lastest comment above. Middayexpress (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia is to convey information to as many people as possible. Some of those people, obviously, consider Somaliland to be an independent, sovereign nation. Others don't, so it is a matter of dispute. Most people don't care and haven't thought about it. The purpose of the sentence is to convey what geographical regions are included in the term "East Africa." Those who consider Somaliland an independent nation would wonder why it wasn't on the list if it were left off; those who don't consider it an independent nation would note that it is designated as part of Somalia.

The sentence as quoted would satisfy everyone except those who are active partisans on either side. Wikipedia is not written to settle scores, succor either side in a dispute, or declare which side is correct; Wikipedia is written to convey correct information to the largest number of people. By doing so in no way does it portray a slanted point of view by using the language in the sentence, in my opinion.

It makes no difference what those who consider Somaliland an independent nation want. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to cater to special interests, but to reflect reality using reliable sources. And reality is that Somaliland is and has always only been recognized as a part of Somalia by the world at large -- there is no dispute at all on this (see the New York Times article titled The Signs Say Somaliland, but the World Says Somalia):

"...if an extradition treaty exists with Ethiopia, which like the rest of the world does not recognize Somaliland's independence and therefore cannot enter into any treaty with it." -- Human Rights Watch, July 2009

The alternative view that Somaliland is actually a country of its own is a tiny-minority view held by the secessionists themselves, their associates, and a few sympathizers here and there. And per WP:VER, tiny-minority views need not be included. Middayexpress (talk) 05:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

If you believe that including the parenthetical information to a secondary geographical definition is "catering to special interests" or an expression of "a tiny-minority view held by secessionists themselves," then fine, keep edit-warring. I merely offered my opinion and my reasons for it. But my opinion is that a person who continually uses such language as "there is no dispute at all on this" and "this is, of course, preposterous," while disparaging every source that doesn't agree with his definition as "hardly neutral" while engaging in a protracted edit war, had better hunker down for a long, contentious battle about what is essentially an extremely minor point that doesn't contradict anything you've said. Lots of luck with that. Tom Reedy (talk) 08:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I did not state that "including the parenthetical information to a secondary geographical definition is "catering to special interests" or an expression of "a tiny-minority view held by secessionists themselves"". That, with all due respect, is a strawman. I stated that the view that "Somaliland is actually a country of its own is a tiny-minority view held by the secessionists themselves, their associates, and a few sympathizers here and there". And I proved it too by producing a quote indicating that the world at large does not recognize Somaliland's independence. Ergo, indentifying Somaliland as anything other than a part of Somalia is catering to that tiny minority. The onus is therefore on the other users to prove that the view that Somaliland is already a country of its own is not a tiny minority view i.e. that a significant part of the world does, in fact, recognize Somaliland's independence. This is, of course, easier said than done. Middayexpress (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, please don't leave! I've already been through this multiple times; after a while he just repeats himself over and over and then quotes the New York Times article. It lasts for pages and pages, I don't have the energy to continue by myself. Is there any way to invite a greater number of outside editors to casually review what's been said here, and offer an opinion? Thankyou for lending your time in any case. Night w (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

If you find me repeating myself, that could be because I am answering your own oft-repeated claims. Middayexpress (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

If this is important to you, I suggest you diligently follow the procedure for dispute resolution and don't skip any steps. Document the diffs and attempts at resolving the dispute and take it to WP:RFC/USER, if need be. Above all, don't expect instant resolution. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm still with it also, so do not fret Night w.! Sorry I've been busy with work and my few edits have been maintenance. I would like to echo Night w. and applaud him at the same time, that this argument only goes in circles and it really needs to stop. I would prefer that we avoid any type of topic ban, which might result from an RfC user, as Midday's non-politically based contributions are incredibly helpful to the project. From the above discussion I can see most of Midday arguments have been refuted, yet he continues. A topic ban may have to be an option. We must move ahead to the next stage in dispute resolution, either way. Outback the koala (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Refuted? You sure about that? lol Middayexpress (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I seriously doubt a topic ban proposal would be called for in such a trivial case, nor would I think it would be successful. All the energy that has gone into this could have been used to build another pyramid. Such is Wikipedia. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You may find it trivial because we may have cited only this specific page, however there have been many other pages that are effected. Perhaps this was not made clear. It has been a long running battle to have this state included on even some very obscure pages. Any mention of Somaliland brings Midday in to paste his long walls of text. Or even edits summaries that simply dispute Somaliland's status. It may seem small to you, but to me and others it impedes our ability to improve the encyclopedia (that template talk is a prime example). Outback the koala (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep personally attacking me, Outback, as you have done in the past. You only do yourself a disservice and again prove that you are completely unable to support your position without resorting to petty ad hominem & distortions. Doing so also won't in the least bit get me to stop objecting to and exposing POV whenever and wherever I see it, including your own. Middayexpress (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The agruments you make are all refuted above. Outback the koala (talk) 19:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Only in your wildest dreams, pal. And certainly not by you. ;-) Middayexpress (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

How about we stopped focusing on Middayexpress as a person and started processing the information he has posted here, instead of trying to bully him into pariah status? It's laughable that we have individuals attacking Middayexpress for being elaborate and posting verifiable information, when they themselves were the ones who were blatantly using wrong sources on the East Africa article in question to support their edits, even in this very discussion a very lengthy case for Somaliland was made through multiple points and sources proven to be directly/in-directly connected to the seccessionist cause, and used to nicely synthesize a sentence that is never proclaimed in the original sources, when these points were addressed and refuted through the use of sources not connected to the Somali government, suddenly nobody wants to continue the discussion? Interesting. --Scoobycentric (talk) 00:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Why not post it at WP:NOR/N, then, if that is the root of the complaint? My opinion is restricted to whether it violated WP:NPOV, and it really puzzled me why anybody would think it did, because a reader would have had to think through several steps to arrive at that opinion, and any one of which could have gone the opposite direction just as logically and plausibly. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Everything that needs to has been said, Scooby. I'll not venture into another mindnumbing cycle of repetition like before. I'd prefer just to get a large number of outside users involved to go over the information (and the source used if you wish), and post their opinion. Perhaps just a general RfC will assist. Tom, am I able to invite RfC users to post their comments in this thread, or do we need to start a separate one? Night w (talk) 04:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I logged an RfC here. Scooby, if you still feel that there is a discrepancy between the statement and the source, I suggest you log a request for a review on WP:NOR/N. Thankyou. Night w (talk) 05:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Avoiding WP:RFC/USER, I've instead opened an informal mediation case, the thread of which is located here. It will most likely take a while for an administrator to accept. Night w (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Revisited after a break

I have seen no action on this important topic in awhile, it had even been archieved. Where do we go from here? Outback the koala (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I am finding this issue to be inaccessible because of too much information. Excuse me if this has already been proposed, but would it be possible to put information about the controversy into a separate article, then on the main East Africa page immediately after the list of countries have some kind of link to the controversy page? Wikipedia, I think, is not the place to actually resolve this issue in any way other than to avoid the issue by documenting what reliable sources on both sides say and giving links to both sides within the article. That should solve the NPOV problem. Is there also a WP:RS problem? If not, then what is the problem at this point?

I would like to frame this problem with a plan to collect reliable sources, agree on what they say, then to fix the NPOV issue by going to the East Africa page and posting links to articles supporting all sides. Is there any other way? If so, what are the other options? Blue Rasberry 17:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, if we include "Somaliland," wouldn't that mean mentioning all the areas with secessionist tendencies? Somaliland isn't the only one. We would end up with "Sudan (including the transitional Darfur and autonomous Southern Sudan regions), Ethiopia (including the Ogaden) (etc., etc.)" We could end up with an interminable description. I am not sure this helps or not, it's hard to tell given the length of the argument/discussion. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

True, Gyrofrog. I was looking to the List of states with limited recognition for countries to include and also the List of sovereign states. As far as a separate page could go for this, the issue is not page specific and spans a large number of article and this desparately needs qualifing. Outback the koala (talk) 03:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you give me an opinion, Outback? I am seeing two issues here. One is that it is not obvious what single dividing line to use to separate states which ought to be named in various lists of countries throughout Wikipedia from those states which ought not to be included; the other issue, which is relatively minor and prosaic, is that assuming some states without full international recognition should pass the dividing line by meeting inclusion criteria, how should the lists be demarcated to indicate a difference between controversial and non-controversial entries. To what extent do you feel that the problem is a lack of defined inclusion criteria, and would be solvable with this kind of definition? Is there another big point in this issue which needs to be addressed? Blue Rasberry 17:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe you have certainly summarized the core issue here which, for reiteration, is how to properly incorporate these partially recognized states into the various pages of the project. A proper definition of inclusion in this area would greatly improve the situation of list and geographic location pages for starters. My argument is one of neutrality; That wikipedia cannot decide what states are legitimate or not, and so we must take an objective point of view which is free from the arguments of those whom have stake in the conflicts that accompany these states. Indeed, the biggest push back that this issue always sees is from those editors who have already taken sides in the issue and seek to show that the state in question is not legitimate regardless of where that state is recognized by others states as being legitimate. This thereby impedes discussion on the issue altogether. While Palestine and Taiwan attract some of the worst of these POV-pushers, all pages related to these states additionally attract these individuals, including the one mentioned above. Solvable with a definition, or better yet a policy, would be the ability to show these editors the project's objective stance by pointing to this definition. Those of us involved in this long-running issue have seen far too many edit summaries of 'not a country' with that state's removal(head to the List of Sovereign States for examples). While on some pages consensus has formed around this issue, that consensus does not apply to other pages, and there is a need to re-seek consensus and go through the motions on every individual page effected, replaying the same arguments, often with the same editors who are more than happy to slow down the process, attempting to bring discussion to a standstill, thereby keeping the status quo on the page. I am glad action could be taken on this issue. Outback the koala (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

A straightforward guiding principle will be to mention Somaliland and other disputed areas when they are relevant. And not when they are not. The original question related to the definition of East Africa. East Africa is a top-level article that will be accessed by many general readers with little knowledge of the area. The definition of the area in the lead paragraph needs to fulfil its purpose, which is to let people know what is and what isn't usually included in the area. You don't even have to do that by a list of all the countries, you can do it by only mentioning the ones in the north, south and west that are on the boundaries. Which is why my original answer was: you could go either way, mention Somaliland or leave it out, it doesn't matter very much. I don't think it would be right to have a general rule. Somaliland is a notable topic that must be included somewhere in the encyclopedia, but it doesn't have to be mentioned at every point. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I would ask Itsmejudith if inclusion in lists of countries is relevant; I am not seeing a stand on that in the above statement.

Thanks for providing context and scope to the issue, Outback. With what precedent are you familiar? You mentioned Palestine and Taiwan. Palestine seems to have some inclusion on Middle East and Taiwan in East Asia, which I would take to be analogous to the East Africa article, which is the focus of the specific case of this problem. You said the arguments were the same; how sure are you of this?

I think my plan for resolution of this would be to summarize what has been said in the East Africa discussion and other analogous discussions into a set of options, determine how much work each option would take to implement and maintain, then discuss the options.

Could you list the options already proposed for resolving the East Africa list? Full inclusion as a country and complete exclusion are two options; what others have been proposed? Blue Rasberry 16:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith - To follow your logic; I think that Kenya is 'a notable topic that must be included somewhere in the encyclopedia, but it doesn't have to be mentioned at every point.' Therefore 'it doesn't matter very much'.

@Rasberry - I feel now you have missed the point of the issue being brought to the NPOV board for help. The specific page has become the focus again instead of the overall problem; we are getting 'tunnel-vision' on the East Africa list, but forgetting there are at least 150 pages that are effected by this(and then include lists by country i.e. GDP, pop, religions...). To answer your question usually three resolutions are proposed; full inclusion; no inclusion (both taken by hardliners) or lastly, a 'separate but equal approach', which is usually adopted, like in the case of Template:Africa topic, where you have a 'states' section and a separate 'States with limited recognition' section. Check that template's talk page archive for the long consensus discussion to achieve just that format(which was adopted by the other major contentent templates like Template:Europe topic and Template:Asia topic. Outback the koala (talk) 23:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Scope of this and solution proposals

I have been looking into this problem for a while, and it is my opinion that this is something that could be sorted fairly easily if the arguments were organized. User:Outback the koala above has just suggested that I review some talk pages to get some information which I requested. While I am glad this issue came to the NPOV discussion board, it is going to be hard to find a fair number of good reviewers until someone better organizes the arguments.

I just put the talks from the Africa topic template Archive, the current Africa topic template talk, and this NPOVN board posting in my word processing program. Single spaced and 12 point font, these 56,000 words made 83 pages for me. Outback, am I correct that this is what you are asking me to review? There is one medcab case here and another one here; they are very similar and do not currently reference each other, and I think there is also an RfC somewhere, and all that is in addition to the 56k words. It is my opinion that regardless of mediation case or discussion board, the route to resolution will involve condensing all of this into specific points.

I hope you find whatever kind of help you are looking for, but if I may make a suggestion, then please allow me. I think things would go a lot more smoothly and much more quickly if you listed the possible solutions, summarized the problems with each, and then presented that instead of long discussions. At the very least, describe your own solution and we can talk only about that. As a disinterested third party it would be wrong for me to sort out all this content and make your presentation for you, and considering the amount of content, this needs to be sorted and represented in some form that suggests a solution. At this time are you able to propose any solutions, or would you rather get input from editors other than me first? Blue Rasberry 20:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It's alot and you shouldn't have to read it - especially because its been re-hashed out above on the page(indeed, some comments appear to have been copy-and-pasted to here from there). I don't think this is going anywhere and I am losing interest in seeing the process through. I have a genuine interest in the subject and my contributions are heavily focused on this area because in rl it is my academic field of study. Truly this is a myriad of issues that overlap, but yet have deep consequences especially in the long run as well as the number of articles effected.

To lay out the extent of the partially/un recognised states issue, take these effected articles into account; All country list articles(exception to a select few); For the 10 states the are related, all of their subpages(i.e. economy of __, politics of __....); all geographic locations(towns, villages, mountains...)within these entities, do we indicate the de facto state or the claimant state not in control of the territory, regardless of what is being used now, the vast majority see long term anon edits related to this(I know Taiwan place names were hit hard by a sockpuppeteer changing everything to 'Chinese Taipei'), and other Conflict and war relates pages since most of the entities came into existence through armed conflict or are currently involved in one now. Even if I excluded geographic locations, I would still estimate page number to be in excess of 1000 - with geo locations more like 4-5 thousand(remember these are 10 fair sized countries we are talking about and every place in them, so my estimate is on the conservative side.)

It is rare to find a third party who trys to tackle this issue, so no, don't read through it all. I can for sure summarize for you. Shall I do so here, or on this new page thats discussed below? Outback the koala (talk) 07:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless there is a reason to do otherwise, let's take this to the medcab board.

I do not doubt the scope of this particular issue and I agree with your estimates on the number of pages potentially affected.

Do not get discouraged just yet. Mediation can cut out a lot of the irrelevant side information about this issue and help everyone define and focus on the problem. I do not feel that this problem will be intractable, so unless you are sure you want to drop out now, at least put something on the table to encourage other people to finish the talk in case you decide to drop out later. One system you could use would be the following:

1. State a solution
2. List benefits of the solution
3. List drawbacks of the solution
4. repeat to propose 2-3 solutions, including the default of doing nothing

I am sure the issue is more complicated than to be solved by doing just that, but even if you leave I would like to see this through a little further if someone can propose some ends to this. In all the writing which has already been done, the lack of summary has been a huge barrier to outside input, so if you create it now it may open doors for solution and help to exclude all discussion not related to solutions.

Thoughts? Blue Rasberry 21:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

I noticed that there is a standing request for informal mediation for this page, is this still desired/needed? If so, I would be willing to help out. Ronk01 (talk) 12:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I have opened the mediation casepage, and ask that all involved parties make a statement under the "discussion" header on the casepage so I can get an idea of the views people have here. Thank you. Ronk01 (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Would it be best to move this discussion over there? Create a new one? What now? Outback the koala (talk) 06:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

If there has to be more discussion, it would probably be best to do it here or on another talk board. If enough has been said, then it probably is time to try summarizing things for mediation so that people who have not followed the discussion can see the issues in a controlled forum. Blue Rasberry 21:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Northern Ireland in relation to Ireland as a whole

There is a current problem over articles to do with Northern Ireland, primarily the Northern Ireland county articles over whether or not they should include their relation to the rest of the islands counties when manual of styles used on other countries counties don't make reference to other entities.

Primarily this involves around a lengthy discussion on whether it should be mentioned in a Northern Ireland county lede that it is one of the "32 counties of Ireland". Of the six editors who have taken part it is split even down the middle. I have tried to be flexible but the inflexibility of others has meant i am now standing firmer than before and have rejected a newer proposal i put foward myself.

The issue is contentious as there aren't 32 counties in Ireland anymore, the Republic of Ireland has constituted 29 counties since 1994. The term is also conentious as it is primarily used by Irish nationalists and republican ideology in respects to Ireland, and even though 32 counties is used by the GAA, they are an organisation with strong links to Irish republicanism and so can't be seen as a neutral reference. One editor Laurel_Lodged said that removal of the term would be best due to its potential troublesome nature.

I keep getting quoted manual of styles used on other articles to circumvent suggestions that might detract from the sense of all-Ireland (such as including Northern Ireland in the Northern Ireland county navbox, and adding UK into the lede), whilst the same editors ignore manual of styles used on other articles to suit their own ends which is essentially Wikipedia:Gaming the system.

The England, Wales, and Scotland county articles don't show their relations to counties in the other parts of the UK, so why should Northern Ireland? The same issue affects the county maps used. I was told by a user (Superfopp) that i couldn't use a six-county map of Northern Ireland in a navbox as it'd make Northern Ireland "look like an island" despite other navboxes and infoboxes making use of "island" like country maps. And that he'd rather have no picture used at all as i don't agree that the all-Ireland one he used is needed. On infoboxes every county in the UK is shown in relation to their constituent country but Northern Ireland is shown in relation to an entire island and thus also a country it isn't politically a part of.

There was even a proposal put forward by one user that Counties of Northern Ireland should be merged with Counties of Ireland. This is another attempt to blur the border and deny Northern Ireland its right of distinction.

My pov swings one way on the debate and i others desire to maintain Northern Irelands distinction from the other political entities on the island, whilst the others prefer to keep Northern Ireland within an all-Ireland context - politically or not. At times some of us, me including how gotten hot-headed and irrational.

So essentially i want to ask for neutral point of views on whether Northern Ireland should have to show its relation to the rest of the island when other articles don't show their relation to other political entities - and whether Northern Ireland articles such as county articles can properly assert their political distinction from the rest of this island with ledes and maps that don't make reference to other countries or geographical regions which can be found out in the actual Northern Ireland article itself. If people want to see an all-Ireland view of Ireland they can go to the relevant articles. I believe using the manual-of-style used on other UK county articles would be the best way. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm a participant in that discussion also. This subject touches on a balance that needs to be struck generally on Northern Ireland-related articles, where two opposing POVs at play:

(a) that Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland form two distinct jurisdiction without relation to each other;

(b) that Ireland forms a context in which to see topics relating to Ireland as a whole.

There is an understandable concern that an article could attribute too great a weight to one point of view and not to the other and therefore breach NPOV.

With respect to this particular issues, the counties of Ireland are commonly seen in an all-Ireland context, with weak divisions between North and south. For example:

"The island of Ireland is divided into two major political units - Northern Ireland, which along with England, Scotland, and Wales forms the United Kingdom, and the Republic of Ireland. Of the 32 counties of Ireland, 26 are in the Republic. Of the four historic provinces, three and part of the fourth are in the Republic." Frommer's Ireland, 2006

"The term 'All-Irish' is in common use for many cultural, sports, and other purposes, and many events, competitions, and organizations are 'All-Irish', that is, they cover the entire area of the 32 traditional counties of the island and not just the Republic of Ireland." World and Its Peoples, 2010

"The twenty-six traditional counties of Eire and the six traditional counties of Northern Ireland are used as the standard Irish geographical designations." - Robert A. Faleer, Church Woodwork in the British Isles, 1100-1535, 2009

The counties are mainly used in postal addresses, geographical units and for cultural/sporting organisation. Most counties in the Republic of Ireland have maintained their role as the basis of local government. Some new "counties" created, beginning in the 19th century, but these are not counted among 'the counties of Ireland' as normally understood. For example, County Tipperary was sub-divided into two "counties" for the purposes of local government in 1898 (24 years before partition of the country) but is still described as one of the counties of Ireland. The counties in Northern Ireland do not form the basis of local government since 1973.

