Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. See the dashboard for an expanded listing.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Welcome to the neutral point of view noticeboard
This page is for reporting issues regarding whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy.
  • Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Include a link here to that discussion.
  • State the article being discussed; for example, [[article name]].
  • Include diffs to the specific change being proposed; paste text here.
  • Concisely state the problem perceived with the text in question.
  • Keep in mind that neutrality is often dependent upon context.
  • It helps others to respond to questions if you follow this format.
 Sections older than 14 days archived by MiszaBot II.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
Shortcut:
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so.
Additional notes:
Search this noticeboard & archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53

Countries in Europe

Hello all,
There's a disagreement about whether our article on Kosovo belongs in Category:Countries in Europe. Like most Kosovo NPOV problems, the usual people on each side have said their piece and we've ground to a halt. Outside views would be very welcome. Any suggestions? bobrayner (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

The status of Kosovo is a hot topic. Bobrainer has been for long time a partisan promoter of Kosovo independence on Wikipedia articles and his intentional unwillingness to understand the complexity is disruptive. He behaves as if he is unaware of all, and he finds one source treating Kosovo as independent country and thinks it should be accepted as universal truth. Obviously WP:UNDUE applies, cause roughly half of countries of the world recognized Kosovo independence, the other half didn't, some organisations accepted Kosovo, some didnt. Bobrainer is an extremely problematic editor on Kosovo-related topics because he always does its best to present the pro-independence POV and ignore the other view or even the complexity of the issue. FkpCascais (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I think this says more about you than about me:

Bobrainer has been for long time a partisan promoter of Kosovo independence on Wikipedia articles and his intentional unwillingness to understand the complexity is disruptive.
— User:FkpCascais

Yes, escape... You don't have any maps or articles because Albania was never big or shrinked or blabla... You just talk bullshit, go to school pal and learn some history. Good bye you nationalist dreamer and keep on hating Serbs, good for you, do whatever. If something shrinked it was not Albania for sure, but your brain...
— User:FkpCascais

One sincere question: you are so partisan allways about it, are you being payed for editing Kosovo subjects just the way Albanian nationalist want? Because if you are you should step out of this subjects right away.
— User:FkpCascais

...and so on. Let's try to avoid personal attacks, and stick to the point, please. Should our article on Kosovo be in Category:Countries in Europe? bobrayner (talk) 13:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Why are you mixing a comment I made long time ago to an editor who came to my talk-page promoting Greater Albania and I made fun of him? Do you personaly feel involved in it? (The second one you posted here, the first and third were indeed directed to you)FkpCascais (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
This is the discussion you removed that comment from and you didn't even participated in it, the discussion was only between me and the other user. You wanted to mislead others here that I that I attacked you, such low punch on your behalve, shame on you. FkpCascais (talk) 13:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Let's try to avoid personal attacks, and stick to the point, please. Should our article on Kosovo be in Category:Countries in Europe? Uninvolved editors would be welcome. bobrayner (talk) 14:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Until there's no longer a dispute over Kosovo's status either way, it shouldn't be placed in the category-in-question. by GoodDay. But i guess that you will ignore this outsider's observation, as you dont like it. Maybe it is time for you to drop the subject and leave. #JustSaying...--Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 15:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello Anastan! I'm glad you found time to comment.
You've been insisting that there are many reliable sources which say Kosovo isn't a country in Europe. If you'd like to retain some credibility, you really ought to provide those sources. Perhaps that's a higher priority than cherrypicking one comment which suits your current position. bobrayner (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I will, but on the relevant page, where you should be too. I could guess that you will mention "cherrypicking" for a comment that does not suit your current position, and actually is a . uninvolved editor's comment. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 16:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Since I have played a large part in the discussion and the editing, it is only right I state my case for outsiders. We know that there are sources that call Kosovo "a country" as it is recognised by over 50% of states. In fact many entities are called "countries" in many reliable sources such as the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic and Somaliland but the general pattern is that where sovereignty is disputed by the entity from which one is breaking away, these are not included in their respective "countries in" category. To date, nobody has provided an argument as to why Kosovo deserves an accolade denied to Republic of China which was before 1971 on the UN Security Council, and the State of Palestine which has 135 recognitions, a number I personally predict Kosovo will not reach given the gradual slowdown in incoming recognitions since 2008 (as with Libya, it would need pro-west revolutions to take place in dozens of countries before this became a reality). That summarises my view. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Kosovo's inclusion in Category:Countries in Europe being in violation of NPOV. Many editors aspire to elevate Kosovo's independence status to equal with Romania or Germany, but that category is not the place to begin. If we cannot agree that the opening line should be "Kosovo is a country" for any reason then it is illogical to follow suit with other listings. For example, attempting an indirect precedent on a category page is like moving Kosovo from the second list to the first at Template:Vehicle registration plates of Europe. It would be pointless to do that unless you moved them all and abolished the "States with limited recognition" cell. --Vrhunski (talk) 00:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Vrhunski. I notice that (a) this is the first time you've ever edited a noticeboard, (b) this is your first edit in two months, and (c) this topic area has long had problems with sockpuppets and onsite & offsite canvassing. What brings you here? bobrayner (talk) 20:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I am free to edit where I so choose, and locating this discussion was not difficult since it is hardly obscure. You sought opinions from uninvolved editors and I gave you one, though clearly you do not appreciate it. If you suspect sockpuppetry, be my guest and do the honours of reporting me. Had I been one of those to have edited here then I could have extended my "original comment" with the points I raised. If my "other account" has not been used on this noticeboard then I am not in any contravention by editing here, right? As for what I have been doing these past two months or even past two years, the answer is none of your business. In the meantime, unless you can prove the rest of us wrong in our observations I suggest you keep your eyes and ears open, and you mouth firmly shut!! :) That way you might learn something :) Thank you! --Vrhunski (talk) 22:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
In other news: Anastan has been insisting that there are many reliable sources which say Kosovo isn't a country in Europe. Anastan still hasn't provided any sources. Can Anastan provide these sources, or is it just another sleight-of-hand? bobrayner (talk) 20:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
That comment has now become stale and you know very well that the arguments to oppose Kosovo appearing at Category:Countries in Europe does not rest on one or more statements from Anastan that state Kosovo is not a country. And what? Shall we just say Islamic State is a country because no source (at least on Serbian Google) finds no source to dispute this? [1]. --Vrhunski (talk) 22:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Could it please be noted by contributors/editors that Bobrayner has requested input on the relevant article's talk page, not for subjective arguments to be conducted on this noticeboard. Relevant policy and guideline based discussions would be appreciated in the appropriate venue as opposed to spreading deliberations across various Wikipedia venues. Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Iryna Harpy. However, I am still concerned about the tendentious editing, and would appreciate more eyes on the problem; for instance, Anastan's claims to have lots of reliable sources saying that Kosovo isn't a country in Europe, and then complete inability to provide any of those sources. bobrayner (talk) 19:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Bob, stop with this awful editing attitude, and drop the subject here. Go to the relevant page where we are, and stop spamming this page only to keep it off the archive. New word for me, and it looks like to you too - STOP FORUM SHOPPING. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 09:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello Anastan! I'm glad you found time for some personal attacks and an irrelevant reference to forum-shopping. Perhaps, instead, you could find time to provide the many reliable sources which, you claim, prove that Kosovo is not a country in Europe? I haven't found them, and you still haven't provided them. On the other hand, lies about sources are not unusual on WP:ARBMAC topics. bobrayner (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, lies about sources are not ok, i agree. You should stop doing that then, as you may be blocked. Also, i do not plan to provide anything to you anymore, as there are more then enough opinions already. Also, i do not plan to further communicate with rude editors who misrepresent basic information's and comments. That very, very bad. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 00:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