A number of ways have been proposed in which to emphasise that Northern Ireland is a distinct jurisdiction from the Republic of Ireland, including specifically that it is in the United Kingdom. My concern is that removing reference to the 32-county context fails NPOV by removing one POV simply to satisfy another. --RA (talk) 12:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the articles County Antrim and County Londonderry and I regard the maps in those diagrams as being fit for purpose. The county structure is now historic but for most of their history, the six counties in Northern Ireland were merely six out of thirty-two counties. It is only in recent times that the six counties have been separate from the other twenty-six. If a significant part of the article deals with events before 1922, then it is appropriate that the county be discussed in the context of all-Ireland; if the article deals soley with events post-1922, then it is appropriate that only the context of Northern Ireland be considered. The maps that I saw in the above articles clearly cover both scenarios. Martinvl (talk) 12:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The last of the 32 counties was created in 1606 under the Kingdom of Ireland, a unitary state. They persisted within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland from 1801 until they were subdivided, starting with the Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898 that created some new "county boroughs". They all deserve the same treatment on wikipedia being historic administrative areas on the island of Ireland.Red Hurley (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Concur with the above three posters. I sympathise with the concerns of editors whose political outlook would be NI unionist, and I favour tailoring articles so as not to give the impression that they are being "swallowed" by the Republic, but nevertheless NPOV prevents us from actually biassing articles in favour of a unionist POV. The OP initiated a long discussion here where five or six editors worked hard at finding a formula that would suit everybody, and then, just as we were on the brink of agreement on his proposal, decided "screw it, I'm going back to my own entrenched position." I disagree with forum-shopping on principle. Scolaire (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Many boundaries have changed since the 1898 Act, but the 32 still have social, sporting and cultural resonances, not least in the Republic, even though they are all originally English-law constructs. I can see that Northern Irish editors don't want to feel swamped. The idea of a Northern Ireland only arose in the last century, but we all live in 2010 and have to respect each other. How about green-edged infoboxes for the southern 26, and orange-edged for the northern 6? Or is that colouration now seen as a bit twee and twentieth-century?Red Hurley (talk) 22:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Colouring the infoboxes a specific colour especially green for the south and orange for the north might be quite contentious and stereotyping the entities, i would accept a different colour for Northern Ireland though, say the neutral blue used as default on Wiki navboxes.

Is is biased Scolaire to ask for Northern Ireland county articles to conform to the standards and styles used on other articles across Wikipedia or their own set of principles? We weren't on the brink of agreement as two other participants didn't agree with the usage of 32 counties so there was no concensus. In the end it was more of just you and me. I have however put forward an idea on the discussion page on regards to the county ledes along with one last proposal, or rather change of one single word.

Martinvl made good points that i can agree with. Though his points have holes:

• We may as well include Great Britain in the maps to show Irish counties historical context with the rest of the UK especially as they where created by the English and ruled by them for so long and as everyone can agree, North and South are relevantly modern entities.
• County Wicklow's (which contains not much) history section only details its history when under British rule so should we not use a map of the British Isles, maybe with a blank Great Britain, and an Ireland that is divided into its counties?
• County Carlow has no history mentioned at all or for that matter anything to even state what country it is - so should it use a map that includes Northern Irish counties or just a map that shows the Republic of Ireland alone?

As the county map shows the relationship of Northern Irish counties to Northern Ireland is there a need to include "32 counties in the lede? People can see the relationship in the map. And why can't a simple 6-county map be used for a Northern Ireland county navbox? I had to request a neutral colour be used for them as it is to help show some distinction between the countries. If a 32 county one is to be used for the Northern Ireland county articles infobox map - can it be a fair compromise to use a 6 county map for the Northern Ireland county navbox? For a small box a more specific map is better than an all-Ireland one.

If Northern Ireland counties are to be shown and described in an all-Ireland context, do they have to match the same manual of styles as Republic of Ireland counties? Can they not maintain distinction whilst including the context?

By the way just because i am a member of WikiProject Unionism in Ireland and believe in Northern Ireland maintaining its distinction - it doesn't make me a unionist. I am also a member of WikiProject Gaeliege and Irish Republicanism. Also is it forum-shopping to ask for neutral povs on the issue as we all lean one way or the other and independant views are needed to show what way other people outside of the box think to see what a broader feeling is? Mabuska ^(talk) 22:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem with - "We may as well include Great Britain in the maps to show Irish counties historical context with the rest of the UK especially as they where created by the English and ruled by them for so long" - is that they were Kingdom of Ireland constructs, some were created before 1542, and many of the boundaries follow earlier Gaelic boundaries. The concept was Norman, which is why they were called counties (as in comté), and not shires as in England. I see them as lived by all the past people of Ireland, whatever their cultural preferences. There should be a common format but with subtle tonal differences, and let's have an extra infobox line on whether they are in NI or ROI today.Red Hurley (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The infobox does actually need a line to describe what it depicts. However many problems that have arisen in-regards to county articles have arisen from one certain user's undiscussed edits - all of which have done their best to blur the border unless challenged. The Northern Ireland county ledes, in the case of County Antrim was virtually the same for 7 years until they changed it to near enough the way they have it now. The new all-Ireland county maps they uploaded uses colours that are so pale the distinction is challengable as whether or not they are clear enough to clearly depict two different states.

Yeah i know about the Normans and the first counties. Shires (Scirs) where an Anglo-Saxon thing that the Normans never really understood, but it was easier to just use what was already there in England. Was the Kingdom of Ireland and Kingdom of England not ruled by the same king since 1542? The affairs of the two islands are extremely intertwined so there isn't any harm in showing the British Isle context - just a thought.

However i haven't gotten answers to other points i've raised - i'm interested in hearing responses to them; i.e. my comments on

Martinvls comments and about navbox pictures amongst other things. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's one take on it. "County" is a concept in administrative geography. It isn't a natural division of space but is a shape drawn on a map by the authorities of a nation-state. Therefore the salient point about County Fermanagh is that it is a sub-division of Northern Ireland and the salient point about County Kildare is that it is a subdivision of the Republic of Ireland. There is enough space in the articles on each county to explain the history. In the article leads, please consider the needs of readers in Mexico or Japan. Irish and British readers are more likely to be sensitive to the political nuances; they can read the whole articles and follow up references if they want to. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm not from Northern Ireland, let alone a Unionist. But I'm really getting quite annoyed by all this talk of "traditional" and "32". This is just clinging to a myth and a fancy that had a brief flowering (infestation?) and then quietly (of sometimes with a bang) disappeared. As has been pointed out, the last county was created as late as 1605. Just over 200 years later, the ediface had begun to crumble: the splitting of counties started and has continued to the present day. So for this glorious period of 200 years we're supposed to feel a strong emotional bond and attraction? Please, it's a blink in the larger story of Irish history. Get over it. Why not feel attachment to the glorious 33 counties after the splitting of Tipperary? Were these counties are less real or legitimate than their predecessor of Tipperary? By no means. Yet many editors would have us weep and rend our clothes at the very idea of abandoning the glorious myth of "32". Pardon me for refusing to join the cloak-rending party. It was a temporary little arrangement, it's gone, get over it. It's not worth the loss of respect from our NI neighbours by insisting on clinging on to these irredentist coat tails. I'd be much more interested in uncovering the ancient tuath which these Norman impositions attempted to usurp and bury. They, at least, had democratic legitimacy, which is more than can be said for the administrative units imposed by the conqueror. Love your NI neighbours, concede the "traditional" and "32" claims as it causes them hurt but costs us nothing to abandon them. It's the right thing to do. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Itsmejudith and Laurel Lodged, a salient point about the "salient point" is that County Fermanagh is not a administrative subdivision of Northern Ireland. It has not been so for almost four decades. County Tipperary is not a administrative subdivision of the Republic of Ireland, neither today nor ever has it has been. It has not been a administrative subdivision of anything for over a century now. These are cultural/geographic units as described by the sources like the ones I quoted above. And the sources say there are 32 of them. --RA (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I see in relation to County Fermanagh that you're right, so I expect you're right about Tipperary as well. To my shame for my ignorance about the nation-state I live in and a near neighbour, and to a lesser extent to the shame of those who wrote an article where you have to scroll down to find out what the article is actually about. The district isn't coterminous with the county. In England we have county council areas that aren't the same as the "ceremonial counties". I'll look up how they are dealt with. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It's like the ceremonial counties (or at least my limited understanding of them) although in the Republic of Ireland the counties do still form the basis of borders for local authorities. Fingal in County Dublin, for example, is a county council area but is never counted as a "county of Ireland". -RA (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why this was brought here as it was being dealt with @ WikiProject Ireland. I have no problem with Northern Ireland and saying it is part of the UK but I think for all of the reasons laid out above and in the WikiProject Ireland discussion we should make reference to the 32 countries and also to the four provinces. Bjmullan (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm really glad you are sorting it out within the WikiProject. Can I (humbly) suggest you add clarification in the leads of Local government in the Republic of Ireland, Local government in Northern Ireland and Counties of Ireland. In each case to say early on that the traditional areas don't correspond with the present-day ones. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Judith, and I agree that it has to be explained for e.g. a Singaporean wondering why he has read about the 32 counties, but finds that there are more than that today. We can improve on the example of Historic counties of England (e.g. Yorkshire), and have HC of Ireland. With a line in each infoxbox mentioning ROI / NI, as above. Who agrees with that? Does it need to be any more complicated? ...my wife has just produced breakfast.Red Hurley (talk) 08:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The topics mentioned here by have been discussed (each to various degrees, some not really at all) on WikiProject Ireland however external out-of-the-box views were needed to see if there was a way to break the deadlock with external input and ideas and to see should Northern Ireland always be mentioned in relation to the Republic of Ireland - and it has proved fruitful to varying degrees i believe.

The infoboxes really do need to declare the country the county belongs to. The best way i think for a Singapoean etc. would be to talk about 32-counties where it can be properly expanded upon - in the history section of the articles. The all-Ireland county map can also fit in there to. Why must it be in the lede or infobox? Should they not deal with the immediate concerns of the county rather than its historical or traditional relations to the whole island?

It would also free up the infobox for a more specific and possibly detailed map than the all-Ireland one would allow. I.e. a Northern Ireland county map that can show the main settlements in the county or a slightly topographical map which is currently impossible. I.e. just like this French one: [[File:France_relief_location_map.jpg]]

Also i was told that there was no need to state its part of the UK as people can find that out by clicking the Northern Ireland link - well on that methodology they could click a link and see the counties relation to all-Ireland - is that not what the Counties of Ireland page is for?

A point i'm going to re-raise as its not been mentioned by anyone: What is wrong with using a county map of Northern Ireland for a county navbox, i.e. in this one i created (its currently not in use):

I've been told it makes it look like an island and on that basis the editor would rather have no map. However many articles make use of "island" country maps. I think that it looks very nice in the navbox. I feel that the navbox should also state the country the county belongs to for clarification as several of the Republic of Ireland county navboxes declare "Ireland" afterwards yet i was told that as other county navboxes for the UK don't declare what state they belong to then Northern Ireland ones shouldn't. Something should be inputted to make clear where the county belongs to politically especially as Ireland counties have more potential to be troublesome than English or Scottish ones. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

No they don't have the "potential to be troublesome" if properly adminned, and we would revert any edits that were disrespectful in either direction. The tiny "32 County Sovereignty Movement" has members in the north, but none where I live in the south. Its outdated name confirms its members' outdated thinking. The rest of us are happy to recall the historic counties with no axe to grind. If you make a big thing out of the maps then in a year's time some other bright spark will want to show them as part of 9-county Ulster, and then all Irish counties will be re-mapped by province, ad nauseam. Over to the admins please, we have all made our points.Red Hurley (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Some editors, having tacitly acknowledged that they were on dodgy ground with administrative divisions of states, have now changed tactics and switched to "cultural" reasons as a fig-leaf for their irredentist objectives. They will find that this too is barren ground. For what is the context of this "culture"? Why no other reason than political necessity. In other words, it's the old "divide and conquor" strategem that every large power with imperialist ambitions, from Caesar to Henry II has practiced. There was no such "culture" of counties, 32 or otherwise, prior to this imperialist carve up. You'll need to shift ground again guys.Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

There are coventions formaps which should be followed: Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Conventions/Areas maps. The England Scotland and Wales counties maps should show a bit of the other areas greyed out.The Northern Ireland counties one should I think show the northern part of the Republic grayed out and a bit of Scotland grayed out if it falls in the picture. Dmcq (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The cultural issue is a dead-end as only the GAA works on that system. The issue has reached a deadlock here and i've been told to take it the Ireland Collaboration, however it'll go nowhere there, so mediation or arbitration will no doubt be required. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem that you see? I see no reason to make special distinctions between how the counties are treated but I believe the Northern Ireland ones should be shown in the context of Northen Ireland. I see no more reason to mention 32 counties in the start of the article any more than there is a reason to mention that Northern Ireland is in the UK. I agree with the complaint that the picture of just the NI counties made it look like an island and have pointed to the standards for location maps. I believe the maps of England, Wales and Scotland should also be updated to have grayed areas for surrounding land, the current style is not useful for a newcomer wanting to find information. A picture of the north of Ireland with the parts in the Republic grayed would I think be a good context for showing the counties. The only larger context that might be worth thinking about that I can see is the nine counties of Ulster. Dmcq (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The issue essentially revolves around the what some would call irredentism and those trying to include Northern Ireland in as much of an all-Ireland scope as possible - in terms of ledes, descriptions, manual of styles and maps. I had to alter the colours of the previous county maps as they were made so pale you could hardly tell the two states apart, and the ledes had to be re-written as they were altered to state as much of an all-Ireland context before mention was even made of what country the county was actually in. All contrary to standard Wiki manual of styles.

Altering the England, Wales, and Scotland ones is also a good idea. Provincial maps of Ireland would be best for articles about the provinces or the history section of a countys article to show its relation to the rest of the province's county's. I am not against that idea.

I and others are against the idea of having Northern Ireland always described and shown in an all-Ireland context when there absolutely no need for them to be and were there are more relevant places to put them. We don't mention the UK in the lede of their articles however some editors want it made clear their former historical association to the rest of an extinct politically entity are given as much prominence in the article as possible. We also don't show the UK in the infobox map but we must show the whole of Ireland. The issue is essentially about preventing the blurring of the border that some editors have attempted. Thats why the distinction between both countries must be kept clear - they aren't one and the same. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Well there's the North-South Ministerial council and the British-Irish council, but however one cuts it both the UK andf the whole of Ireland are at two removes. Nothern Ireland for the current political grouping and Ulster for something historic is as far as I can see it going. Dmcq (talk) 11:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

American bias in Special education article

I would be grateful for a neutral point of view on the article on Special education. The original article was written by American editors. UK editors are now querying the format and terminology used in the article which to UK eyes describe the situation from the American point of view and not from a global standpoint. The two sections in particular which are in dispute are "Settings" and "Criticism". These sections have been moved backwards and forwards between the US section of the article and the general introduction. There are many words and phrases used which are specific to the US (eg, mainstreaming, resource room, response to intervention, push in). The US also seems to have a complicated system of "regular", "partial" and "full" inclusion, which is difficult to translate to other countries, and especially Third World countries. It also makes it very difficult for anyone from outside the US to understand the article. The vast majority of references are also from US publications. The lack of global focus has been discussed extensively at Talk:Special education but no consensus has been reached on how to proceed. We need to reach agreement on establishing a neutral globally understood terminology and the use of suitable references to describe special education in a global context rather than from the American point of view. I have tried adding a globalise tag which has already been reverted once. Does anyone have any suggestions? I've also asked for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Education and WP:Schools but so far no one has responded. Dahliarose (talk) 11:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I have some sympathy with you, and I don't think the article currently meets the needs of UK readers, but I can also understand the perspective of the American editors. If you understand the education system in one country it's very difficult to get your head around the system in another country. Not only the terminology is different but also the concepts and the issues. I think the globalise tag should stay on and in the meantime there is just a lot of source research and writing to be done. You suggested on the talk page using UNESCO sources, and that sounds like a great idea. Gradually, you need to make this article into the general one, and take anything that is specific to national education systems into the dedicated pages. A "criticism" section sounds odd, in itself, to my UK ears. In the UK, no-one criticises the idea of special education. They might well criticise separate education in special schools, or they might criticise integration into mainstream schools. They don't criticise both at the same time, to my knowledge. I'd go back to WikiProject Education. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, the "criticisms" section doesn't say anything against "the idea of special education"; it reports exactly the type of concerns you name here (criticisms about implementation, primarily). If you haven't actually read it, then perhaps you should. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Dahliarose has repeatedly claimed that UK people do not use terms like "full inclusion". This is an unverifiable statement apparently based solely on her personal experience.

In fact, this claim is not only unverifiable, but is actually verifiably incorrect: Look at how many official UK government websites use the exact, quoted phrase "full inclusion"[13]. Am I supposed to believe that all of these UK government web pages were written by Americans? Don't you think that hundreds and hundreds of instances of the exact phrase might indicate that -- even if this fact is unknown to an individual Wikipedia editor -- people in the UK are actually using this term?

We've provided Dahlia with multiple examples of (for example) British professors of education, at British universities, in British academic journals, published in London, using these terms. But no matter how many examples we give, it doesn't seem to matter. Twenty years ago, Dahlia's argument was probably accurate, but these terms have since spread around the world -- as evidenced by sources we've already named on the talk page that show them being used in south Asia, Central America, and parts of Africa. Oh, and United Nations websites, too, if you want an "international" standard.

If there is evidence that English-speaking reliable sources are primarily or preferentially using some other term, then I'd love to get a list of those sources -- but so far, what I hear is "One Wikipedia editor personally hadn't remembered hearing this term before reading the Wikipedia article", and that isn't exactly proof that the term is American-only jargon. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I have not repeatedly claimed that the term inclusion is not used in the UK. I have no problem with the use of the word inclusion. My only quibble is with the multi-layered approach to inclusion (regular, partial, full, mainstreaming) which is currently used in the article which is impossible to relate to the UK situation let alone to that of Third World countries, where children with special needs are lucky even to attend school at all, let alone have any special provision provided for them by whatever name you want to call it. . This article is in any case not about special education in the UK or the US the but about special education worldwide. Dahliarose (talk) 00:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a shame this notice is even posted, because certainly there are many other pages where NPOV needs to be evaluated and this one doesn't fit the criteria. I say it's a shame because the person who posted this hasn't read the article nor evaluated the sources. How do I know this? Well, there's this [14], which was mentioned before (on the talk apge), without comment by Dhalia rose, that in fact shows that "inclusion" is used in different contexts, such as full, partial, etc. That these terms are not U.S.-specific. That they are used by publications and institutions in in U.K. Yet, this does not seem to sway her. She states it's "impossibe to relate to the U.K. situation..." If that is the case, I suggest you brush up on your research regarding special education in the U.K. That is why there is this [15]. I have noticed via the page history you haven't made one edit there. Hmm.You might want to start here [16] Indeed, professor Lindsay is responsible for some good research regarding special education services in the U.K. But, as with any educated, compassionate scholar, he realizes the concerns of a special educator are universal, and does not expend needless energy on semantics. Lastly, the U.S. system of special education is not confusing. I have no idea what you mean by "multi-layering". Certainly, if you have questions about each type of inclusion, read the article. Read the sources.

You say above "I have repeatedly said that terms like mainstreaming and resource room are not used in the UK, and that it is inappropriate to use such US-specific terms to represent the global situation." Wrong again. Please see [17] because there are over 61,000 reasons you are wrong there. Quite a lot of districts seem to differ from your reckless statements. And resource room? See [18] Again, take the time to read, research and then think about the issues before making statements like that. People have invested time and energy creating this article, using sources from all over the world, and it is not in good faith to assume U.S. editors come to the article with an agenda. Jim Steele (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Dahlia, if the UK really doesn't use "the multi-layered approach to inclusion (regular, partial, full, mainstreaming)", then why do those precise terms appear hundreds and even thousands of times on the UK's own government websites? Personally, I don't believe that it is possible for the UK to simultaneously not use these terms, and to use these terms hundreds of times in official documents. Do you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

As I have repeatedly stated this article is about special education worldwide. It is not about special education in the UK and it is not about special education in the US. The US and the UK are just two countries in a very diverse world. There are around 200 countries in the world. As local editors are only familiar with the education system in their own countries I have suggested that for the basis of the general section of the article we use sources which have looked at special education from a worldwide perspective rather than using sources focusing on one country in particular. I have provided a whole host of sources from respected international organisations which one US editor has dismissed out of hand and the other has ignored and refused to comment on. These sources can be found here. http://www.unesco.org/en/inclusive-education, http://www.unicef.org/RI_Review_2007_Dec_web.pdf, http://www.unicef.org/girlseducation/files/QualityEducation.PDF, http://www.unesco.org/en/inclusive-education/10-questions-on-inclusive-quality-education, http://www.eenet.org.uk/resources/docs/IE%20few%20resources%202008.pdf.

The "sources" you turned up which you expected me to review are merely Google searches not specific sources. In fact if you take the trouble to look at the sources you will get a very different picture. If the word "mainstreaming" appears in the search results it is often because this word appears in a list of references rather than in the main article. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have their own systems. Scotland in particular uses very different terminology from England, and they have a completely different education system. Some of the US terminology (eg high school) actually originated in Scotland. I'm not familiar with the Scottish education system but it appears that the term mainstreaming is indeed used in Scotland. If you look at a Scottish report such as this one http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/01/05142243/0 you will however see that the "presumption of mainstreaming" in Scotland simply means that all pupils in Scotland are expected to be educated in mainstream schools. This is completely different from the US concept of mainstreaming and just illustrates the difficulties of writing an article which can be understood by a global readership when the terminology is so different and different words are used in different countries with completely different meanings. If you are interested in the education system in England there are a number of OFSTED reports which provide a good overview which you can find here http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/Publications-and-research/Browse-all-by/Education/Inclusion/Special-educational-needs. The problem still remains that no source from a global reference has yet been found to back up the descriptions of settings used in the special education article to verify that these settings apply equally in the USA, China, India, South Africa, Russia, France, Germany, North Korea and any other country you care to think of. This is why I've suggested it is best to have settings described in the individual country articles. You have not explained why you are so against this idea. Dahliarose (talk) 09:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the differences by country section only have around three other countries. Including England, mind you, which you stated was not represented above. Your admission that mainstreaming is used in other countries like Scotland (which is, as you know, part of the U.K.) contradicts you're original point of contention on this board and reveals that you just can't admit when you're wrong. I'm not against the idea of descriptions of other settings Dhaliarose, if you'd take the time to look at my diffs through the history you'd see that was one of my primary focuses while editing. But you obviously don't take the time to do this.

I'll tell you what--you create sections for the one hundred and ninety seven other countries if you' re so determined for a "global view." What's that? It's a lot harder to create articles with sources then to criticize them, isn't it? And to ignore evidence when presented to you like it was on the talk page, huh?Jim Steele (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Dahlia, I completely agree that mainstreaming is not a term generally used in England to describe minimal integration of students with special educational needs into the mainstream school. But you're not complaining here solely about the link to Mainstreaming (education): You're specifically complaining about terms like full inclusion, which appear on hundreds of UK government webpages and in long lists of scholarly publications written, published, and read by and for UK professionals.

Here's my frustration: I say, "The term full inclusion is used by UK professionals, as evidenced by ISBN 9781853469374, which was written by an educational psychologist in the UK, published by a London-based publisher, and is crammed full of UK-specific jargon and almost entirely devoid of any references to the USA. Therefore, the term full inclusion is used by reliable sources originating in the UK."

Your reply is "'Tisn't either, because it's outside of my personal experience, and some reliable sources in the UK don't use that precise term (for example, when talking about things other than full inclusion), and besides, we need 'international' sources."

Fine: Here's a UNESCO report that uses the precise term full inclusion: "Full inclusion is what we all would like to see, but the way forward is not straight, clear or easy." That precise term appears "full+inclusion" more than 100 times on UNESCO's website, including definitions, descriptions, and approving statements. It also appears in statements from international partners of the UN, like II's "The United Nation Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) promotes the goal of full inclusion and guarantees the right of every child to attend the regular school with the supports they require."

I look at these international sources and conclude, "The term full inclusion is used by reliable sources like international agencies such as UNESCO."

You apparently look at UNESCO's website and conclude "The term full inclusion is never used by international sources."

I've given you more than a dozen example of the term full inclusion being used by reliable sources in Europe, North America, Central America, Asia, and Africa. Your response is basically that these sources don't exist, or that they somehow don't count because you have already decided that full inclusion is purely American jargon. How do I keep this from degenerating (further) into a tis/tisn't spat? Do we need an outside editor to say, "It sure looks to me like those direct quotations are from non-USA sources and that they contain the letters f-u-l-l i-n-c-l-u-s-i-o-n"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

As I keep saying over and over again this article is not about the USA or the UK but special education worldwide. You've completely misunderstood and misrepresented what I said. I did not say that I did not recognise the terms full inclusion and inclusion, and I've not said that these terms are American jargon. All I was trying to say was the structure of the settings on the special education article as it currently stands is not representative of a worldwide view, and the same applies to much of the rest of the article. The article does not simply talk about inclusion or full inclusion. It talks about inclusion which is then divided into regular inclusion, partial inclusion and full inclusion. Then mainstreaming is another concept altogether. You claim that this whole section represents special education settings in schools worldwide. Two other UK editors have already said that they don't recognise this even as a description of the UK system so it's just not me. How is this description supposed to relate to schools in Africa where children either go to school or they don't? Is going to school "inclusion", "full inclusion" "regular inclusion" or "mainstreaming"? I spent some time searching for references and have asked you to find references to back up your views but no one has been able to find anything to show that all countries in the world adopt a four-tier inclusion system as in America. In view of the difficulties in finding common ground what is the problem with having different sections on the settings for each country which seems to me to be the only sensible way of approaching this article? The idea of approaching the NPOV board was to ask for outside input not to have the same editors repeatedly going over the same old ground. These misunderstandings would be better discussed on the article's talk page. Dahliarose (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It's quote easy for whatamidoing to misinterpret what you say, because it's certain you aren't sure what you are saying. I don't think you even have a clear mission here. Straight from the talk page, your words "Inclusion, mainstreaming, full inclusion. These terms are not explained and I’m struggling to understand the relevant linked Wikipedia articles. From what I can understand it is only the US which seems to have these different levels of inclusion. If I’ve understood correctly in the US you have full inclusion and partial inclusion (also known as mainstreaming). Other countries don't have these distinctions. Hmmm. Since then a lot of research has been posted showing that other countries use the terms, but it hasn't sunk in with you. As I said before, you want to describe special education in Africa, go ahead and create that section. Still don't see that yet, though. It's a lot harder to write then to criticize haphazardly others work, huh? And you want to move this back to to the talk page... have you looked (or, more importantly, read) at the talk page?! You were the one who posted this in the first place! Really, we are sitting here in awe at how out of your depth you are. It would be amusing if not for the fact it reminds us how informed, serious editors are needed on the education articles and how they unfortunately attract the wrong people.Jim Steele (talk) 00:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you have repeatedly complained about your belief that 'full inclusion' is an American-only term. But to look at the bigger picture, there really are only a few options for educating students with special needs:

What actually happens to the student	Term experts are currently using around the world	Outdated UK jargon (can be sourced 1970s and 1980s)
Student with special educational needs is educated primarily (or entirely) with non-SEN kids/in the ordinary classroom that the child would attend if he didn't have any special needs	Full inclusion	Integration
Student with special educational needs is educated mostly with non-SEN kids, but partly with only other SEN kids	Inclusion (sometimes called "regular" inclusion or "partial" inclusion, if necessary to indicate "inclusion, but not 'full' inclusion")	Integration
Student with special educational needs is educated mostly with other SEN kids, but with some exposure to a non-SEN students	Mainstreaming (education) (primarily US) or inclusion	Integration
Student with special educational needs is completely isolated from non-SEN kids in a separate special school/unit/program	Segregation (except in US, where no general term for this apparently exists, and segregation means racial segregation)	Segregation
Student with special educational needs doesn't attend school at all, or is educated outside of schools (ranging from private tutoring to no education at all)	Exclusion	Exclusion

The lines between these things are fuzzy, and some countries draw the lines between categories in slightly different places; we're talking about a gradient, not a discrete system, and the first three options are about (substantial) differences of degree rather than type. However, every modern source that describes options that line up with this. It's true that some countries don't provide every single option on the list (Barbados, for example, is pushing the first two of the five, although they also have special schools), but no source I've ever seen describes more steps in the gradient than what the article lists, and no editor has ever proposed a sixth option, so I think we've got a complete list.

And, importantly, experts around the world have changed their language during the last two decades. I believe they found it important to be able to easily differentiate between the kind of 'integration' that means "This child is allowed to eat lunch with non-SEN kids, but otherwise never sees non-SEN kids" from the kind of 'integration' that means "This child attends and participates in every activity of the class that he would attend if he had no SENs." The reliable sources make these distinctions (especially in outcomes-related research), so I see no particular reason to revert to a 1970s-style undifferentiated lump in which the options were "SEN student's school has the same street address as his non-SEN neighbor" and "SEN student's school does not have the same street address as his non-SEN neighbor" -- which is all you can tell from the very broad classification of 'integration'. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a great pity that this has become a war, with long explanations on both sides. I've had a look through the main SEN policy pages for England and I can't find any use of this taxonomy. It makes sense to have such a taxonomy, and perhaps it is about to catch on, but I don't think it has in the UK yet. In the table above, the first three categories are definitely present in England. They would translate to: attendance in a mainstream school, attendance in a special needs unit attached to a mainstream school, attendance at a special school (which would be expected to provide linkage of some kind with a mainstream school or schools). I was surprised to see "mainstreaming" relating to the third category. I would have thought it was a more general term. But you don't see it much in the UK anyway, because we are awash with "mainstreaming" of another kind, bringing practices from one-off or pilot projects into the "mainstream" practices of the welfare state. When we had difficulties making grammar school appropriate for an international audience I posted at WP:WikiProject Ireland and a knowledgeable editor turned up within hours. Paging any Australian educationists.... Itsmejudith (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Judith for your helpful comments. I agree it is a pity that this has descended into a war of words. It's a pity that the Education project is so inactive. It would be particularly helpful to have more feedback and especially from editors who are familiar with special education in Third World countries. I will investigate the country and regional projects as you suggest. As you say, the taxonomy that WhatAmIDoing outlines seems reasonably logical. The point however is that the articles should not reflect our own views but should instead reflect what the sources say. Unless a reliable source can be found which describes the taxonomy in this way and confirms that it applies on a global basis then it becomes original research. I did previously spend some time looking for sources to support or disprove this taxonomy (or rather the version used in the special education article). The problem is that the available sources nearly all describe special education in specific countries without giving a global overview. The vast majority of sources also relate to special education in developed countries, and particularly the USA and the UK. Sources can of course be found to prove that words or phrases are used in specific ways, but just because a word is used with one meaning in one source does not mean that it is not used in a different source in a different country with a completely different meaning, as we’ve already seen with the differences in the use of the word mainstreaming in Scotland and the USA. The few sources I found (eg, Unicef, Unesco) that did make an attempt to give an overall picture were the ones I've listed above. Inclusion is another word which has multiple meanings depend on which source you look at. The sources from the UK and the US use the word inclusion to describe the education of special needs children in mainstream schools as opposed to special schools. The sources referring to Third World countries use the word inclusion to mean that such children receive some form of education as opposed to receiving none at all. As an example, this source http://www.eenet.org.uk/resources/docs/IE%20few%20resources%202008.pdf, where the author has been spent time reviewing education in a variety of countries, defines inclusive education in the following terms: "Inclusive education refers to a wide range of strategies, activities and processes that seek to make a reality of the universal right to quality, relevant and appropriate education." She goes on to say: "Many opinions exist as to the meaning of inclusive education and how it can be applied in practice." This all rather suggests to me that it will be impossible to reach a consensus. The settings section is also just one of the many problems with the article as it currently stands! Dahliarose (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope there'll be some more comments here on this board, which might introduce a perspective none of us have thought of yet. In the meantime, I'll follow the discussion back to the talk page of the article, because this is an issue I have a bit of interest in and I hope to be able to engage with the sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I've now added requests for input on the respective Wiki projects for Africa and Australia. Let's hope someone responds, and provides a different perspective. Dahliarose (talk)

I think it's a good idea to get some perspectives on this article. Hopefully, these people will take the time to read what others have posted. By the way, there is no "edit war" going on here. In fact, I think this long thread is an example of how important it is to have informed editors working on this article. I keep requesting you make sections (like there are for the U.K.) on the special education article. But you keep making excuses why you can't. You say "inclusion" is "American jargon." Then, presented with facts to the contrary you backpeddle. Now, you say "resource room" is American jargon, a term used only in the U.S. Despite [19] Yawn. Lastly, I really can't keep a dialogue with someone who says:"Sources can of course be found to prove that words or phrases are used in specific ways, but just because a word is used with one meaning in one source does not mean that it is not used in a different source in a different country with a completely different meaning." Yeah, you said that. And I have no idea what it means. Hopefully, you do. But I'm surmising it has something to do with your circular reasoning. Who knows. You still don't understand the purpose of Wikipedia, do you?(you seemed to ignore--it's O.K. we're used to it by now--when whatamidoing said Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a terminology guide.

The purpose of this article is to tell readers "what happens to school-age children with disabilities", not "what jargon is used by professionals in each country to describe what happens to these children". Jim Steele (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Jim, If you actually take the trouble to read the results of your Google searches you will see that resource room in the UK means something completely different to the way that you use it in the US. It is a room where teaching resources are stored (ie, paperwork, equipment, etc) as is made clear in this reference:

http://www.northlanarkshire.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=5753 which specifically states. The reception is bright and airy with a large administration office, head teacher's room and medical room located nearby. There is a separate resource room where all the teaching materials are located." Words and phrases in American English and British English can often have very different meanings. Dahliarose (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Um, I didn't mean every result Dhalia. Let me break this down for you as you seem to still be figuring out things here on Wikipedia. This [20] taken from the trouble of reading sources on Google, shows what I'm talking about. It's from a school outside of the U.S. They are using resource room in the same way it is used in the U.S.So, how's your research going? Because all we've seen from you is an obscure document from UNESCO that pertains to human rights more than education, and nothing, nothing proving your claim that resource room (previously inclusion) is "U.S. specific jargon." You're all talk, and it's frustrating because we need people who can back up claims with research and sources. I'm going to repeat what was said to your earlier, because I'm sure if you read it enough you'll understand: Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a terminology guide.

The purpose of this article is to tell readers "what happens to school-age children with disabilities", not "what jargon is used by professionals in each country to describe what happens to these children'Jim Steele (talk) 01:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you are taking that policy a bit too seriously. If a rule prevents an article from being described in a global perspective, then the ignore all rules applies. Seriously, stop repeating the same reasons over and over. It's not helpful to improving the article. 198.38.10.1 (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's possible to take a rule that's so important too seriously. I guess that is a matter of opinion, but the policy stands. I think is is a good policyone that is applicable to this debate: Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a terminology guide. And the rule actually doesn't prevent the artilce from being described in a gloabl perspective, it actually encourages it. Take a read through the thread, diffs and history, inform yourself then get back to me on improving the article. Because as with all others it is a work in progress.Jim Steele (talk) 00:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Since this was raised I've been engaging in the article, but I haven't been able to move it forward much. It could do with some more non-involved eyes on it. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Since two other editors have already expressed that the article is not in a neutral point of view, can we just close this? I don't think more bickering on this section is needed. I would suggest following the other steps in the dispute resolution process. 198.38.10.1 (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, article is making progress now, thanks in particular to User:WhatamIdoing. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Labor unions in the United States NPOV edit war

This concerns the article Labor unions in the United States. Differences can be seen here. This article has existing NOPV and verifiability issues already. LrdSothe is a user whose sole contributions to Wikipedia thus far consist of editing this article, and reverting edits to this article. LrdSothe's edits are largely, I believe, in clear violation of NPOV and verifiability guidelines. Two other editors agree (including one who has never edited this article), and have reverted LrdSothe's edits. LrdSothe has been alerted to these problems, but has engaged in edit warring and violated the three-revert rule. A discussion of LrdSothe's edits, and how LrdSothe could contribute constructively under Wikipedia guidelines can be found on the article's Talk page here. LrdSothe appears to wish to make arguments in the edit summaries on the article's History page rather than discuss the issue. LrdSothe impugns the motives of other editors (see comments on my Talk page regarding this issue), and clearly wishes to push a single, NPOV viewpoint which LrdSothe considers "not lies". (There is a possibility of sockpuppetry as well. Note that two Anonymous IP reversions, both from the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, area, have reverted edits in the same manner as LrdSothe.) The article must be improved; unfortunately, LrdSothe's way is not the way to go about doing so. Input on the article Talk page is encouraged, to help guide all editors in avoiding NPOV in this article. Thank you!! - Tim1965 (talk) 02:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is one of the edits made by LrdSothe: "Rather than working hard, going to school, and gaining a skill that was marketable and in demand, all one needed to do was enter a union...."[21] That is clearly biased editing, and is not properly sourced. While the IP is probably the same person (probably from work and home) you need to show that it was used to evade a block or to violate 3RR, which does not appear to be the case. The best approach is probably to get other editors to pay attention to watch the article, either through a noticeboard or RfC and this editor will either tire or get blocked. TFD (talk) 05:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Mugshot

Resolved

I have started a discussion at the non-free content review page regarding the possible deletion of an image. The reasoning for its removal is for both potential violation of WP:NFCC and neutrality so I thought I would throw a link to the conversation here. Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:Mehserle-mugshot.jpg--Cptnono (talk) 04:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Original poster got a response with legitimate concerns and never responded to those. The issue is archived here. I am marking this as resolved. Blue Rasberry 14:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

RealClearPolitics

This article has been the subject of what I believe is a NPOV violation within the lede. A few editors are attempting to insert the following sentence into the lede.

The site's founders are self-described conservatives who are frustrated with what they perceive as anti-conservative, anti-christian media bias

Which is derived from the following quotes from this source.

McIntyre described the philosophy behind the website as based on "freedom" and "common-sense values." Said Bevan, "We think debate on the issues is a very important thing. We post a variety of opinions." "We have a frustration that all conservatives have," said McIntyre, "which is the bias in the media against conservatives, religious conservatives, Christian conservatives."

I believe this has several issues.

1. WP:LEAD - If the lead is to be a summary of the most important aspect of the article this would be undue weight for the lead. That particular sentence is repeated almost verbatim within the philosophy section of the article along with the other stated reasons for the site. It is undue weight to focus on just this one aspect in order to promote the belief that the site is conservative (NPOV violation and Undue Weight).
2. WP:MOSBEGIN - The primary aspects of the lead are summary in nature, this particular sentence is overly specific.
3. WP:UNDUE - That sentence, by itself, does not fully explain the reason why the founders started the site, however it would most likely be overly weighty to include basically the entire Philosphy of the founders within the lead as needless repetition. At the same time the actual origin is summarized within the lead without any overly specific statements or quotes.
4. WP:SYNTH - The sentence makes a declarative statement that the founders are "self-described" conservatives, however the source does not make that same statement. While they could be conservative, they could also be expressing empathy with conservatives.
5. One of the arguments for this sentence in the lead has been comparison with the lead for FiveThirtyEight.com, however a quick review of that lead does not go into overly specific details about Nate Silver and his philosphy or political leanings.

Thoughts? Arzel (talk) 00:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Posted on the talk page that I have brought this up here. Arzel (talk) 01:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The original debate was between the following two versions of the sentence:

While some have suggested the column selection is conservative-leaning, the site does include columns and commentary from both sides of the spectrum.

The site's founders are self-described conservatives who are frustrated with what they perceive as anti-conservative, anti-christian media bias and while some have suggested the column selection is conservative-leaning, the site does include columns and commentary from both sides of the spectrum.

The former was seen as dismissive of the conservatism claim, and therefore a violation of NPOV. The latter was an attempt to introduce balance. My own preference is that we remove the line entirely and instead change the first line to "RealClearPolitics is a conservative-leaning news aggregator and blog," thus mirroring the FiveThirtyEight.com article. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The 538 article does not claim 538 to be a liberal-leaning news aggregator and blog. They are both listed as non-partisan. I am not sure where the meme that RCP is a conservative-leaning news aggregator comes from. They equally have views from the left and the right included as article selections (Huffpo, Krugman, Dione, ect..) Arzel (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Um...it comes from the fact that the founders say as much in the article below, and that other observers, such as Nate Silver and D'Agostino in said article, have pointed out the same. The 538 article says it's a polling aggregator with a liberal-leaning blog. Simple, accurate, and to the point--I applaud the author of that intro (that was you, I believe)--and we should try to emulate it in the RCP article. At any rate, we've both said our piece, so let's call a truce until we get some other opinions. Copacetic? Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 14:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and yes I agree that it should be listed as non-partisan. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

For context, the full quote from the article is as follows:

RealClearPolitics offers its own commentary as well. On March 24, it offered this 
assessment of the mainstream media's coverage of the tiny number of American casualties 
thus far in the Iraq war: "Did the media really expect no U.S. soldiers would die? That 
no one would be taken prisoner? That there wouldn't be any civilian casualties? That is 
exactly what you'd believe if you read the headlines today: 'U.S. Forces Take Heavy 
Casualties'-Susan Glasser, Washington Post, 'Doubts Raised on Strategy'-Thomas Ricks, 
Washington Post. . . .

"Even worse, on the index pages of the three largest online newspapers in the country 
there is no mention of the 100-acre chemical plant discovered by U.S. troops yesterday. 
To most people this would seem like a pretty significant development-after all, isn't 
discovering WMD facilities one of the main objectives of the invasion?"

McIntyre described the philosophy behind the website as based on "freedom" and 
"common-sense values." Said Bevan, "We think debate on the issues is a very important 
thing. We post a variety of opinions."

"We have a frustration that all conservatives have," said McIntyre, "which is the bias 
in the media against conservatives, religious conservatives, Christian conservatives."