At the end, why not, just to point how deep and one sided dispute with reality one editor can have. If you have one source, that is not a fact, thats just your view on the situation. Kosovo is not a regular country, but a disputed territory that want to be a country. One day. Maybe... "Kosovo government will never gain full control of the disputed territory", "The disputed territory of Kosovo", Quality of Life in Kosovo (Disputed Territory), "Kosovo is a disputed territory following the collapse of Yugoslavia", "Kosovo remains a disputed territory largely because of three conditions", "it has been a highly disputed territory", "from the still-disputed territory of Kosovo", Danish Ex-KFOR Soldier: Kosovo Is Not A State... etc, etc, etc, a lot, lot more... --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 10:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Half (all?) of those sources are not even reliable, particularly with regard to this question (a graduate student essay, a Serbian news site, etc.) The fact that you trot them out like this only speaks to your own bias and POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
@Bobrayner: As the discussion on the Kosovo page has only yielded another stalemate, would you prefer that the issue be referred to CfD (as in discussion as to how the category/categories be treated), or via the DRN? This is obviously not going to be resolved as a consensus decision on the article's talk page, therefore my preference would be to have a neutral sysop/neutral parties evaluating the policy and guideline based arguments. As you'd be aware, I have made a case for my own preference, but I'm a genuinely neutral party with arguments grounded in theory over other forms of RS.
As a plea to other parties involved, don't keep using this page as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. bobrayner brought it up here in order that uninvolved editors join in at the discussion is taking place on Talk:Kosovo. Personal attacks and WP:UNCIVIL interaction on this noticeboard is not productive. It is consensus that is being sought, not further division (and derision). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Someone should notify User:Future Perfect at Sunrise about this discussion. Anyway, I think this is a no-brainer. Yes, Kosovo is a country in Europe. That's how various international organizations, like the World Bank classify it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Those citations were indeed taken from publishers unlikely to be deemed reliable. Concerning the question of "various international organisations" that classify it as a country, this entire debate is about what makes Kosovo's case different from regular countries and more identical to other unrecognised entities. Now let me get this straight, despite those publishers being unsatisfactory, does anybody truly want reliable sources that confirm Kosovo is a disputed territory? Is there an editor that actually doubts that Kosovo has fewer recognitions than the State of Palestine? If so, I will gladly reveal proper sources. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 06:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
If a similar issue arose with respect to the State of Palestine, then I'd take the same position; putting it in whatever "country" category is appropriate. But this is [[WP:OTHERSTUFF].Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I've read WP:OTHERSTUFF so you don't need to fix the broken link. This one is on the knife edge. We've already established things need to be looked into case by case. But all parties are guilty of introducing OTHERSTUFF elements to the discussion (mainly at Talk:Kosovo, not here). I have likened Kosovo to the other entities featured in this list, those to support the category have been providing comparison with entities in that list. One need only see for himself where Kosovo lies, therefore to suddenly grind it into top level over all else (particularly of all on account of sources from recognising bodies) truly returns us to the seminal question, does the category violate NPOV?. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 08:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources say that Kosovo is a country in Europe. Hence, our article on Kosovo belongs in Category:Countries in Europe. It's not rocket science.
I notice that Anastan has dredged up some sources - terrible quality sources - but they don't even say what Anastan claimed. How long must we tolerate this tendentious editing? bobrayner (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Interesting points! Reliable sources call it a country in Europe and Anastan has never provided a source to claim "Kosovo is not a country". Therefore it belongs in the category. You may have mentioned these once or twice, [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. To save another rebuttal per WP:ONUS, WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:BALANCE all of which trump the ostensibly "reliable source" daydream, I suggest you read the following: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. Feel free to read it back to yourself as many times as you wish until the information registers. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 06:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Ouch! --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 18:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I'm not sure what those diffs are supposed to show except that some users (well, the two above) engage in a lot of WP:IDIDINTHEARTHAT. So you know, things have to be repeated at them since they appear to have difficulties with comprehension.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
On the contrary, I heard him the first time. Clearly if an editor cannot see that there is an issue that goes deep beyond the wording of one shallow source which has been addressed numerous times then you need to ask yourself who has difficulties with comprehension. Unless of course they understood it the first time in which case they would be the ones guilty of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 21:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘The problem we have here is that we are talking about a category, not a passage, template, infobox or caption note. This is probably the one thing for which neutrality is in all honesty impossible. In the aforementioned circumstances, editors from two sides of a dispute have the freedom to dress the presentation so that all aspects are observed. For instance in mainspace there is the option of the Kosovo note template to reflect parity. But a category, well either it is there or it is not, sadly there is no middle road. In this case, the "reliable source" is taken by its subscribers to serve as some kind of trump card that ranks higher than all disputes, impartiality and objective editing. Yet if it were that simple, if an acknowledgement from the website of an organisation that has admitted the subject as a member was so reliable as to be conclusive then there would have been no dispute from editors because there would have been no dispute from the real life players. The governments of Azerbaijan, Venezuela, Bolivia and Belarus would only need to be delivered a reference from the source and all would realise they were wrong to refuse recognition and would subsequently reverse their positions. We would never have articles such as Kosovo status process, International recognition of Kosovo, 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence, International Steering Group for Kosovo, Ahtisaari Plan and Brussels Agreement (2013) if it were that simple as to behave in such a way as to ignore the problem. You do not have anything like this for South Sudan yet that country broke away three years after Kosovo. Curiously, this conversation is happening on the NPOV noticeboard though I'd question whether the OP has ever read the conditions. Per WP:WIKIVOICE (which would without doubt define a category listing since it is inflexible), there is one essential point relevant to this debate (the rest largely pertain to mainspace writing but even they could be said to be relevant):

  • Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.

"Category" is mentioned once in WP:WEIGHT and this says:

  • Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

Obviously there are no competing views since even a source to refer to Kosovo or Somaliland as "a country" would not do so in a way that would not address the wider issues of the dispute were they to be extended articles rather than fact-boxes.

So if 80 world states continue to recognise Kosovo as subject to Serbian territorial integrity, that cannot be classed as WP:FRINGE. As such, reliable sources do indeed cite the divided opinion over what Kosovo is according to which party. So I say finally, I have seen many editors accused of "Serbian nationalist fantasy" for their opposition to this category, and yet nobody has these past two months inserted, or proposed to include Kosovo in Category:Autonomous provinces of Serbia alongside Vojvodina, and this is the polar opposite to the country category.

Now you'll realise that balancing the scales is impossible and not simply down to the words of a source. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 22:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Note for admins/interested persons

Just a courtesy note to clarify that the matter is resolved. I as main opponent of the category have amended my position based partly on the discussions at Talk:Kosovo and partly on other examples as set on other articles. I believe this conversation can now be archived to make space for the newer issues. Regards to all. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 11:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Should headings maintain neutrality?

Folks from this noticeboard may want to add their two cents at Talk:Indigo children. Thanks! Skyerise (talk) 16:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Specifically Talk:Indigo children#"Claimed characteristics". And see related discussions at Talk:Indigo children/Archive 1#POV in first sentence. Sundayclose (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)If the section about claims of attributes by WP:Lunatic charlatans, and the mainstream scientific assessment that there is absolutely no evidence for those attributes (and a more more parsimonious explanation for why parents would want to believe their kids have those attributes), "claimed attributes" is a fairly neutral heading. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
As mentioned on the article Talk page, "claimed" is entirely appropriate for an article about children alleged to have paranormal powers, per WP:FRINGE guidelines regarding pseudoscience. Creation science, Parapsychology, Water memory, Holocaust denial, and Moon landing conspiracy theories all use the term "claim" dozens of times each. The argument that the word "claimed" is OK in the text but must be kept out of the headings is sadly misinformed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
The section doesn't actually list any paranormal attributes though, just attributes that anyone could have. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Attributes that are no more common to purported indigo children than the rest of the population, or which have more parsimonious explanations (like, being raised by a parent who thinks that new-age-woo is more plausible than ADHD). Ian.thomson (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Of course they have to maintain neutrality; but it's important to understand what neutrality means in the context of WP:FRINGE topics like this one. Specifically, since the concept is universally rejected by the scientific community, NPOV requires that section headers (like everything else) be carefully worded to make it clear how much weight and credibility each position has among reliable sources. WP:CLAIM warns to be cautious about using those words because they call the subject's credibility into question; however, in contexts where the overwhelming majority of reliable sources agree that the subject lacks credibility, using words like 'claimed' in that context is not only appropriate but sometimes required (because other terms would be giving a fringe viewpoint undue weight.) --Aquillion (talk) 08:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

United States and state-sponsored terrorism

Contras are rebels not terrorists and want he TERM REBELS to be used for them further 1973 Chilean coup d'état is not terrorism but a coup.United States support to non-state terrorists has been prominent in Latin America, the Middle-East, and Southern Africa implies that all those mentioned in the article are terrorists which is wrong.Praguegirl (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The article does not say they were terrorists, merely that they used terrorist tactics, such as assassinations. TFD (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