RealClearPolitics also dissected the media's disingenuous coverage of Asan Akbar's 
attack on fellow members of the 101st Airborne. "When the story initially broke on 
Saturday night it was widely reported that the suspect was a 'Muslim-American' soldier," 
it said March 24. "By Sunday morning that descriptor had been scrubbed from virtually every 
report. This morning, only the LA Times gives the story any play on its main page. . . . 
The New York Times, by contrast, puts the story on its 'National' page and does the most 
blatant PC whitewash imaginable. . . . The Times serves up this quote from Akbar's stepfather: 
'I remember last Christmas he was complaining about the double standards in the military,' 
Mr. Bilal said. 'Hasan told me it was difficult for a black man to get rank in the military, 
and he was having a hard time.' Only the New York Times could take the fact that a Muslim 
soldier in the U.S. Army attacked his own comrades in an unprecedented way and turn it into 
an indictment of the Army itself for being racist."

Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Note that this is from 2003, shortly after the start of RCP. Arzel (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Note that the subject of this discussion is the founding philosophy -- how appropriate. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Blaxthos, it appears your only intent here is to cause disruption. You already accused one user involved in this discussion of being a sock (resolved in their favor) and also quickly tried to get them blocked. Now you insert this snarky comment. Do you have comments on my issues from above or are you simply trying to poison the well? Arzel (talk) 04:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It appears to me that the second version of the text ("The site's founders are ...") follows the presented source nicely and presents the background in a way that helps readers understand the topic. I also think that Nathan's suggestion (timestamp 14:19) would work. There are many ways to skin a cat, and as long as the point gets through the exact wording is of less importance. --Dailycare (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Is anyone going to discuss any of the issues I brought forward? I will take silence as concensus without further discussion. Arzel (talk) 04:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

1. WP:LEAD - The lead is a summary of the most important aspects of the article. RCP's status as a conservative-leaning aggregator and blog is summarized quite clearly and accurately as it is written, although I've offered several alternatives.

2. WP:MOSBEGIN - I've offered a less specific summarization in the form of "RCP is a nonpartisan, conservative-leaning news aggregator and blog," mirroring our articles on other sites (specifically, 538).

3. WP:UNDUE - A summary of RCP founders' philosophy is not undue weight. It is something that should be mentioned in the lede and explored in more detail in the body.

4. WP:SYNTH - Synth is using multiple sources to derive a meaning not intended by any of the sources. This dispute has been about using a single source to present the meaning as it is intended by that source.

5. Once more, I've offered an alternate opening line that more directly mirrors the 538 article and does not suffer from perceived "over-detailedness".

Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

1. - Lead - That sentece is not a summary of their philosphy, it is a selected quote and does not comply with lead. Read lead again.
2. - MOS - Again, a misunderstanding of MOS.
3. - Undue - You focus on one sentence that present your point of view and in promanence that is undue weight with respect the way the business is being run and the reliable sources that talk about RCP.
4. - Synth - You have a fundamental misunderstanding of synthesis of material. Synthesis of material does not require multiple sources. From WP:SYNTH (Emphasis mine) "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach OR imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by ANY of the sources."
5. - Again your solution is not a mirror of the 538 article.

Thank you though for finally beginning to address my concerns. Arzel (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

We've gone over these points before. Now can we please hold off on commenting until some uninvolved editors have had a chance to reply? Let's let others decide who's misreading and/or cherry-picking policy here. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I've read over all these arguments and will give my (hopefully) final thoughts. I made an argument on the RCP discussion page that I believe we are making it a stretch to say the quote is part of their founding philosophy. Please, please, please...look at it! It's a standalone quote in its own paragraph. I cannot stress this point enough. The arguments against thing being undue weight all revolve around this being their founding philosophy, but I don't see that we can establish that as fact from what we have in the source article. The founding philosophy was based around "freedom" and "common-sense values", according to the founder. The quote about their frustration against anti-conservative media bias comes in a paragraph following this one, but we should not extrapolate from the article that this quote has necessarily to do with their founding. Either way, the undue weight should be obvious here. We are taking a quote found berried within a lone paragraph in an isolated article written 7 years ago and using it as the basis to introduce the reader to RCP. I hope you guys are giving due thought to how this reads. The gist I get from the first paragraph is that RCP was born out of frustration against anti-christian, anti-conservative media bias. In my view, it is in very poor taste to be treating the article like this.

I think as one editor put it, accuracy should be the concern here. Sometimes it is safer to write what little we do know than to write something we can't verify. This is my proposal for the lead:

"RealClearPolitics is an American non-partisan, political news and polling data aggregator based in Chicago, Illinois. The site compiles averages of major political polls on various elections throughout the United States to give a national view of the race. Though the column selection has been described as conservative-leaning, the site includes columns and commentary from both sides of the spectrum."

Not much of a change but I re-ordered the sentences and changed some wording to give a more informative flow to the beginning. I'd rather us lay on the reader exactly what the site does before getting into discussion about possible political leanings. I do not like using liberal/conservative descriptors so that's the only reason I'm not in favor of Nathan McKnight's abridged version (i.e., I believe it's simply more accurate to write how they are perceived instead of dishing out an arbitrary label like conservative-leaning). I hope that anyone who still wants to include this in the lead realizes that this quote is covered accurately, and in full context, in the Philosophy section. In conclusion and dead horse battery, covering it in the introduction gives too much weight to this one quote over other relevant information in the article, and thus the UNDUE weight gripes from some editors. Ubiq (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The quote describes the site founders' philosophy in their own words in the context of a discussion of the site's philosophy. I think that makes it relevant enough to be summarized in the lede and expadned upon in the body. As such, I think the (locked) version as it currently stands is the most accurate and descriptive. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 20:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

This will be twice now that my argument has been ignored. I'm confused as to how you can conclusively say that this quote, which describes the founders' sentiments towards media bias, actually describes the site's philosophy. I understand that the source article discussed the site's philosophy, but I'm utterly perplexed as to how you think including just this one isolated quote is accurately describing/summarizing the site's philosophy in the lede. Ubiq (talk) 21:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to including other quotes about the founders' philosophy--as a matter of fact, I did just that by including a summary of the founders' desire to present a diversity of opinions--but what baffles me is the idea that the site founders' own confirmed philosophy is not important enough to mention in the lede. I understand that there is a difference between a site and its founders, but the source article practically extolls RCP as an active counter to perceived liberal bias, and after all, it's the source article (i.e. the reliable source) that we should be trying to accurately represent. What aspect of your argument do you feel has been ignored? Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"A summary of RCP founders' philosophy is not undue weight." -this quote from above is what I take issue with, and it's about as deep as your argument has gone on the undue weight issue. What I've been trying to say is that this quote is not a summary of RCP founding philosophy. It's just a quote, with little elaboration to go with it, and including it in the lead is undue weight. Trying to pass it off as a good summary statement for their founding philosophy is disingenuous at best. Please provide a better argument than: it's a summary of their philosophy, therefore it's not undue weight. Excuse my directness, no hostility intended, I just dread going in circles. Ubiq (talk) 00:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's a fair description of our disagreement. I think that when a central figure at a media outlet describes their philosophy vis a vie the subject of that media outlet, we should include it in that article's lede--as we do in Fivethirtyeight.com--because it is of central importance to the operations of that media outlet. To me, that's not undue weight. You apparently diagree. To avoid going in circles, somebody will have to change their mind...or just wait until others chime in and form a consensus. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 13:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I really only disagree that the quote in contention on the RCP lead is a summary of their founding philosophy. I like the 538 lead except for the "liberal-leaning blog" mention, but only for my personal distaste on that sort of labeling. I don't think there is a comparable part of the 538 article that rivals the politically heavy tone of the quote in the RCP lead. I just wish people would realize you can't extrapolate off of a standalone quote like that to call it more than what you know it is. In this case we have editors asserting it's their founding philosophy. To me, it's pretty easy to think of a scenario where the site's founders might have actually developed their frustration with anti-conservative media bias after creating the site.

I do realize that some editors might have decent reasoning in wanting this quote in the lead, and I don't think it's going to spoil the article if we end up leaving it it, but it feels like we're pushing it by throwing such a questionable (and I really only call it questionable because it can be interpreted in like 5 different ways) quote into the article twice. Anyway, I digress. We'll have to agree to disagree and hopefully get some other editors in here. In the meantime, I need to make up my mind on whether to use lede or lead from now on. Ubiq (talk) 10:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you think it's important enough for the lede? I mean, people come to Wikipedia--or any encyclopedia--for unbiassed, uncensored information. If a website's owners/founders/staff are up front about acknowledging their biasses, as any honest person should be, then that seems to me like something a reader would want to know. It helps a person be informed about where their information is coming from. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 16:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

There are actually many reasons I don't think it's important enough for the lede. For one this information is covered elsewhere in the article. Your argument there seems to suggest informing the reader about it is important. If they read the article, they will be informed about it in the second section of the article, which is hardly a scroll away from the top. To me, if a politically heavy quote like this is to be included in the lede, it has to be particularly defining of them, which should be reflected by something that is backed up by at least more than 2-3 sources that share similar descriptions or sentiments towards the subject. I just don't see this quote being something so significant as to merit inclusion in the lede, when in the source article it is in its own paragraph, and thus, highly interpretable. I'd rather such qualities of content stay out of the lede. So to sum it up:

politically heavy quote from founder describing own frustration with anti-conservative media bias that is already covered elsewhere in the article + poorly elaborated upon in source article (thus highly interpretable) + poorly backed up by secondary sources = exclusion from the lead.

This should remain true for all media articles on the encyclopedia in my view. Comparing 538 is good here, and I'm glad you guys brought this up. If we were truly to make the 538 article comparable, we'd go into the source article of the part in lede that outright defines (questionably) their blog as "liberal-leaning" and pick out the part where he goes into Nate's discussion of how he sees the world through a liberal lens. I believe sticking a quote like that would hurt the quality of that article too, because in my view, that would match almost identically the qualities I believe meet criteria for exclusion as in the quote from the RCP article. His site is similar in regards to lacking descriptions from secondary sources concerning his described liberalism, it's highly interpretable as well (are we necessarily to conclude that because he describes himself in a liberal light that such views would show through his blog. So let's ask secondary sources about his liberalism: like RCP, nate's site is poorly lacking in coverage from other sources concerning his political views and/or those of his site.

By contrast, the Fox News article has opposite qualities. In the lede, it correctly/accurately describes how many view them as exhibiting a conservative bias. That description has multiple sources backing it up, and it is not highly interpretable. Fox News has had a hard time shaking the label of conservative, which is reflected by the sources in its article. In that sense, it's much more defining of them. I believe both the 538 article and the RCP article are different in this regard, as they are entirely different beasts, not being particularly known for their politicizing of things. Their articles' leads should reflect this fact in some form. At most, let's mention the fact that both have been described by "some" as conservative/liberal. No more discussion concerning political leanings/views is necessary, otherwise we are giving undue weight to such matters. Sorry for the length, had to hammer it all out to make everything as clear as possible. Ubiq (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

If we have direct quotes from the founders of an organization about the founding/philosophy of the site, and we're fortunate enough to have those quotes given in that context and published in a reliable source, we would be foolish to not include it in the introduction (which should serve as a standalone summary of the important points about the subject). This is not something synthesized or observed by Wikipedia editors, nor is it some obscure quote being given undue weight; this is a quote offered freely by the founders and published by reliable sources. Obviously the founders themselves thought it was important enough to talk about during an interview intended to give readers information about RCP; given such I don't see how on can credibly argue that there is a problem with weight. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I would follow you but the only part in the lead from that article is not necessarily about founding philosophy. As stated about 10 times now, it is rather just a standalone quote in a paragraph that follows a paragraph about their founding philosophy. It is some obscure quote being given undue weight. Let's face it, you can't call the quote in the lead their founding philosophy when it clearly quotes a founder in the source article saying the site's philosophy is based on freedom and common sense values. According to your argument, you'd put that in the lead before the quote that's in there now. Ubiq (talk) 01:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, should you consult the record, you'd realize we actually advocated to include both as a compromise! Both are equally important to the site's philosophy, and I don't see how anyone can argue that the philosophy is not an integral part of an encyclopedic treatment of the subject (which necessarily must be included in the lead section). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of the history of the article, thanks. The rest of your argument rests on assumptions I disagree with: "both are equally important to the site's philosophy", "[philosophy must] necessarily be in the lead section"

Personally, I'd prefer neither of these bits to be in the lead. One is a poorly covered, self-described (also self-serving) philosophy of their site, and the other is a poorly covered quote from a founder about their frustration with bias in the media. Don't get me wrong, I believe they belong in the article, but they are not important/relevant enough for the lead. Ubiq (talk) 19:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

DISABLED MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT IN ENGLAND NOW DECEASED

Laurie Pavitt who represented Brent South, up until 1987 in Westminster serving the Labor Party and having many questions for Mrs. Thatcher when she led the country, was profoundly deaf and that is why I as a distant relative by marriage would like to see him included in the Disabled section of Members of Parliament. Especially as he was credited with bringing in the 2009 Disability Act For England after he died in 1989! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cairrots (talk • contribs) 22:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I was able to find Wikipedia's article about Laurence Pavitt. It doesn't mention his deafness, but as long as that can be cited to a reliable source, the information can and should be added to that article. However, I wasn't able to find the place you wanted to add his name- I looked at Members of Parliament and also searched for List of disabled members of parliament, but neither of those seems to be the right place. Can you provide a link to the place you wanted him included? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

His entry in "Who Was Who" says that he was Vice-President of the British Association for the Hard of Hearing and a member of the Hearing Aid Council. Bluewave (talk) 14:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Walam Olum

The article on the Walam Olum asserts that Joe Napora recanted, even though Joe Napora stated: "I never recanted anything."

One Editor continues to block and delete content that does not square with his personal views.

The Walam Olum article does not acknowledge the personal opinions presented are opinions. The NPOV policy states in Bold : Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves.

The suggested revision is shown here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walam_Olum&action=historysubmit&diff=370450502&oldid=370305652

As such, the article should acknowledge Oestricher's opinion as opinion, not assert his opinion as a fact.

The evidence of trying to resolve this dispute is shown here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWalam_Olum&action=historysubmit&diff=355008936&oldid=355007574

       Some more of the recent and relevant sources to add a Neutral point of view include:
       1. American Literature History, Andrew Newman, 2010

           "In what is probably the capstone of the Walam Olum’s publication history as an authentic
           document—postdating Oestreicher’s debunking—it appears
           as the longest selection of the Multilingual Anthology of American
           Literature: A Reader of Original Texts with English Translations
           (2000), edited by Marc Shell and Werner Sollors

               Dennis Tedlock ... comparing it to apparently related forms such as
               the Ojibwa Midewin Birchbark scrolls

       2. The multilingual Anthology of American Literature by Shell and Sollors, 2000
       3. McCutchen's The Red Record, 1993
       4. CA Weslager's The Delaware Indians, 1972  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.36.249 (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC) 

Copying an earlier discussion from the talk page:

Newman's article is explicitly an examination of a literary hoax that was accepted for a long time: after discussing briefly the publication in "several prestigious literary journals" of some poetry that should have been recognisd easily as a hoax, he writes "In this essay, also with the benefit of hindsight, I use the longstanding acceptance of an earlier work of apocrypha as a similar occasion for critique." He uses the 'capstone' publication [ie the Walam Olumas a major example, the culmination/capstone of almost 2 centuries of acceptance of this hoax. Dougweller (talk) 05:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

As someone who was once taken in by the Walam Olum and cited it in print, I have to agree with Doug's comment on it and on his understanding of Newman's article. Nowhere does Newman imply the Walam Olum was an authentic document; Newman is commenting on Shell and Sollors' presentation of it as if it were an authentic document. Since User:71.81.36.249 has now removed this misleading passage from the article, I won't continue the discussion any further. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC), revised 20:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is what I and another editor have reverted recently: [22]. The article makes clear that there has been controversy, and the lead should, as my edit summary says, reflect the article. This is a disgruntled pov editor with a long history of being reverted by various editors when posting as an IP and before that with an account as Marburg72. The talk page was archived but I have de-archived it. Note also that the article does not say that Napora recounted (this was also discussed on the talk page). Dougweller (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

As another participant in the debate, I'd have to agree that the replacement of "evidence" by "opinion" misses the point. Oestreicher found evidence, in Rafinesque's original manuscripts and elsewhere, and made deductions from that evidence, with which others reading his work have tended to agree. David Trochos (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The current lede is good in that it points out how controversial the document has been (that's inarguable), and evenhandedly mentions that it could be based on tribal oral history. It doesn't say that the document is assuredly, without any doubt by anyone, a hoax; although the majority of readers see it as such. -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

As Newman pointed out, Rafinesque was clear about how he translated the original document.

"My process is similar to

that of Cuvier and the modern Paleontologists, who restore

extinct animals by the fragments of their bones. I do the

same with extinct languages by fragments of their words and

elements, discovered and put together. (28)"

Thus Rafinesque may have imagined that the scientific community

owed him appreciation for his reconstruction of a lost masterpiece."

And Boewe did not agree with Oestreicher's opinion.

"Moreover, while Boewe feels that Rafinesque is too humorless

to have produced a hoax, the Walam Olum bespeaks a seriousness

of purpose that goes beyond the personal and pecuniary

ambitions to which Oestreicher and Warren persuasively attribute

it (Warren 154; Oestreicher, “Unmasking” 16–21; “Tale” 7–9)."

Also, Squier stated that the document is not Apocryphal in his traditions of the Algonquians.

Newman continued "The reception of the Walam Olum among the Delawares

themselves is one of the most poignant and still conflictive aspects

to its reception history. The susceptibility of some was indeed an

indication of the faltering transmission of their cultural heritage,

caused by territorial dispossession and the associated pressures to

adapt to the majority culture. Richard Calmit Adams, a Delaware

who tirelessly served his people as a legal advocate during the

period of the Dawes Act (1887–1934), also attempted to restore

their history by recording oral histories and mining Euro-American

ethnographic sources. In A Brief History of the Delaware Indians

(1906) he clearly articulated the relation between his two endeavors:

“my effort is only to produce a brief and accurate sketch of

the history of my people, at the time when the last bond uniting

them in tribal relations is being severed by the action of the

General Government in segregating their lands, allotting them in

severalty, and thereby rendering them in all respects citizens of the

United States” (2).

In relating the Delaware’s “legendary period,” Adams

excerpts long passages from Rafinesque’s principle source for the

Walam Olum narrative, John Heckewelder’s History, Manners and

Customs of the Indian Nations who Formerly Inhabited

Pennsylvania and the Neighboring States (1819) (Adams 2–4).

Perhaps cautiously, he relegates his discussion of the Walam Olum

itself to a long footnote in his appendix, where he pronounces it “a

most interesting and instructive legend of the Lenni Lenapi.” He

refers readers to Brinton, and expresses gratitude to Rafinesque for

“the preservation and first translation of a document that presents

the traditions of the Delawares in regard to the Creation and

Ontogeny, of the Deluge, of the passage to America, arrival in

America, settlement in Ohio, from Ohio to the Altantic States, and

back to Missouri.” In other words, to the native historian as well

as the non-Indian ethnohistorian, the Walam Olum is a tantalizing

representation of cultural continuity. Adams gestures subtly at an

authenticity controversy, declaring that “[w]hatever its origin, the

Walam Olum is a most ingenious work, consistent with itself, and

its principal statements supported from other sources” (54–55)."

Anti-Americanism, Part 3

80% of the sources and 90% of the text in this article consists of Americans accusing non-Americans of anti-Americanism. A large portion of the article consists of Anglos calling non-Anglo cultures anti-American. Half the text and well over half the sources are white vs. non-white. They consist of Americans calling Middle Easterners anti-American, and Latin Americans anti-American, and Japanese anti-American. Given the demographics of conservative politics its a fair educated guess that this amounts to white people making accusations of people of color (given the demographics of Wikipedia, it's a fair guess that it amounts to a bunch of white editors citing white sources dismissing the concerns of non-white people). A huge portion of the sources are actually just references to anti-Americanism in passing, rather than works that have it as its main topic. It's a textbook case of Anglo-American bias and of bias in moral and political views, and of course bias in structure and due weight. I've raised these concerns repeatedly in Talk, and they are constantly dismissed and wikilayered to death by a handful of editors. Noloop (talk) 22:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk page:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-Americanism

Please provide specific examples documenting your view. TFD (talk) 22:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thast the point its about what people say is anti_american, its a bit like saying that the articel about holocasut denile can't mention denying the holocasut becasue thats POV.Slatersteven (talk) 22:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Noloop. There's a few things I would say about this. Firstly, the article title suggests to me a topic that is encyclopaedic but which is inevitably going to present NPOV difficulties. This makes it all the more important to WP:Assume good faith and try to work collaboratively. You obviously feel there is an issue of WP:Systematic bias in the article, and you may very well be right (given the topic, this would hardly be a surprise). It would be good, though, if you were to do more than just point this out. You could try to present some sources that could be introduced into the article to make it more balanced. As TFD says, more specific examples of where you see the current bias would also be helpful (otherwise, the discussion may tend to a generalised "yes it is", "no it isn't", "yes it is").

I'm having a little trouble with the idea that it is a bias to give too much space to anti-Americanism amongst non-white populations. Wouldn't the regular bias be to give too little attention to those populations. I would agree that it is interesting to note that, all of a sudden, the tendency to ignore anything outside North America and Europe, which applies so often on WP, has evaporated on this article. But can this really be regarded as bias?

Lastly, I would agree that there are issues with the article. I am more interested in how your suggestions would improve it, though, rather than whether you can succeed in establishing that it is currently biased. --FormerIP (talk) 22:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It want to give advice about conduct on the article generally, you should read the archives for the last year. Some of your points are also addressed in the current version of Talk. My reason for believing there is cultural bias is given above. The "regular bias" would be to give too little attention to the viewpoints of the other cultures, which is what the article does. Such viewpoints can't be given equally because of systemic bias: The Japanese accused of anti-Americanism don't write books titled Hating America (a source in the article that is relied on extensively) in which they describe themselves. And if they did, it wouldn't be likely to find them in English. Aside from that, the term is inherent propaganda. Most Middle Easterners would call this article "anti-Muslim", and so on. Noloop (talk) 00:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Noloop, I have looked at the talkpage contents, but I don't feel I want to review a whole year of the stuff. If the viewpoints of non-US cultures are under-represented, why not find some sources and propose them for inclusion? I get your point that Japanese writers, for exampe, may not generally self-describe as "anti-American" (although I am sure this is not unheard of), but if they are mentioned in US books then surely this makes them citable in their own right. --FormerIP (talk) 01:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The viewpoints are under-represented in the available literature, so it isn't possible. What you're describing can make sense when there are due weight problems without systemic bias. Noloop (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I have repeatedly asked Noloop to do this and he has both effectivly (its other peoples job) or actualy (the articel is too long so we cannot add this material) refused to do so. No9llops objection seems to be to the page in general, not just to some material.Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That's right, it is other people's job: the job of the people adding the material causing violations of due weight and systemic bias. The system is not that you add material without regard to weight or bias, and then demand other people fix the imbalance if they don't like it. Noloop (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

But other editors may not understand or agree that there is bias in there, and they may not know how it can be fixed in any case. If there is indeed a bias issue, then alternative/additional proposals are what will address this most easily. --FormerIP (talk) 14:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Or (like Noloop) we have tried to address the balance issue but have also been unable to find material to do so, AGF.Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

If there is disagreement about it, you don't keep shoving it in the article. The Wikipedia guideline on systemic bias says explicitly to remove the bias.Anglo-American bias You can't find equal opposing viewpoints, because Anglo literature doesn't contain equal opposing viewpoints: that's the point of systemic bias. It would help if people actually read the article and read the guideline on systemic bias. Noloop (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

But you need to identify it and establish (by consensus) that it is indeed bias before it can be removed. Also, just my take, but I wouldn't say that removing bias necessaarily means removing content. It could equally mean adding balancing content. --FormerIP (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The most recent issue was over adding one-sided content. Of course, removing bias doesn't necessarily involve removing content. It is typical in cases of systemic and cultural bias, as the guidelines on neutrality make clear. The purpose of commenting here, I think, is to get some discussion of whether the article suffers from bias from due weight and systemic/cultural bias. So, let's discuss that. Noloop (talk) 23:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Or (as Anglo-American bias says) "or making readers aware of them", which I bleive the articel is trying to do, but this does need work. Besides you still have not identified an example of cultural bias. If you bleive the whole articel is biased then AFD.Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Climate change denial article

The climate change denial article describes a somewhat concerted movement to intentionally provide misinformation on climate change. My problem with the article is it presents this all as fact. I would simply like to add one word to the first sentence, changing:

Climate change denial is a term used to describe attempts to downplay the extent of global warming...

to

Climate change denial is a term used to describe [alleged] attempts to downplay the extent of global warming...

to clarify to readers that this idea is not widely accepted. I had a long discussion about this on the talk page but we could not come to an agreement. -Cwenger (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Cwenger. Your suggested text would imply that there is considerable doubt as to whether anyone has attempted to downplay the extent of global warming or not. Is this what you are intending to get across, or should it read differently? I suspect you are wanting to cast doubt over something other than the existence of the attempts. --FormerIP (talk) 00:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi FormerIP, I mainly want to alert the reader that a large-scale and/or concerted effort to downplay the extent of global warming, which is what this article largely addresses, is not accepted as fact. As I said on the discussion page for the article, it would be akin to saying "The vast right-wing conspiracy is an alleged coordinated effort to...". I am of course open to other ideas to get this point across. -Cwenger (talk) 01:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Cwenger, I understand you, I think. You want to insert a clarification that the denialism in question might not be concerted. That may be fine, but it doesn't look as if the place to do it is the sentence you have chosen, since it doesn't contain any claim about being concerted in the first place. You have nothing appropriate to attach the word "alleged" to, it seems to me, so you are trying to make a clarification where none is needed. --FormerIP (talk) 01:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course there is a large-scale and concerted effort to downplay the extent of global warming. The only question is whether these efforts are "correct" (i.e. whether global warming is a problem). I have not read the article, but the proposed change as described above is pointless. Johnuniq (talk) 01:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Cwenger, as a tangentially involved editor, your suggestion seems like a violation of WP:NPOV to me. What do the sources say? Do they say "alleged" or not? We should just be following the sources. OTOH, that article name may also be in violation of WP:NPOV. Based on my knowledge of how reliable sources have covered this topic, "denial" isn't the most common name. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Johnuniq, you make a good point. Perhaps my suggestion would make more sense if the rest of the sentence was clarified like so:

Climate change denial is a term used to describe [alleged] attempts to [intentionally and maliciously] downplay the extent of global warming...

-Cwenger (talk) 01:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Using the term "alleged" for accepted science is like talking about the "alleged" moon landing. TFD (talk) 01:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge, the sources do not say "alleged" because they are the ones doing the alleging, and as such state it as fact. That is what I am trying to avoid in this article. There are plenty of references that rebut this characterization of climate changes skeptics, e.g. http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1782, should I reference those in the article? -Cwenger (talk) 01:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

TFD, we're not talking about the science here though. We are talking about the existence of significant, malicious efforts to downplay climate change. -Cwenger (talk) 01:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Cwenger, are you saying you think there are no intentional and malicious attempts to downplay global warming? Really? You think that all attempts are accidental and/or friendly? --FormerIP (talk) 02:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

FormerIP, I am not saying there are no intentional and malicious attempts to downplay global warming. Certainly there are some. There are also intentional and malicious efforts to exaggerate global warming but we don't have an article on that. The point is we have no idea what the intentions of people are unless there is incontrovertible evidence, which I do not see in this case. As a compromise, could we at least add a sentence that strongly clarifies that this article is distinct from sincere climate change skeptics. -Cwenger (talk) 02:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There is invalid logic there. Some people have labeled climate change skeptics as climate change deniers. Climate change skeptics do not go around spreading misinformation for money. Therefore it is wrong to say climate change deniers do that. The logic is false and is no reason to stick in alleged. BTW the article complaining about skeptics being called deniers is already referenced in the article. Dmcq (talk) 01:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Do third-party reliable sources refer to those who hold this opinion as "climate change deniers" or "climate change sceptics"? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There's a section about this in the article Meanings of the term. The books which mention climate change denial mean what the article is about but there are articles which label sceptics as deniers and others that say that is inappropriate. The term denialism says it could be applied to people who just are covering their ears and eyes and minds but there's not a lot written in relation to climate change on that, I believe the environmental scepticism article would be appropriate for that sort of stuff. Dmcq (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Skeptics and deniers are very different. Skeptics hold sincere views that oppose the consensus. Deniers, by definition, must privately support the consensus but publically attempt to undermine it. I am fine with the climate change denial article as long as it clarifies that it is specifically about the latter group and it is alleged, as there is no hard proof that anybody is misrepresenting their true views for alterior gain. -Cwenger (talk) 02:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

True Sceptics do not 'hold sincere beliefs', they check the evidence. What you are talking about is environmental scepticism. The article should be based on reliable sources and in acordance with Wikipedia's policies. Dmcq (talk) 02:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Dmcq, certainly you will agree that two intelligent, well-meaning individuals can look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions, right? -Cwenger (talk) 03:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

They certainly can, I'm finding it difficult when you give no reliable source for your point of view though. Dmcq (talk) 08:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I also see this as a problem of not providing a reliable source. The article is well-sourced for what it is; adding the word "alleged" would refute most of those sources and this ought not be done without sourcing and some explanation in a section outside the lede. Blue Rasberry 16:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

SPA's and POV warriors driving a questionable change.

I happen to be very pro-Second Amendment, so it feels very weird for me to be on the side of the Brady Campaign in their article. In light of the Supreme Court decision today, affirming the Constitutional right of individuals to own firearms, a few pundits on blogs started pondering if the Brady could now be classified as a "hate group" because of their opposition to a Constituional right. So now there are a plethora of IP editors, SPA's and a few just pushing a POV trying to use the criteria of a hate group showing in the Wikipedia article on that topic to try to justify calling the Brady Campaign a hate group. I detest the Brady Campaign and disagree with them on everything I can think of, but this seems to be just wrong and the "vote" being taken is turning into a mob rule situation because, as one of the SPA's put it "the whole point of wikipedia is truth by consensus. If enough people think that it qualifies as a hate group (It already fits the definition), then I believe we should put it up there" Perhaps some outside eyes would be helpful. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Commented on article talk page. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Have commented too. And may I say how glad I am to see someone with a POV putting following Wikipedia's policies and improving the encyclopaedia before pushing their POV. Dmcq (talk) 23:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That whole discussion is almost surreal. And I actually have someone there calling me an "anti-gun activist". That's like calling Reagan a communist sympathizer. LOL. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

lol - I have to say, Niteshift, that I'm studiously avoiding getting into a second amendment debate with you (much as I'd like to). drat that wp:NOTFORUM!. --Ludwigs2 02:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• There is a time and place for that debate. But regardless of my views on the Second, right is right and wrong is wrong....trying to label Brady a "hate group" is just wrong and it would be hypocritical of me to stand by and silently watch it happen. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Rasmussen_College

Having already been taken to 3RR today for reverting subtle POV promotional editing at this article, can someone please take on yet another IP pushing the same unsourced promotional content? [23]. Thanks!

• Odd that the IP comes back to a city where the school doesn't have a branch campus. You might want to look at this discussion at ANI regarding an employee of Rasmussen doing soem promotional editing. [24]. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Universities can handle it. Thanks for the alert. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Revision of a 1000 years of English history in Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

Update as of July 8

The parties to the dispute are aiming to simplify the presentation of the dispute to make it easier for reviewer(s) to come to a decision. Until that process is complete this call for assistance should be passed over. When this situation changes, a notification will apear here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hauskalainen (talk • contribs) 19:47, July 8, 2010

I presume also this delays need for medcab at this time. I am still interested but in the material which exists now I am having problems finding the main question to be answered and connecting some points their sourcing. Before a NPOV decision can be made, please have proposed statements clearly written and sourced. Such information is a prerequisite for making decisions about what is NPOV. Thanks, Blue Rasberry 18:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I am a main party to the dispute and have rejected mediation by a "mediation cabal". The idea of the delay is to simplify the materil that needs to be read by reviewers, including sources.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hauskalainen (talk • contribs) 18:45, July 13, 2010

The mediation is a discussion about content you contributed to Wikipedia. If you are going to simplify and organize what you have already said, then I think everyone ought to wait before giving more opinions either on this board or in the mediation. It is up to the person requesting mediation to decide when to close the mediation. If you do not want to participate in mediation then no one will judge you and that has no bearing on the merit of the content you wrote. Whether you participate or not, mediation is about content validity and not about what you say on this board, the article talk space, or on the cabal page. However, if you do create a simple, organized, and sourced explanation somewhere, discussions about your work are more likely to be in favor of your work. Please take the time you need with no pressure. Blue Rasberry 19:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Background

I am calling for someone with an interest in English history to review the onging dispute over numerous sections on the Talk page to this article regarding a serios NPOV issue. There are even some discussions in the last archive to the talk page of the article though the most important onces have been pulled back from archive today. From my point of view this is a NPOV issue though my editor friends there are doing their best to make out that it is one of OR or RS or whatever else they can think up.

A few months ago this section was written in a way that presented only one point of view regarding the development of English and American history. The one POV it presented was highly contentious and in my opinion breached the rules for WP:NPOV.

The issue is over a a very important dispute over a reinterpretation of a thousand years and more of English and American History and the two substantially different visions of history it creates. A flavour for the length to which editors have gone to dispute this can be seen by looking at the very many sections before the sections covering English history on that talk page.

The article is about to come out of an edit freeze and although I believe that as it stands now the article fairly represents two highly opposing views of history it does so without many reference because the article was frozen in the middle of my reconstruction work any my edit opponent has indicated an attempt to undo my good and honest work as soon as the protection is lifted.

We are really no nearer resolving this dispute. Will someone PLEASE help to look at the major issue I have raised and help us to resolve this one. Because I fear that this article has protectors in high places I would ask that this assistance comes from someone who has NOT previously involved him or herself in the resolution of disputes over gun or armament related or U.S. Constitutional topics and who ideally has been editing for more than 2 years. --Hauskalainen (talk) 02:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

A word of warning! You will find that the editors that I do battle with argue about anything and everything EXCEPT the validity of the traditional view of English history. This can give the impression that they are seriously engaging with me using Wikipedia principles but really this is (IMHO) only WP:Game. The sheer volume of their issues is enough to make any editor or reviewer walk away in fear. They should not not. The WOOD here is far more important than the TREES. These editors endlessly argue about the TREES in the hope that we will forget about the WOOD (which is that the previous editors to this argue have structured it to tell the revisionist version of history given by Professor Malcolm in her book. The radical nature of the Malcolm Thesis has not received much attention though. Kopel here refers to it quite clearly though in his review of Malcolm's work.

As the Firesign Theater comedy troupe once put it, "Everything you know is wrong."[23] To Keep and Bear Arms sweeps away over two centuries of American--and British--misunderstanding of the British right to arms, providing the first clear picture of what the right to arms meant to the British of 1689, as well as what it meant to the Americans of 1791 who drafted the Bill of Rights with the British experience very much in mind.

Malcolm states her radical thesis in the first paragraph of the Preface (p. ix). She argues that before 1689, no right to bear arms existed at all. When the 1689 Convention Parliament decided to guarantee a right to arms, the Convention chose, for political-tactical benefit, to pretend that it was reaffirming an "ancient" right to arms (pp. ix-x). In fact, argues Malcolm, the Convention created (p.1337)the right then and there, for reasons growing directly out of the political conflict of the previous century (pp. ix-xi).

and here

Although they should not, some may consider Malcolm's final chapter, detailing the evolution of the 1689 British right to arms (p.1352)into the 1791 Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the most controversial part of her book. The main body of the book ought to be the portion that attracts controversy: In it Malcolm argues that the 1689 Convention tricked the next three centuries of Britons and Americans with its claim that the British right to arms was "ancient, true, and indubitable," rather than fabricated on the spot as a result of recent experience with oppressive monarchs and their standing armies. Because Malcolm's thesis contradicts the viewpoint of almost every scholar--pro-gun or anti-gun--who has written anything on the British right to arms, one might expect controversy. So far, however, no scholar has challenged Malcolm's conclusion in print.

Malcolm's argument is, on the one hand, irrefutable, because there is no known British legal document prior to 1689 that refers to a right to arms; all the official documents call bearing arms a duty rather than a right (p. 9). But, it is not impossible for a duty and a right to coexist. Jury service was certainly a duty, but many Britons also viewed it as "an ancient, true, and indubitable right."[68] It is possible that deeper inquiry into medieval social history materials might show a similar understanding of a duty-right to arms. While the 1689 Convention may have fabricated a right in a strict legal sense, some kind of rights consciousness regarding arms must have existed beforehand, or else the Convention's assertion of an "ancient, true, and indubitable right" would have been so self-evidently absurd as not to be worth asserting.

By analogy, the provision in the Declaration of Rights against standing armies in times of peace was also novel, rather than "ancient," in that no statute had ever previously affirmed it nor had any part of the common law in any known judicial opinion or legal guidebook. Nevertheless, the declaration against standing armies obviously reflected a long-standing, widely held view about how Britain should organize its society--a viewpoint every monarch had respected until the seventeenth century. Much the same might be said about the right to arms: rights consciousness and statutory affirmation of rights need not go hand in hand, particularly in light of the English theory that the government does not "grant" rights, but rather they arise by long-standing tradition from the ancient past.

Kopel overall seems to agree with the revisionist view but this alone does not mean that it is accepted universally. I am not aware of any English history scholars who have reviewed this work because frankly I guess the right to arms does not excite people in England as much as it does people in America.--Hauskalainen (talk) 03:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I provided a source (Cramer, Clayton E. For the Defense of Themselves and the State: The Original Intent and Judicial Interpretation of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Westport, CT.: Praeger Publisher, 1994) that claims the right to bear arms derives from common law and another editor has provided a source (J. Malcolm, To Keep and Bear Arms (1994) that claims the right originated with the Bill of Rights 1689. It is acceptable to me to have both views presented. However in presenting the first view we are limited to what is in the book and if we want to provide more detail supporting that view then we need additional sources. But we should not decide which is the correct view. TFD (talk) 09:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we can take TFD's "helpfulness" with a good pinch of saltt! This editor has been complicit in blocking attempts to get this section written more fairly. Here for example you dismiss any notion that Blackstone, a leading lawyer of his time can interpret the law further back than the Bill of Rights and thus dismissing a source which confirmed that the Bill of Rights was affirming an existing right....

WP articles must be based on reliable sources and so far only SaltyBoatr has provided any. Whether or not Malcolm's views are the final word, only reliable sources may be used to present alternative views. Some writers have claimed that the right to bear arms was an issue in Bacon's rebellion in Virginia, which was before the Bill of Rights 1689. However, I cannot find any scholarly sources to support this view. Blackstone's work cannot be considered a reliable source for law before the Bill of Rights, but that should not present a problem because we can use modern commentaries on his writing as sources. Also whether or not the right existed at common law, it was an auxiliary not unalienable right. There was no question that the Imperial Parliament had the power to limit or abolish this right. TFD (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC) taken from Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

The important thing is that we should avoid writing the article in a way that begins the history of the right to bear arms with the duty to bear arms. This simplistic look at the written laws and telling it chronological way, has was done (here for example) is supportive of one POV only. There may have been no rights written down in statute before that time, but this certainly does not mean that it did not exist. The evidence in archaeological findings shows that the English generally have long held weapons and it is fanciful to suppose that they did this illegally. In fact the King in the Middle Ages (and presumably in the Dark Ages too) wanted his people to have arms. The purpose of the laws passed in the eleventh century was to make sure that they did - not to give them a grant to have arms. There is nothing in those statutes to indicate that it was a grant of right. Malcolm's revisionist position is new and not supported by any English history scholars in England as far as I can see. Yes, there are some in America who rather wish to lean to the fanciful idea that the Second Amendment was some "peak" in the development of the rights to arms in America and they are no doubt overjoyed that a sympathetic academic has written this fairly tale for them. But it is a fairy tale because no serious English historian has accepted her thesis. The right to arms goes back into the midsts of time and it is only as our modern societies have formed that we have decided collectively to moderate that right in respect of certain lethal weapons. Yes, Malcolm and co would regard this as a POV but it is the long standing POV and still the major POV. There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that mainstream historians have accepted the Malcolm revisionist view. It definitely should NOT be given equal status with the view that has withstood the test of a thousand years of scrutiny. --Hauskalainen (talk) 12:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Nature of this problem

You appear not to understand the principles required to write articles:

• they must be based on reliable sources
• they must present all notable views fairly
• they cannot contain original research and synthesis

It would be wrong to present either Malcolm's view or your view and there are two things you can do that will help the process:

• find a reliable source that argues that the right to bear arms existed in common law before 1689
• find sources that show what the current mainstream view of the history is

TFD (talk) 18:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I read the discussion in the article and am aware of the medcab case about this.

To USER:Hauskalainen and the anonymous IPs: I am not seeing claims based on reliable sources. I am seeing the use of some WP:PRIMARY sources like court records - which should not be considered - and talk on the discussion boards which violates WP:TALK because you are raising discussion about the article's subject. See also this tag on the talkpage for the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The article's subject should not be discussed on the talkpage for that article! Please state whether you agree or disagree with my saying that, because I think this is the nature of this problem. Blue Rasberry 15:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

reply to Bluerasberry: In cases about the law there is extensive use of primary sources in Wikipedia, and sometimes it is unavoidable and often it is prefereable. For instance the quotations in the article from the wording of the Second Amendment and the wording from the English Bill of Rights fall into the first category. . One of the reasons why primary sources are often not acceptable because one cannot ascertain their authenticity. That simplicity is not the case with the law and in fact the law is entirely based on primary sources such as the wording of legislation and the interpretations of judges and it is why in matters of law it is perfectly acceptable to use primary sources because their authenticity is not in doubt. If you have looked just at the text we have in the article and say that they are not reference that may be true. But that was because the article got locked down at the request of User:SaltyBoatr before they could be added. If you follow the arguments in depth that followed the lock down you will see that numerous references were provided that are quite valid in my opinion and subject to unjustifiable accusations that the sources were not reliable or were primary. I refer for example to the claim /that I think was made by TFD, the Blackstone's commentaries were a primary source. This source is secondary, but even if it was a primary source it would not necessarily be invalid for the reasons already stated. As I have said, the real scandal in the article as it had been was that it gave no recognition to the standard view that the right to arms is an ancient one and predates both the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment. At the Talk page to the article (some of which have now been archived) both TFD and especially User:SaltyBoatr, and also some other editors have played a perfect game of obscufation and WP:Game to divert attention away from this real scandal and to make it seem that the problems are with everything other than this . citing WP:PRIMARY WP:NOR, WP:RS and branching the argument away from the core problem and towards other issues. They do this because they know that reviewers will tend to look mainly at the flow of arguments and what each side says, and in part do a weigh up as to the balance of arguments on both sides. Because of the cabal at work on this article I am bound to lose out in this. This is why I am asking for a review of THE MAIN ISSUE which is about the NOR in the structure of the article as it was before I started editing it (which implied that the right to arms develoed slowly culminating in the 17th and 18th century instead of being an age old basic right which has been slowly legislated over to add civic controls. As the article stands now IT DOES NOT HAVE WP:NOR in respect of this complaint. The edit war that arose because I have been trying to protect the article from presenting a one-side view of this. Yes, tempers have flared and I may have vented opinion. For that I apologize. But on the whole my edits at TALK have been aimed at protecting the article from abusive editors seeking to deny the validity of the other POV which needs to be in the article. --Hauskalainen (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Hauskalainen. I will look a little more into this in the next few days, but until then, here is how you win at medcab.

1. Get a single 1-2 sentence statement based on a single source. If possible, take 1-2 sentences verbatim from a reliable source (this is plagiarism and forbidden from the article mainspace) and and put them in a non-public area like a sandbox.
2. Consider finding another source which says the same thing as the source in 1, then taking the equivalent statement in that source and also putting that in your sandbox.
3. Repeat 2 until you have a reason why you do not get more sources. One source may be enough for non-controversial statements.
4. Rewrite the statement or statements you have collected in your own words. Put this under the verbatim statements.
5. Show medcab or other people on a talkpage this work you have done.
6. Ask medcab whether you can insert the statement you wrote in 4. Medcab will love you because you have reduced their workload to a WP:RS check and a check of English-language rewording.

I will be looking for this in the archives of the talk. The medcab person will be looking for this in mediation. Notice that this process does not involve any discussion about the article's subject.

I want to help you be heard, but there is a lot of text here and I need time. Let me know if you have any comments in the meantime. Blue Rasberry 23:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Happy Valley, Shenzhen

This article reads like a promotional pamphlet for the place. Phrases such as "provides children with a house of dreams", "the breathtaking experience", "excellent performances in different styles" and last but by no means least "large quantities of breathtaking and exciting amusements to satisfy anyone's desire for modern entertainments" are must definitely NPOV. --Panzer71 (talk) 16:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

What a great promo! Fortunately it was also a copyvio of the "reference" used in the article. I have rewritten it and will watch it. Johnuniq (talk) 04:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Good rewrite, so I removed most of the cleanup tags except for the general need to improve referencing. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Jesus

In my opinion, the bolded text should be deleted from the lead:

Judaism rejects assertions that Jesus was the awaited Messiah, arguing that he did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh.

It is the only place in the lead section where an argument which supports a particular belief is presented. Such text does not appear anywhere else in the lead section, and was only added recently by a currently banned sockpuppet. Flash 22:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Application of Wikipedia policy necessitates removal of these things, so in the future be bold in fixing these things instead of just considering them matters of opinion.

The statement you violates WP:NPOV for what it is and WP:STYLE for the bolding; it is written to incite emotion and is WP:VANDALISM and not a WP:GOODFAITH edit. It is already removed, but feel free to change these things yourself in the future. Blue Rasberry 15:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The sentence is fine. It doesn't violate NPOV to give a reason that something is believed. I have more concerns with the POV in this statement: "Most contemporary scholars of the historical Jesus consider him to have been an independent, charismatic founder of a Jewish restoration movement, anticipating an imminent apocalypse." Noloop (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the "Resolved" template, as I see no evidence that this is resolved.

I did have concearns not about the sentacne, but the fact it was bold.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It would help if User:Bluerasberry and User:Slatersteven at least glanced at the actual article. The text is not bold. Flash bolded it here to indicate which part she/he wanted to delete. Noloop (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I am totally in the wrong. Thanks, Noloop. I revise my position to ignorance of what the problem is. The bolded text above seems to be the orthodox explanation of the non-bolded text before it. It is sourced to an unsourced section of another Wikipedia article, but this may not be contentious. I do not see how the bolded portion could be more of a problem than the non-bolded portion as it seems they go together. What is the problem? Blue Rasberry 22:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't see an NPOV issue here (unless the claim is that a minority or non-mainstream Jewish view is presented, in which case please elaborate). The footnoting of the claim is dodgy though - WP is not a valid cite for claims made elsewhere on WP. In any event, the article cited does not appear to give support for the claim in the Jesus article. So someone should sort that out. --FormerIP (talk) 23:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding, my post was a bit confusing.

The reason why I consider the text to violate NPOV is that arguments or reasons behind a particular belief is not found elsewhere in the lead section. For example, Judaism reject Jesus as the Messiah because they argue he didn't fulfill the Messianic prophecies. Conversely, Christianity believes Jesus to be the Messiah because they argue he did fulfill those prophecies or that he will fulfill the rest at the second coming, but those arguments are not included. I believe the lead would be more readable if it didn't included arguments or reasons behind religious beliefs, and just simply state the beliefs themselves. Flash 23:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how that's a POV violation (no opinion on whether the sourcing is good). After all, it has to be done once before it can be done twice. Also, it seems to me this is partly just semantics. The first sentence essentially gives a reason for a belief: "Jesus of Nazareth also known as Jesus Christ or simply Jesus, is the central figure of Christianity, which views him as the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament." The reason he is central is because he is viewed as the Messiah.... It's a nuanced differenced in wording, but not significant in meaning or POV, in my not-so-humble opinion. Noloop (talk) 01:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

There's a difference between going into detail of a particular belief and actually defending it. That Christianity views him as the Messiah is describing what Christianity believes, not defending it. The phrase I wanted to delete crosses the line between stating what a religion believes and stating the arguments which defend that belief. I would rather delete such apologetics altogether rather than add other arguments to an already lead section. Flash 03:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

A clause is not "going into detail." I see little significance in the distinction between defending and describing a belief, at least in this context: the sentence on Jews is describing what they believe. However, given your concern, a compromise might be: "Judaism does not believe Jesus fulfill the Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh, and doesn't accept him as a Messiah..Noloop (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the sentence "did not fulfill Messianic prophecies" is, whether he fulfilled Messianic prophecies or not is more of a scholarly debate rather than a religious belief. I know even some Christian scholars believe that Jesus did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies, and that he will fulfill them at the second coming. I have never seen it as a description of what Judaism believes, only as an argument which supports the Judaism belief.

The source used for the clause in question, is a Jewish apologetics book which only mentions it as one of many arguments, instead of what Judaism believes in general. Flash 03:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, whether he fulfilled Messianic prophecies or not is irrelevant to this article, or this statement. The fact is, Jewish belief is that he does not fulfill the prophecies. Period. It is a religious statement, as the truth of the matter ... well, doesn't matter. They don't believe he was the Messiah; a major reason is the belief that he does not fulfill the prophecies. Whether that's correct or not doesn't matter, it's part of their faith. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite

Yes, whether he fulfilled Messianic prophecies or not is irrelevant to this article. However, "he did not fulfill Messianic prophecies" is not a religious belief; the sources all refer to it as an argument for the belief that Jesus is not the Messiah, rather than a stand alone belief. For example, [25] Flash 00:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

One thing Flash is neglecting to mention is that the article provides the reasons Christians believe Jesus was the messiah. Apparently, when Christians do it, it is okay but when Jews do it, it is wrong. That is not my take on NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo template

{{Kosovo-note}} seems a bit dubious to me, or at least the placing of it on certain articles, say for example Morinë (which isn't even in Kosovo!) or Jarinje, where the template text is roughly as long as the article text which already deals with the sovereignty dispute. The template talk page might have been a better place to raise this, but I fear that the number of people with that watchlisted won't be that high and it might be a better idea for some fresh eyes on this. I'll drop a note there with a link to this discussion though. Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

An anonymous IP user (contribs) recently added the "template" to a huge number of pages, wherein most of which the note is quite irrelevant. Saying s/he went a little overboard would be an enormous understatement. Night w (talk) 14:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

That's de-facto banned editor Redking7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which is how I became aware of it in the first place. If it shouldn't be on articles like that do you just want to clean up the mess he's created, as his IP range should be blocked again shortly anyway. My time is somewhat limited, otherwise I'd do it myself.... 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll do as much as I can find. Is it possible for you to alert the admins that he's editing again? He's also caused quite a bit of disturbance on other pages I'm involved with. Night w (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Template was introduced here (Talk:Šar_Mountains#Footnote_workshop) by admin User:Ev, as necessary in order to stop vandal edits, and problematic edit warring (Serbia, Kosovo / disputed province of Kosovo / Republic of Kosovo / Kosovo, Serbia ...)

Note should be added instead all of those, as Kosovo is de facto very disputed province, so it was voted as best possible solution. I do not agree that placing those is irrelevant. That note was main factor for peace on Kosovo related articles. For more, talk to User:Ev, or me, or User:Nikola Smolenski. --Tadija^speaks 15:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, nobody is arguing the value of the template; rather its relevance on certain pages to which it was recently added by an sp user. Night w (talk) 15:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it was just very badly added. I re-added it on Jarinje, so you can see how it should look like... :) --Tadija^speaks 15:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me I am the IP editor in discussion - I am not a sock for any one. I do not want an account. Please respect that. This is unfair to try to make out that I am some sock for a banned editor. I did add the Kosovo template to a number of articles - I think nearly all of which were in the category...what on earth is wrong with that? As Tadija says, the note should be listed on those articles. 84.203.69.86 (talk) 21:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I have a right not to create an account here....This is most unfair. I am not a sock and what on earth have I done wrong...I have promoted worthwhile discussion. I even helped get a conensus on the Talk: Kosovo-note template (the use of which they are listing as a reason for banning me!). Please help! What edits have I done wrong...now you are trying to say I am a sock - On what basis? Why do you say that? YOu have no right to just sling allegations around. I have a right to be an IP editor....every one in the world can see my IP address....I am not an "anon sock". You should prove it if you are trying to just drum up noise to get me banned! I never attack any editor personally and look at me now, you and a few others on that page appear intent on getting me banned. 84.203.69.86 (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I am conscious that I am likely to be censored soon...Please set out the reason, the evidence (if you like) - before you go off trying to ban me for being some sock? Do I get a hearing? 84.203.69.86 (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

deleting some of the Ten Commandments

The Ten Commandments article has been stable for a year and a half with the text of its three Biblical versions sitting side by side for comparison, but with the divergent version otherwise split off as a sub-article, Ritual Decalogue. Now several editors are edit warring to have that version deleted from the main article, without presenting any evidence in argument apart from their own opinions. AFAIK, per WP:BRD, the old stable form of the article should at least remain in place unless and until we can work out a new consensus. I agree that, as the 3rd version is not the TC's of popular conception, a sub-article is warranted, with the main article concentrating on the other two versions; however, in a table purporting to compare the versions of the TC's, all three should be included. Otherwise IMO the article is only about some of the TC's, and so shouldn't be called "Ten Commandments". Any opinions here?

A typical argument for deletion is that, although there are three Decalogues, there are only two sets of Ten Commandments, because "Decalogue" and "Ten Commandments" are not synonyms except in academic writing, despite the fact that the article itself treats the terms as synonyms, and every dictionary I've consulted treats them as synonyms. (Webster's Collegiate, which would presumably cover common rather than just academic usage, simply defines "Decalogue" as "TEN COMMANDMENTS" and pays it no more attention than that.)

There are numerous RS's which refer to the three versions of the TC's/Decalogue. For example, in The Hebrew Bible: A Brief Socio-Literary Introduction (Norman Gottwald, 2008), in the lede of the section called "Terse Lists of Prohibitions: The Ten Commandments" (p. 118), it says,

"There are two lists of pithy prohibitions in Exod. 20:1-17 (paralleled in Deut. 5:6-21) and in Exod. 34:11-26 that occupy pivotal points in the theophany and covenant texts. The lists of Exodus 34 and Deuteronomy 5 are called "ten commandments" in the biblical text (cf. Exod 34:27 and Deut. 4:13; 10:4), and that title, or the equivalent Latin term Decalogue, has traditionally been applied to the list of Exodus 20/Deuteronomy 5. Biblical scholars often distinguish the Exodus 20/Deuteronomy 5 list from the Exodus 34 list on the basis of content by referring to the former as the Ethical Decalogue and the latter as the Ritual Decalogue."

[Exod. 34, which I bolded, is what the editors want to deleted from the TC's article.]

That is, both terms are commonly applied to the two versions the article concentrates on (the 'Ethical Decalogue'), but the third version is also called the "ten commandments" in the Bible itself. Also,

"The Ten Commandments occur in three versions. Two are almost identical with each other [...], but the third, which apparently replaced the tablets that were broken, is quite different" (Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch. T. Desmond Alexander, David Weston Baker, 2003:501)

This "Ritual Decalogue", as it's called to disambiguate, has also been called the "ritual Ten Commandments" as far back as a century ago:

"The Pentateuch also states that Moses committed to writing certain laws and records : 'all the words of J",' Ex 24³ (E)—what these 'words' were is not stated ; the ritual Ten Commandments, Ex 34²⁸ (J) ; the register of the Stations in the Wilderness, ..." (A Dictionary of the Bible: Kir-Pleiades. Hastings, Selbie, Davidson, Driver, & Swete, eds., 1900:446)

Again, I can see removing discussion of the third version to a subarticle, but I can't see deleting it from a table that purports to compare the versions of the TC's. WP:BRD should IMO be respected during the discussion phase ('there is no R after the D'). — kwami (talk) 06:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The idea that "the third version is also called the 'ten commandments' in the Bible itself" is a part of the divergent theory itself. None of the Biblical religions agree with this interpretation.

It's not like the concept is being taken out of the article. It's simply being moved so as to avoid giving it undue weight.

Nor, I think, can the time that the problematic version has remained "stable" be considered an argument in its defense. Wikipedia is like that. There are many articles, and there are only so many hours in a day. From time to time things are overlooked, and when attention is focused on them, appropriate changes are made. I wasn't aware of this problem until someone else drew my attention to it, but had I been aware of it a year and a half ago, I certainly would not have acquiesced to the placement of the so-called "Ritual Decalogue" being placed on equal footing with the actual Ten Commandments. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 11:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Tourism in Israel

On Tourism in Israel users have been removing any mention of the fact that East Jerusalem is considered occupied Palestinian territory and repeatedly implying that EJ is in Israel. This is a view not accepted by any state except for Israel and the super-majority of sources are clear on the point that EJ is not in Israel. This edit shows the issue here with users insisting that EJ be included without any mention of the overwhelming view that it is occupied territory. Is it acceptable under WP:NPOV to imply that EJ is in Israel when the overwhelming majority of quality sources clearly state that it is not? nableezy - 02:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

If the subject of the article is "Tourism in Israel", then per WP:NOR and WP:SYN any source used to advance a position must be in relation to the article subject, i.e. Tourism in Israel. Crum375 (talk) 03:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of such sources that specifically discuss the Israeli occupation of EJ and the rest of the WB and the Golan in the context of tourism and I have just added them to the article. But either way, an article is implying a fringe view as fact. Is that acceptable? nableezy - 03:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

If there are sources which discuss the political status of various tourist attractions in the context of tourism, they may be included, in my view, so long as they don't overwhelm the article, per WP:UNDUE. As far as "fringe view", the views of any sovereign country are not fringe, by definition. On Wikipedia "fringe" means a group which is so tiny as to be ignored, and a country can never be considered that, since it typically includes millions of people, including academics, politicians, authors, etc. On the other hand, balancing views from outside the country may be used, if they relate to the article subject, as I noted above. Crum375 (talk) 04:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Forgive my use of "fringe", replace that with "extreme minority position". When compared to a near unanimity among other states and sources it is an extreme minority position. nableezy - 04:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Please make a mention on the talk page of the article so all parties involved don;t feel like there is a surprise.

This issue is all based on editors seeing "Tourism in Israel" and arguing that certain areas are not in Israel. That is debated. Intl community says no but in reality, Israel treats it as so and handles administration. Tourism wise, Israel has national parks in these areas. People stay in Israel proper and rent cars to go to these places. Books discussing tourism lump the together. Here are some examples from when certain cites were removed:

• Banias[26][27][28]
• Qumran[29][30][31][32]
• Mount Hermon[33][34][35][36]
• Katzrin[37][38][39][40][41][42]
• Gamla[43][44][45]
• Nimrod Fortress[46][47]
• Bethlehem[48][49][50][51]

I do believe the title needs to be changed to Israel and the Palestinian territories since many sources treat it like that. I also believe it should be mentioned that there is a dispute. I do not believe disclaimers are needed above multiple paragraphs from sources that barely discuss tourism with passe=ages not related to tourism.Cptnono (talk) 04:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I did make a mention on the talk page. Pay closer attention next time. And the inclusion of these areas is not the issue, sources do discuss them while discussing Israeli tourism, so I do not know what it is you are arguing here. nableezy - 04:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I missed it. Unfortunately this is an issue of more than just EJ and all of them need to be figured out to make it work. Only attempting to fix one aspect of it won't work and could even make it worse.Cptnono (talk) 04:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This source discusses how Israel has been marketing East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights as Israeli tourist destinations and that the practice has been banned in the UK. The article also, BTW, brusquely claims that Jerusalem is both in Israel and it's capital city, which again needs correction. This point can be introduced into the article to the sections affected, IMO. --Dailycare (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with Crum's well-articulated comments above.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

National Development Front

I ran across National Development Front as part of the July copyediting drive by the Guild of Copyeditors. The article describes the group in ways that may not be adequately or accurately sourced or couched (such as describing the group as "extremist," which is almost always a loaded term, and "hard-line"). I declined a major copyedit because of the potential for POV problems and placed an expert and POV check tag on the article as needing to be resolved before I could do any major copyediting on it. I am not familiar enough with this subject to really tackle a significant content dispute if someone wants to edit war over it, but I am concerned about the article's tone, so I thought bringing it here might get a few more eyes on it. And, of course, it may ultimately be fine, but I'd rather someone a little more knowledgeable take a look. Thanks. — e. ripley\^talk 12:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"Extremist" is more or less what reliable sources term the organization. That being said, I think the article is quite sensationalist in a few places and am definitely willing to work with other users in improving the encyclopedicity of the article.Pectore^talk 20:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I would really appreciate that. I have the article watchlisted and will help also as I can, for what it's worth. Thank you. — e. ripley\^talk 01:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Circumcision

Disclaimer: I am uncircumcised / non-circumcised.

Now that I've got your attention (and apologies for the way too much information...), could I draw your attention to a dispute at Talk:Circumcision#The problem with language deemed offensive such as "Uncircumcised", and in particular efforts to resolve it at Talk:Circumcision#Feedback request on consensus for 'uncircumcised'. This is a dispute about the neutrality of the word "uncircumcised". It's been going on for a while, and has previously spilled over into ANI (which is how I encountered it) but has continued since then, without any sign of being resolved amicably.

I've asked the editors there to summarise their positions for and against "uncircumcised", which they have done at:

• Talk:Circumcision#NPOVN: brief summary describing why some editors feel "uncircumcised" is non-neutral; and
• Talk:Circumcision#NPOVN: brief summary describing why some editors feel "uncircumcised" is neutral.

Many thanks. TFOWR 11:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Not enough voices yet to say that "uncircumcised" is problematic. One person at a conference and an organisation avoiding it in a report doesn't indicate that the English language has changed. It might do in future though. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

:: Correction: Two national medical associations avoiding it in recent policy statements, and two examples of advocacy groups explaining why it is problematic. - MishMich - Talk - 12:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a distortion. The two medical groups MishMich mentions are actually single documents issued by the groups on circumcision in general, and neither of them uses "noncircumcised" or "uncircumcised". Neither document is evidence of conscious avoidance by the groups as a whole. MishMich has taken to deleting my comments from the Talk page in question, allegedly because they are in the wrong place (which may or may not be true, but would be a reason to move someone's comments, not outright delete them). Based on behavior, I don't believe MishMich is bringing much fairness or open-mindedness to the topic. Noloop (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

:::: It is not a distortion. These are the official policy statements of the two national medical professional associations of two European countries, one in the UK - the BMA - the other the Netherlands. I removed your comment, as it as in the section for support that the term is not neutral - and it did not fit under that section; and I notified you of that so you could move it to a more appropriate section. You replaced it in that section - so I moved it to the section for support that it is neutral. I have not attacked you, I fail to see why you bring bad-faith accusations against me, especially as you have had no previous interaction. Stick to the issue under discussion - do not attack editors you do not agree with here, please. - MishMich - Talk - 22:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

As with TFOWR, I ran across this issue in ANI due to the fact there was an edit war going on in the article. Most Americans in my age bracket, Jew and Gentile alike, were circumcised routinely, for hygienic reasons, and while I'm glad they did, I have no particular interest in the issue one way or another. I do understand that certain political groups do. What I don't like in wikipedia is when single-purpose accounts or narrowly-focused accounts try to impose a fringe or one-sided view into an article in an effort to try to give that view false notability, which is an approach that we more experienced editors have seen time after time, and when we try to excise it, we are predictably accused of being part of a conspiracy against their cause. "Uncircumcised" is one word whose meaning is both non-judgmentally descriptive, and unambiguous in its definition. Its alleged "pejorative" nature is the invention of political correctness, citing obsolete usages of the term. Its primary definition simply describes the condition of not having been circumcised. There is no notable neutrality issue with that term. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

::: Fortunately that is not the case here, as mine is not an SPA '(insert - and I have not engaged in an edit war on this matter)', and my only involvement in the article is from the point I was first alerted to the neutrality issues inherent in the article. I live in the UK, which is closer to the rest of European and other English speaking countries outside the USA, where circumcision is not routine, is not the norm, and is not widely accepted amongst the public or medical associations. If this article is to be neutral, it has to go further in representing a global view. The USA is in a minority in the west when it comes to routine circumcision. - MishMich - Talk - 13:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere in the definition of either "circumcised" or "uncircumcised" is either one declared to be the "norm". Consider the words "ambiguous" and "unambiguous". Neither is the "norm". They are merely opposite conditions. If there were a single word for "uncircumcised", it could be different. You're arguing that "intact" and "normal" are single word substitutions. They are not, because they are vague and ambiguous. "Circumcised" and "uncircumcised" are precise, just like their colloquial equivalents "cut" and "uncut". Let's suppose that "hatted" or "collared" were common synonyms for uncircumcised. Then "unhatted" and "uncollared" would equate to circumcised, and it could work, although I don't think "hatted" or "uncollared" are common usage; in fact I might have just made them up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

::::: You persist in putting words into my mouth. I have not said that 'intact penis' should be substituted for 'uncircumcised penis'. I have said that I am sensitive to the problem that people have with the word 'intact'; rather, I have said, very clearly, several times (without any objection given as to why it would be problematic) that 'penis with foreskin' would be good alternative that people COULD use (not MUST). I have never insisted that only one term can be used to describe a penis that has not been circumcised, I have offered an alternative. This has been ignored. I have also clearly stated I have no personal problem with 'uncircumcised', but am sensitive to the fact that some people have issues with it (just like with 'intact'); however, I do not see it as neutral. I have also made it clear that only see it as derogatory when applied to a person, not a thing - as in the way it has been used by some religious groups to refer to 'gentiles', 'infidels', or 'heathens'; this is a different situation. So, all I am suggesting is that 'uncircumcised penis' does not need to be rigidly enforced as the only way of referring to a penis with a foreskin, but 'penis with foreskin' would be just as appropriate - and both accurate and neutral. Instead, I get bombarded with all sorts of irrelevant comments that do not address my point. The BMA and others avoid it, some advocacy groups object to it, so clearly not everybody likes it - so why insist that we only use that term? The neutral approach would be to find a term that is not problematic - to 'either side' - and use that. I can think of no better way of describing a penis with a foreskin by calling it what it is, rather than what it is not. - MishMich - Talk - 16:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

How is 'penis with foreskin' the opposite of 'circumcised penis'? that sounds like weasle words to me.Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I did a quick scan and it looks that at least the BBC and NYT use "uncircumcised" quite a lot (of males and females), so I don't think there is a strong WP:NPOV case against using the term. Of course other terms can also be used. Now that I do think of it, "uncircumcised" does have a slight connotation that the person would have been circumcised and the procedure would somehow have been reversed, but as WP:RS use the term we should too. If there is a controversy around the term, it can be mentioned as a specific point. --Dailycare (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

:::::::: Please explain how describing a penis with a foreskin as a "penis with foreskin" is weasel words. The unmodified penis has a foreskin, the modfied penis doesn't because it has been circumcised - so is referred to as a 'circumcised penis'. - MishMich - Talk - 18:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I have struck out my comments, as I have been informed that the person who placed this request for comment asked that discussion take place on the article talk page (I misread that, and took him to mean 'here' as here, not there). Please make further comments there, not here - I will establish a section for that discussion. - MishMich - Talk - 22:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs is right on. While uncircumcised could suggest a default behavior, it is used by almost everyone and certainly by the vast majority of reliable sources. If the term is a reflection of current social practice which are biased towards circumcision, you'll have to change them first, or at least change the way people talk about them, before bringing it here. Wikipedia is does not reflect the cutting edge (there, I did it), and is not the place to advance a new approach to language, even if you're right about your underlying belief. Ocaasi (talk) 17:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Neutral Volunteer to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Begoun (please)

Hi,

I recently created an account to update the Living Persons Bio for Paula Begoun. I work for her, and didn't realize that this was a conflict (I thought if we provided citations, etc,) and thus the page received the "Bias Message." I understood, and revised further to remove any possible suspect details, and gave even further credible citations. I spoke with a person in my "Talk" and they suggested I attach a note here for a neutral editor to voluteer to give us a green light or advise of any further edits. I thought that by divulging my connection to Paula Begoun that would be transparency, but I understand the process. Any volunteers would be great: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Begoun Paula's Choice (talk) 23:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Nathan

Here is the "Talk" log:

Thank you, I appreciate the help! I am not sure if this question is your department, but the page in question http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Begoun received a flag for bias warning. I have revised and removed any language that may have warrented this, along with providing additional credible citations. Again, I am not sure if this is your department, but would this qualify to have the warning removed? Paula's Choice (talk) 23:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Nathan

I get the impression that you're directly connected with Paula Begoun; it would be good if you get a totally neutral person to review it first. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard is most often used for problems with people trying to advertise, but I think that if you left a note there asking for some neutral editor/s to give it read, you'd probably find a volunteer or two. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paula's Choice (talk • contribs)

It has some citations but it still reads far more like a resume or press release than like an encyclopedia entry. I will make a few tweaks but you can too. Look at some featured articles on living people and see how they are written. Everything that is vague and unverifiable has to go. The resulting article might be shorter and more terse. You did the right thing coming here. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Referring to religious beliefs as "superstitious"

Could some other editors come to Talk:List of teetotalers#Religious section edits and help decide whether this edit is or is not in keeping with WP:NPOV? Thanks. +Angr 08:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I replied on the talk page by requesting a source for the statement. The WP:V issue should be resolved before it is treated as a NPOV issue. Blue Rasberry 20:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Genesis creation narrative

Recently Genesis creation myth was renamed to Genesis creation narrative after a long discussion. I feel that this is a clear violation of WP:NPOV, since we have numerous other creation myth and creation mythology pages that was not renamed, giving this myth special status among them. The definitions of narrative and myth are quite different. I started a discussion on this point here, and would like to bring it up here as well. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 23:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be right on the face of it. Does one need to read the whole long discussion to offer an informed opinion on this matter? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well there is a huge long discussion about what to rename it too, then a more concise discussion below about renaming it specifically to "narrative." But really I think the whole thing should be null-and-void since it wasn't talking about renaming all creation myth pages but only one specific religion's creation myth, which throws it clearly out of line with WP:NPOV. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 23:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, eitehr rename all creation pages or do not rename this one.Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It was brought up at the Fringe Theories page as well: [52] My main take on the whole issue, from that page: "Myth" connotes something obsolete; that's why people object to describing their own beliefs as myths. We don't need to debate this: we have the fact of the theists' objections. "Narrative" carries a much-reduced connotation of falsehood. The development of modern physics can be a narrative. That's why it is cultural bias to call traditional Hindu beliefs a mythology, while calling analogous Christian beliefs a narrative.Noloop (talk) 14:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This discussion should have been linked to at the article talk page for broader input and transparency. Please do not start BLP, NPOV, or RS discussions at noticeboards without notifying the involved parties. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I also highly suggest that people actually do read through the discussions. There are only 4-5 entries related to specific creation myths that have the term in the titles. The norm is not to have "creation myth" in the title. Specifically, to Noloop's example, Hindu creation myths are not in an entry titled "Hindu creation myths" but are covered in Hindu cosmology. I have no idea what you are talking about. There is, in the modern "false" sense of the term, a serious myth of inequity being spread around here.Griswaldo (talk) 15:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying. There is an article Hindu mythology, which is what I wikilinked to. I am pleasantly surprised to discover there are also articles on Christian mythology, Jewish mythology, and Islamic mythology which ameliorates my concerns somewhat. Still, I wonder if there is an NPOV problem in having articles on the same topics, some written from a secular persepctive and some from theist's perspective. Maybe that's a "POV fork" (I've never been completely clear about that term). Noloop (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion was about creation myths specifically. As you can see there are articles covering the mythologies of the Judeo-Christian religions. Drop down to creation myths specifically and once again there is no disparity between Hinduism and these religions because the Hindu creation myths are not in an entry with a title that contains "creation myth" either. What articles are written from a "theists" perspective? I don't follow.Griswaldo (talk) 16:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The topic is about the avoidance of the term "myth" in Christian topics generally, and to a much greater degree than is found in our coverage of non-Western religions. For example, there is an article on Jesus and separate article on Jesus Christ as myth, as if Jesus weren't primarily about a myth. I see no such separation for other legendary figures who probably have some historic basis, such as Odysseus or Vyasa. Systematic replacement of "creation myth" with "creation narrative" in article text as well as naming is the same type of systemic bias. Noloop (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no "systematic replacement of 'creation myth' with 'creation narrative' in article text." There was a discussion and decision made about the article title only. There has been, and I've been happily contributing to this, a systematic policing of article text to make sure that "creation myth" is not replaced where it is used appropriately in the text. It's better to argue against things that are actually happening than against phantom problems. In regard to Christ myth theory, you are aware that in all scholarship, secular scholarship as well as any other, this is a fringe theory? Scholars except the historicity of Jesus much more so than for Odysseus. You are also aware that Odysseus is being described as a legendary figure in the entry and not a mythic one. There is a big difference, even though the scholarly definition of myth makes no judgement on the historicity of the events in the first place. Legends, however, are usually based in history to some extent or another rather explicitly. It's good not to conflate popular usage of either "legend" or "myth" here. I fail to so any arguments here that are based in the facts surrounding any of these entries or the scholarship supporting them.Griswaldo (talk) 19:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The issue isn't limited to the naming of an article. This is an instance of a problem that is discussed on the Fringe noticeboard (as I mentioned above), in edit commentaries, and on article Talk pages. It is an instance of a general problem of "myth" being applied more readily to non-Western religions than Western ones. Regarding Odysseus and Jesus, you missed the point. It doesn't matter whose historicity was greater; Odysseus was one example, of many possible. The substance of an article on Jesus is mythical: a narrative about miracles, resurrection, god(s), etc., and his place in the religious belief system. Jesus and the myth of Jesus should be the same article. Noloop (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

We have three pages on creation. this one Creation myth, then we have a whole seperate one on creationsism (justifiable) Creationism, then we have a apge that just discuses the Judeo-Christian creation myth Genesis creation narrative. then we have another page on Book of Genesis. Yet no other religions creation myth has even one page dedicated to that subject. Rather they tend to be lumped into pages called say Hopi mythology.Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Creation myth is a page of all creation myths, not one religion, Creationism makes up part of a large grouping of articles (Category:Creationism) that mostly deal with it's views vs. evolution. Genesis creation narrative deals with the creation myth in the book of Genesis, which is really only the first chapter or two, and then Book of Genesis deals with the book as a whole. You make it seem as if they're all dealing with the same subject. Also just because we have The Bible and some other religions doesn't have as many followers, doesn't have a large collected body of ancient writings to draw upon, does that mean we treat biblical myths with anymore truth then another religions myths? Thats the issue here, is, to be neutral we have to treat them all the same not word ones article to sound more true then others. Changing the name to "narrative" sounds more like it could be true then "myth." — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 13:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make (badly) is that to claim that its not POV to call the biblical creation myth a narrative because there are no other page about other religions creation myth is itself an example of the systematic bias that favours western subjects over non-western subjects. There are more then three pages that discuses the Judeo-Christian creation story, many other religions have only one page discussing their whole religious beliefs (some not even that it would seem). And as far as I can tell none have discussion of both their primary book (the bible) the individual section (Genesis) and specific subject (creation) (and of course I have left out other pages on related subjects). The best you will get is a page about a given religions equivalent of the Book of Genesis.Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Israeli settler violence

Israeli settler violence is having some reverts based on how to describe Yesh Din.

• Wikipedia: "...an Israeli human rights group providing legal assistance to citizens of the Palestinian territories."
• "About us": "...is comprised of volunteers who have organized to oppose the continuing violation of Palestinian human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory."

This started because an editor added "pro-Palestinian" (inclusion I disagree with although personally it makes some sense) to a line that called the group "the Israeli human rights group". It is obvious that it is a human rights group. However, it is just as important that their focus is in the Palestinian territories. They have a dog in the fight and it impacts their assessment of the subject. Not making any mention of this could be misleading to the reader since the group is not (and not expected to) neutral. There are a handful of solutions which border from easy to absurd:

• Simply use the wikilink and not any description
• Modify it to "a group that focuses on human rights issues of the Palestinians"
• Add "...with a focus on the Palestinian territories"
• Modify it to "a human rights group focusing on violations of Palestinian rights in the occupied Palestinian territories"
• Attribute the "occupied" bit "...what the group calls the Occupied Palestinian Territory"
• Quote it (would look like scare quotes to me though) A group that opposes "the continuing violation of Palestinian human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory"

Seems like a trivial issue that some simple wording could have fixed but I don't trust anyone over there (including myself) to be looking at this with clearly neutral eyes and there have already been too many reverts and bickering (again some only in the edit summaries and others on the talk page) to be productive. Any suggestions on if the wording can be altered to address the concerns?Cptnono (talk) 06:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the "what the group calls the Occupied Palestinian Territories" one. OPT is a standard term e.g. it is called such in advice by the British Foreign Office.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

They actually call it the Occupied Palestinian Territory. And the point of the quote was also to clarify the human rights bit. Might be pulling teeth but it is different. Also, enough people do not call it occupied that it is contentious. Since there is not a standard to say "occupied" before every use of "Palestinian territory" it might just be easier to avoid the issue. "a group focusing on the human rights of Palestinians" would be something that I doubt anyone would object to unless they are just trying to make a point. Cptnono (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Their focus is not on human rights of Palestinians, they focus on violations committed by Israeli forces and by Israeli settlers in the occupied territories. I dont believe they have said anything about the human rights of Palestinian refugees outside of the occupied territories or any Palestinians in Israel. They also do not focus on violations of Palestinian human rights committed by Palestinians. The easiest things would be to just say human rights organization and let people click the link if they want more information. nableezy - 19:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's the right place for the explanation what Yesh Din is, and any such explanation will reduce readability and by that miss the target of creating great encyclopedic article. A brief description like "human rights organization", combined with wikilink is perfectly enough. --Super.zhid (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Their focus is Palestinians. It isn't about the multiple other problems throughout the world. When an organization has such a particular focus that they are critical of one of the subjects in the dispute it should be laid out clearly. Just a wikilink would be fine with me instead but just saying they are a humans rights group is misleading since they have voiced a contentious opinion on a contentious issue. I still don't think "pro Palestinian" is appropriate but only saying human rights misleads the reader. If Nableezy's point is that they are often critical of Israel then that would also be a substitute that would let the reader know that the group being mentioned is not neutral in the dispute. Cptnono (talk) 09:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It is absolutely not "misleading" to call them a human rights organization. They are, whatever else you think of them, a human right organization. And you misread my point. Since it was relatively easy to understand I dont feel the need to explain it any further. nableezy - 13:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean. However, some qualifier is needed to provide the reader with the most basic idea what Yesh Din is. The fact that every NGO neutrality is sometimes disputed, doesn't mean that we have to add "who's neutrality is questioned by some" to every reference of, for example, HRW. --Super.zhid (talk) 11:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I was the one to add 'pro-Palestinian' in this edit in a copyedit. Technically, Yesh Din is an 'Israeli human rights org.' but in fact, as confirmed above, it is limited to the rights of Palestinians with regard to Israelis, not about self-Palestinian human rights violations. I agree eith cptnono. If we cannot qualify what kind of human rights group it is, then it should be left on its own. --Shuki (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Editors adding scare quotes around a term that they allege cited sources are incorrect to use

Resolved

Should an editor be allowed to add scare quotes around a term because they allege that the cited sources are incorrect to use that term?

An example of this is when a creationist adds scare quotes around the "theory" of evolution, or when a climate-change skeptic adds scare quotes around climate "science" or around "scientific consensus". In this case, monarchists are trying to add scare quotes around "British monarchy" because they allege that the cited sources are wrong to use the term.

The Wikipedia article on scare quotes states: "Style guides generally recommend the avoidance of scare quotes in impartial works, such as in encyclopedia articles or academic discussion." Wikipedia:Manual of Style specifically discourages the use of scare quotes.

The article where this dispute is taking place is Debate on the monarchy in Canada, and on its talk page there has been an initial discussion and an ongoing Request for Comment discussion, both of which I started.

The specific article text at the center of the dispute are the following sentences that appear under the section "Polls":[53]

An Angus Reid Strategies poll conducted in September 2007 reported that the majority 53% of Canadians do not want the country to retain formal ties to the British monarchy, while 35% did, and 12% were unsure.

A poll conducted by Angus Reid in March 2008 also reported that the majority of Canadians believe it is time to end the country's official relationship with the British monarchy.

A group of three or four editors are trying to add scare quotes around the words "British monarchy" in those sentences because they contend that the cited polls were wrong to use the term and they wish the article presentation to somehow contest the cited term.

I have tried to point out that the core, non-negotiable Wikipedia content policies are clear about not doing that. Wikipedia:Verifiability states as its first line: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Wikipedia:No original research states: "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources."

Because the Request for Comment discussion that I opened is going in circles with the same few editors ignoring these policies, I would greatly appreciate your NPOV noticeboard input there. In particular I am hoping that an administrator might come make this case in defense of Wikipedia's core principles, but I definitely welcome any and all support or constructive input. 65.92.212.239 (talk) 05:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

To follow up, an administrator from this board kindly reviewed the issue and discussion, and stated: "If the original text does not include the quotation marks, the article should not include the quotation marks. An RfC cannot overturn basic Wikipedia policy." I am marking my request here as resolved. Thank you very much for your assistance. 65.92.212.100 (talk) 07:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Tali-Ihantala controversy

Hi

One user User:Tbma have such a strong feelings that this battle is a Hoax and never took place. He has nothing to support this claim, no scholars, no historians more than his own home made thoughts. Despite this he continue to put a NPOV and a Disputed tag on this article. He don't approve any sources Finnish, Russian, Swedish or Anglo-American.

I want the board to prove:

-A: Is this battle a hoax? (I ask despite the fact that my own grandfather fought in it)

-B: Are there anything to be criticise in the sources?

Posse72 (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't say tha batle is not a hoax, I was not there. But tehr are plenty of RS that say it happend. I would also say that some (I have looked at enough to convinice myself the battle is supported by RS) of the sources are RS.Slatersteven (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

If you put the phrase "Battle of Tali-Ihantala" into Google and search for "Books", a whole lot of books come up that would count as reliable sources. eg 500 Days: The War in Eastern Europe, 1944-1945 - Page 184. If it is a hoax, a lot of respectable historians must have been taken in, but, regardless, our test is verifiability, not truth, and so I would say we should treat the battle as it is treated in the verifiable sources (ie not a hoax). Bluewave (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Mary Ann Block -- uncited POV lines

Mary Ann Block: Badly written with multiple uncited POV lines suggesting she A) Knows what she's doing, or B) Doesn't. 66.75.27.117 (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I see this is now marked for deletion, which would presumably solve the problem! I looked for Block's books on Amazon and could only find one, and that was a mere 63 pages long and the publisher was "Block Books". I would doubt the notability of the author. (But, this could be sour grapes on my part, as I've written 3 books and they were published by proper publishing houses and I haven't got, nor would expect, an article about me!) Bluewave (talk) 09:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses - Doctrinal Criticisms section

The section in the main article Jehovah's Witnesses under Doctrinal Criticisms, violates, I feel Wikipedia's NPOV policy for several reasons and isn't accurately placed. 1. Accusing JW of being a false prophet isn't really a doctrinal criticism. If someone critices JW position on the Trinity or hellfire, that would be a doctrinal criticism.

2. These sources 296-299, are used to claim that JW claim to be a prophet. This sets the basis for the argument that Wikipedia develops, not other sources. These sources are taken out of context from Jehovah's Witness' publications and do not support the claim made bgy Wikipedia editors. The two sources which refer to JW as a "prophet" are antiquated, 1959, and 1972, and refer to them as such only in the context of preaching the good news, not in the sense that Wikipedia currently claims, of making advanced predictions. [296] [297]. The other two references from JW literature do not say anything about JW being a "prophet". [298] [299]

3. There is synthesis between the thoughts expressed in this sentence from JW literature, that the Wikpedia editor puts together, rather than any referenced source.

Jehovah's Witnesses (and previously, the International Bible Students) as a "prophet" to declare God's will[296][297][298][299] and has equipped them with advanced knowledge about future world events.[300]

These two thoughts, [296] [297] [298] [299] and that of [300], express a synthesis of two ideas in JW literature, that the Wikipedia editor makes, and that JW literature, nor outside sources, make.

The one outside reference in this section that is up to Wikipedia standards, from Robert Compton, does the book not refer to JW anywhere in his book as a "false prophet," but does refer to Bible passages with the word "false prophet" in it, but not using the words "false prophet" with reference to JW.[301]

The following paragraph, then should be removed, it is, in my opinion, original research, a synthesis of ideas from JW literature, from a Wikipedia editor rather than reliable outside sources, to lead one to the conclusion that the Wikipedia editor is trying to make, rather than that of going to referenced third party neutral sources. Sources on the Internet that refer to JW as a "false prophet" are generally from antagonist clergymen or JW apostates, rather than from any reputable source.

This paragraph, then, should be removed -

Watch Tower Society publications have claimed that God has used Jehovah's Witnesses (and previously, the International Bible Students) as a "prophet" to declare God's will[296][297][298][299] and has equipped them with advanced knowledge about future world events.[300] Jehovah's Witnesses' publications have made many predictions about world events they believe were prophesied in the Bible.[297][301] Failure of such predictions has led to the alteration or abandonment of some doctrines.[302]

If this paragraph is removed and the sentences following are given some attention, then a neutral point of view can be maintained.

There are other areas in the article where I feel that the editors of Wikipedia, one of whom openly states in his page that he has a animosity to JW, being a former JW himself. This is the main protaganist of this doctrine on the Wikipedia page, along with another editor who seems also to have a bias against JW, although willing to yield and present both viewpoints on certain points.Natural (talk) 02:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Natural

Do all the denominations have doctrinal criticism sections, or are just certain ones being singled out? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Several points to make here:

1. The section is part of a summary of a spinout article, Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses. It is fair, factual, written in an editorially neutral tone, based on reliable sources and contains a rebuttal from the Watch Tower Society.

2. The opening statement that the Watch Tower Society claims God uses the JWs as his prophet and has "equipped them with advance knowledge of future world events" is based on articles in Watch Tower publications. One of the cited articles, "They Shall Know That a Prophet Was Among Them", (The Watchtower, April 1, 1972) contains a discussion about the role of Old Testament prophets and asks the question, "Does Jehovah have a prophet to ... warn them of dangers and to declare things to come? ... These questions can be answered in the affirmative. Who is this prophet? ... Today they are known as Jehovah’s Christian witnesses." A 1959 Watchtower article cited notes the role of JWs as God's "prophet to the nations", the "modern Jeremiah" and the apparent success of a prophecy that the League of Nations would fall apart. The article also notes the JW prediction that the United Nations is "also doomed to join the League of Nations". User:Naturalpsychology arbitrarily dismisses those sources as "antiquated", but both articles are among a library of Watch Tower publications dating back to 1950 contained on a CDRom that all Witnesses are encouraged to own and use for research. He also makes the false claim that that articles do not use the word "prophet" in the context of making future predictions. In fact the 1972 one refers to JWs as a "modern day Ezekiel", a group that gives warning of what they believe God will do in the future. Other WT articles cited in the article include a 1997 magazine in which JWs again are compared with Old Testament prophets to whom God "revealed" warnings "of what was to come" and described as "God's messenger".

3. Two books are cited, by Crompton and Beverley, that contain the explicit claim that JWs are a false prophet because of specific predictions made in the past about events that did not take place. Crompton writes of the JWs' "failed predictions"; Beverley spends several pages detailing false predictions. Watch Tower Society publications themselves have dealt with accusations of being a false prophet, thus acknowleding the claim exists.

4. It is certainly a doctrinal issue that a religious organisation describes itself as a "prophet", directly and specifically chosen by God as his sole representative on earth to give warning of a future calamity, and that the religion has an intricate chronological system in which it calculates when various parts of God's destruction will take place. The issue is therefore appropriately located in the article.

5. Naturalpsychology refers to me in his final, slighting reference to a former JW with an animosity to the religion. He fails to note that he is a current member of the religion. Any intrinsic "bias" he implies on my part will be mirrored by his own. Neither is terribly important. What matters is that the material presented in the article is fair, balanced and editorially neutral. It is.

6. The spinout Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses article is one of a number of articles dealing with criticism of religions. Others include Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Judaism, Criticism of Mormonism and Scientology controversy. BlackCab (talk) 06:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there a Criticism of Roman Catholicism or Criticism of Presbyterianism, for example? Apparently not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually there is a Criticism of the Catholic Church article. But I don't know what relevance you are placing on that comment. The complaint lodged here is not with the Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses article, but a sentence of the Jehovah's Witnesses article. It has been made by a Jehovah's Witness who has embarked on a one-man campaign to remove all criticism of his religion from the article, probably so it ends up as a promotional vehicle. His complaint here is on the grounds of bias, or a lack of neutrality. I have detailed reasons above why his grounds for complaint are baseless. BlackCab (talk) 07:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists are the only two religions which have a criticisms section on their main page. If there is a criticisms page for other religion it is always on a seperate page. I had put forth that thought, but User BlackCab who is a former JW and openly against JW, would not permit the criticisms section to be removed from the front page, it was only edited down slightly. There is a large Criticisms of Jehovah's Witnesses page, which BlackCab has worked on, which is larger than the main Jehovah's Witness page itself. Much of the Criticisms section in the main Jehovah's Witness page was carbon copied from the Criticisms of Jehovah's Witness page. I personally feel that Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists are singled out for criticism on Wikipedia. While the Catholic Church has had as much criticism, as any religion and the Latter Day Saints also, there is no Criticism section on their main pages. 69.115.172.182 (talk) 10:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Natural

Also, my goal has not been to remove all criticism, but the Wikipedia article was extremely biased against Jehovah's Witnesses, it was essentially an apostate article that still has ideas biased against Jehovah's Witnesses, which do not give both sides of the issue. My goal was, that if the Wikipedia editors chose to use the Wikipedia article as a basis to present criticisms against Jehovah's Witnesses, that both sides of each issue be presented, so that a NPOV could be maintained. The goal of BlackCab has always been to suppress anything positive about JW and to present apostate views, from former JW, and from any negative statement that is made about JW. To keep off of the Wikipedia main page, any counterpoints to the criticisms that he has personally interjected into the article. This has been going on for a year. The article now is a little more balanced than it was six months ago, but it still has an anti-Jehovah's Witness bias. Natural (talk) 10:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Natural

I felt that if there was to be a Criticisms subheading against Jehovah's Witnesses, that it should be one paragraph, with a link to the Criticisms page, which is larger than the Jehovah's Witness page itself, where more details could be elaborated on. I still feel that for Wikipedia, that that is a more balanced approach, especially in view of the type of detailed and controversial subjects that editors are bringing up on the main page. Natural (talk) 10:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Natural

That is a blatant lie. I have written and rewritten articles connected with the Witnesses that have included much positive and neutral information. This discussion is outside the scope of this noticeboard, but it indicates the mindset of Naturalpsychology in repeatedly labeling those who have left the religion, including authors of academic studies on it, with the pejorative term "apostate". His complaint is clearly less about bias than his discomfort with seeing criticism of his religion on Wikipedia, and his wheedling complaints about the length of the criticisms article (also outside the scope of this complaint) are proof of that. BlackCab (talk) 10:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

An user keeps misinterpreting a source to support their POV

First of all , are i correct here?

Please see Operation Charnwood's talkpage; that is what Blablaaa is hinting at. I would also suggest glancing the MILHIST talkpage where some of these concerns have already been looked at, in quite some depth.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

no of these concerns was raised on milhist. the historian said a operaiton was a partial sucess and the troops ultimately failed. the user made "tactical victory" out of this. This are all needed facts. What did the historian say and what does the editor make out of this Blablaaa (talk) 21:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

it must be noted that a "tactical" victory is a special condition which must be cited directly. Even if historian says victory nobody can claim he said tactical victory. But in this case the historian not even said victory he also said the troops ultimately failed... Blablaaa (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

i must update my post, another editor already raised concerns with this "It must be said that Beevor doesn’t use the term tactical on p. 273, and yet the same reference is used in the infobox to support tactical victory as is used in analysis to describe partial success." . but this sentence was ignored by user enigma Blablaaa (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• This is a fine place to bring this up, but you need to provide a little more context before we can help you (perhaps a link to a diff or permalink to the appropriate section). Clearly if a source says a battle was a "partial success" that should not be cited as a "tactical success"; sources should be closely adhered to. The talkpage has a discussion which seems to suggest that User:Blablaaa is correct and EnigmaMcmxc seems reluctant to clarify the source, which is not right. If you don't have access to the source and he does, it may be prudent to remove the source pending clarification. II | (t - c) 21:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

"The talkpage has a discussion which seems to suggest that User:Blablaa is correct and EnigmaMcmxc seems reluctant to clarify the source, which is not right." Indeed you got this correct. It must be noted here that Enigma is known to do this and I can't see how he will ever stop considering he's gotten away with his disruptive behavior before and has been basically supported for it by admin Nick-D. Caden ^cool 22:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

II, what information do you require; i will gladly assist. The only reason i am "reluctant", per my comments on said talkpage, is the fact the OP has repeatly threatend to seek all sorts of actions agaisnt me. I will not be blackmailed into assissting someone nor will i bow under threats.

Caden, here is not the place for your cheap shots ala your comments on the MILHIST discussion.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Stating the truth about you is not a cheap shot. It's time for your misleading edits and bad behavior to be looked at. Nick can't save you forever. Sorry. Caden ^cool 22:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Am not intrested in a slanging match, am interested in sorting this matter out with an univolved third party; that excludes you as you are clearly biased and only drop in to throw cheap shots around.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Can i ask again for the quote of beevor which supports "tactical allied victory". The tactical victory is a very specific outcome so it should be said directly or something which is equivalent to this. So please can you provide this quote to us? Blablaaa (talk) 22:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Eh, it's a bit disruptive to launch into attacks, Caden, without some sort of diff - if Enigma has a history of this, document them and then bring up a RfC/User (for a similar example, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85). Looking at this closer I found the relevant diff, and the operation is still called a "tactical success" in the lead despite Enigma's statement on the talk page section linked above that "In regards to the Tactical Victory conditions you have laid down, i would also pull me on the use of "Tactical Victory" in the Operation Goodwood article; its not specifically mentioned in any of the sources consulted" (permalink). Is it a huge deal to say that partial success is basically tactical victory? I don't think so - these appear to be close-to synonymous - but if there's disagreement, we should err on the side of being completely correct. So I think the best resolution here is to replace "tactical success" with "partial success" pending sources that say otherwise - and GBooks and GScholar show no results for tactical victory. Could we do that Enigma? II | (t - c) 22:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The diff which you mentioned had nothing to do with this.

a partial sucess is nowhere near a tactical victory. Same like an apple is no orange. Also i dont talk about the lead i talk about the infobox which says allied tactical victory. A partial sucees means they achieved one objectiv this has nothing to do with the overall outcome. You should also read the other statement of this source it says "the British and Canadians ultimately failed to secure enough ground to expand the Allied build-up"Blablaaa (talk) 22:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

its so frustrating to repeat myself so often. But thats not your fault so nevermind. Look Battle of Prokhorovka you can call this a partial sucsess of red army. They achieved some of their objectives. Nevertheless it was a tactical desaster. Partial sucess is nowhere near tactical victory. Victory and tactical are two complete different things. Tactical is the scale. Even if a historian clearly says it was a victory you can not simply say he says a "tactical victory". The historian not even claims this was a victory but the infobox claims even tactical victory. Thats why we need always a cite for phyrificc or strategic or operaitonal or whatever. Good example to show that there is no correlation is that both belligerent can have partial sucess in the same battle at the same time. Nothing to do with tactical victoryBlablaaa (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that you maybe are not fimiliar with tactical and so on but enigma clearly is and if he is sourcing "tactical victory" with this then this is simple misinterpretation of a source to push POV. sorry but thats itBlablaaa (talk) 22:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I know it is confusing with the lead. But this is not the issue. All regarding this issue is present at talk page charnwood bottom section. So please only consider this facts. But i admit its very confusing ^^Blablaaa (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Semi involved editor comments: To properly understand this whole debate, I'm afraid it will probably be necessary to read Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history: General Question, which currently fills up about 4/5 of a fairly long and active talk page. Another flowering thread can be found at Operation Goodwood tactical outcome, and there are several creepers at the Charnwood talk page, and both Enigma and Blaabla's talk pages. I'm putting this here because I believe that this subject has already been discussed Ad nauseam, and is still ongoing. As a result of these discussions (and buried deep within them), one editor is now tightening up the various victory definitions and there has been some loose agreement about what can be described as a tactical victory. Ranger Steve (talk) 23:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi II, thanks for taking the time to look into the matter further. I would disagree with changing the entire outcome of the article to “partial success”. The objective of the operation was to capture the northern section of the city, which Beevor confirms: “Operation Charnwood had been a very partial success, taking just the northern part of Caen.” However confirmed from other sources within the article itself, this was precisely the goal of the operation. The rest of the paragraph, partially quoted by Balblaaa above, is contradicted by other sources and has nothing to do with the objective of the operation. One should note that most sources just talk about the high losses both sides suffered with very few talking of the tactical situation, most discuss the strategic situation (which didnt change for either side as discussed within the article) and one notes the political improvement with the French – all covered in the article and do not seem that relevent to the infobox.

The other source cited is D’Este, who does not call the operation a partial success; he states that “Montgomery unquestionably improved his position by Charnwood” (i.e. the tactical situation, as he notes the lack of any improvement in the strategic situation) while at the same time talking about the high losses the attack inflicted upon the defenders.

Other sources that support the operation was a success/victory, not used in the article, include: Lloyd Clark “Operation Charnwood succeeded...”; John Buckley “...Operation Charnwood forced a [German] withdrawal from Caen.”; the latter dances around without stating the precise phrase. Per the MILHIST talk page Chaosdruid provided the following quote sourced from Hubert Meyer: “However, there was no doubt that these positions could not have been held any longer, because of the completely open right flank and also because of the heavy German losses."; again dancing around without stating the precise word.

In addition Parsecboy provided the following link on the talkpage, most sources agree that the operation was a success; two notable alternatives is one that calls it a hollow victory and another that calls it an operational victory.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I totally disagree with ranger. An historian says "it was a partical sucess... but they ultimatly failed" and a editor uses this statement to cite a tactical victory. Why the hack do you think other discussion are relevant for this. please tell PLEASE. is this statement equivalent to tactical victory? no its not!!!!! its absolutly irrelevant if we discussed 1000 hours about something. One historian made a statement and a user misinterpreted this. And now you, who said already that he dont likes me, came here and throw information in which are totally irrlevant in the hope to distract and confuse uninvolded editors.Blablaaa (talk) 23:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Lol sorry enigma but i proofed that you misinterpreted a source and now you come and bring other vague sources which support the claims . YOU deliberatly misused a source and now you dodge this with bringing other sources. Take position to your violation of wiki rules !!Blablaaa (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

(numerous e/c) Blablaaa Beevor states nothing of the sort that the operation "ultimatly failed"; he states the attempt to secure more ground to carry on the build up failed - a point contradicted by Hubert Meyer iirc and you accuse me of misinterpreting sources!

At any rate i will rather await further comments from II or other NPOV than you tell me the outcome of your accusations.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

i also want to highlight that quoting a historian who said " charnwood suceeded..." is also nowhere a quote for tactical victory. The soviets also suceeded in stoping german movements at prokorrohkva but is was not tactical victory. OMG you were caught and instead admiting it you bring more and more vague things to distract from the point. always same method.... Blablaaa (talk) 23:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I am sure you are able to read and comprehend the various points by II; he stated per the Beevor source should we replace the outcome with "partial success". Hence the "more vague things"; two points were addressed in my post, all of which was a reply to II and the points he raised.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

He stated nothing he thought we talk about the lead. Stop lieying please.Blablaaa (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Hilarious how much OR you do. When somebody says the situation improved you claim he says tactical victory. Sorry but if people can do such amount of OR the scientific standart of wiki get destroyed. Enigma i ask you one masterquestion but you will dodge it. Yoo did the edits so i ask you directly. When a historians says a operation was a partial sucess but ultimately failed, is this the same like "tactical victory" ? Yes or no ? You will dodge question but this is the only importan question here. You made the edits but you do not say they are correct. MAsterpiece of distraction...Blablaaa (talk) 00:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Since we yet again desended into the circula discussion that has lasted almost a full month now i shall await the response from II or other NPOV editors in regards to II points and my reply. Furthermore i suggest you re-read Beevor's comments because at no point does he state the operation ultimately failed, like you keep asserting.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

(several e/c's) As anyone who would care to follow the links will see, this issue has been discussed at length in the last month. The discussions are all relevant because they are all to do with the result of the Charnwood article, as is this discussion. Here you seem to be tackling exactly the same issue from a slightly different perspective, but by your own admission this perspective has been brought up at Milhist before - you even quote me in your 3rd post here. And you don't think its relevant? If you don't think that the long winded chats we've already had (and tried to broker some sort of compromise out of) somehow don't count in this thread, then I'm afraid you are very much mistaken. I must admit, I'm getting very bored of being neutral right now, especially after reading your last sentence about "not liking me". Not sure where I said that to be honest. Ranger Steve (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You did the same, You were caugh by your bias editing style. And if i try to search objectiv thrid opinion, you immedialty distract you dont talk about the problem. You spam useless information. You make mess out of such simple question : if historians said something or not. This is not more than your standart tactic. You did nothing to explain your edit. You were accused of misinterpreting of a source but you did not talk about this source one single time. You spam other sources. Even if you bring 1000000 sources your misuse of one sources is still there but you take no position you spam people with such amount of information that they totally lose the point. And thats your aim you know what you did. if you are not "guilty" you what talk about accusation rather than something totally different. I think your tacica will work again, the discussion is dead i guess. Its horrible. But ok for me. keep misinterpreting sources like you will until every of your british articles says "british" victory. When a historian says "partial sucess but failed ultimatly" then make "tactical victory" out of it. i can live with it i will collect all of this and present it them with multiple examples. Blablaaa (talk) 00:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

ranger is lieing or not able to understand the point. Nowhere we discussed in length the outcome of this article, we discussed the phrasing of a statement. Please show me some edit were i talked about this sources and that they dont say tactical victory and then show me where other users said that partial victory is same like tactical victory. Go ranger search for the edits and present them here. Until now you posts were a waste of KB so please proof your claims and bring "diffs"Blablaaa (talk) 00:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

ranger please give diffs where the outcome was discussed by me. If you have none then please admit that you totally failed to understand the point and then leave please. Thank you.Blablaaa (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Enigma please stop it with the wiki games. Yes, we all know you play the game well but the gig is up man. Stop distracting others from the truth here. You continue misinterpreting sources. You continue to mislead the readers. That's unacceptable. Your British POV is so biased that you can't continue doing what you do. It's wrong. You need to cut it out. Enough is enough. Caden ^cool 00:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

enigma said this above : I would disagree with changing the entire outcome of the article to “partial success”. The objective of the operation was to capture the northern section of the city, which Beevor confirms: “Operation Charnwood had been a very partial success, taking just the northern part of Caen.” However confirmed from other sources within the article itself, this was precisely the goal of the operation. first of all this is the definition of OR but here look what the same editor edit into the article: the objective was .... and establish bridgeheads into southern Caen and here the outcome also written by enigma ...southern sectors remained in German hands and no bridgeheads established... all the edits were done by the same guy saying this was precisely the goal of the operation . what a blatant lie. Enigmas post are full of lies i could pick all day long his words and show how he contradicts himself. Not only he does simple bias OR he lies when he explains is OR. Sorry its horrible to deal with thisBlablaaa (talk) 00:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

If a majority (or all) of the sources for factual claims about Jesus are Christian, is it proper to mention that?

These edits of mine were reverted: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus&diff=next&oldid=374161404 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historical_Jesus&action=historysubmit&diff=374138570&oldid=374136491 Noloop (talk) 00:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Since there is corroborating evidence for the existence of Jesus, it's certainly not "all". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Even if they don't consider Him to be the Christ, I don't know of anyone who seriously disputes the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.Mk5384 (talk) 00:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)