NPOV issues at Nina Rosenwald

A new editor, User:Gregcollins11, has been adding material to this article in what I believe is a violation of NPOV. I tried to explain on his talk page but to no avail. He's referring to two people, a medical doctor and a journalist who is also a senior distinguished fellow at Rosenwald's [{Gatestone Institute]] as "Practicing Muslim scholars and journalists affiliated with the Gatestone Institute" (at least he now makes that clear). However, it is still only 2 people, one not a scholar, and there is no evidence that Khaled Abu Toameh is a practising Muslim so this is a BLP violation. You can see at [24] that he removed the fact that Toameh is a fellow at the GI and that Jasser (whose name he changed in the link so it's now red) received funds from GI. It's still better than his original edit, but as I seem to be the only person commenting and reverting this new editor, rather than edit again I'm bringing it here. Doug Weller (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Craig Unger

Craig Unger ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The section titled "Career" doesn't really discuss the subject's career, but rather a back-and-forth exchange (built on primary sources) between Craig Unger and Michael Isikoff regarding criticism and defense of actions George W. Bush may have taken in regards to the Saudi royal family around the time of 9/11. I'm hoping a fresh set of eyes can take a look at this section and find an appropriately worded title. Thanks! - Location (talk) 21:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

WWE Global Warning issue

This is later than I wanted to because I lost the original comment difference, but I've found it.

User:OldSkool01 I believe has violated WP:NPOV by manipulating an otherwise reliable source in Wrestling Observer. He has done this by emailing Dave Meltzer directly asking for a response to the anecdotally proven claim that Global Warning was shown on pay per view in south east Asia. Here is the notice he gave that he would do so. "I have an e-mail out to Dave Meltzer and Bryan Alvarez of Wrestling Observer, as well as Mike Johnson of PWInsider asking to confirm on their respective sites that this show did not air on PPV."

On that page you would notice that I advised that the conversation should be taking place on the then existing WWE Global Warning page. The page was deleted so I can't show what I said in response to that, but I can say that I told him he shouldn't have done that and I attempted to head it off in similar terms. I can advise that I was successful with Mike Johnson, as he laughed off something that happened "a million years ago" (his words). This was the correct reaction so no harm was done. In the case of Meltzer however the result was a manipulated source that Old Skool used to shut down the debate over whether or not the event was shown on pay per view. [25]

This source is essential to back up other sources he uses, one from a fan (published by Meltzer), two from WWE corporate, while on the talk page of the current location of the Global Warning, Professional wrestling in Australia he mentions two more from PWTorch. With the exception of WWE Corporate they were from archive.org - which isn't an issue. What is an issue is that none of those sources by themselves explicitly state that the event wasn't on pay per view. And why would they? One is a live report and the others - including WWE Corporate - are American based. Pro Fight DB on the other hand (and formerly Cage Match until that disappeared in suspicious circumstances at almost exactly the same time as Meltzer's comment appeared as per above) stated that it was a pay per view and I used some other sources that make the claim as well. Each of them were ruled by a non admin as unreliable. [26] [27] [28]. There are two others as well but for reasons unknown they are blacklisted. TVRage and TheMovieDB.

Combine this with at least three people (myself included) who through OR - yes I know that's not allowed but it serves as back up only to the above links - know that it was one pay per view. Only one, TombstoneRide, has said nothing specific. An IP who edited Professional Wrestling in Australia claimed it was shown in Vietnam - IMO likely through a pirate feed which there were a lot of in the region back in 2002. Personally I was at the event and I vividly remember Tony Chimel saying before the show started that it was on pay per view in south east Asia and gave notice that the intro of the show would be PPV style for this reason - so make some noise (I think the reliable sources say that last bit was said at least and that's why). I am of the view that OldSkool01 has been obsessing over this for a long time and has been trying to shut it down without a smoking gun. The key issue here is that he manipulated Dave Meltzer creating the source he claims is the smoking gun. Because of the manipulation of a reliable, I believe that this source should be rules out of order under WP:NPOV and that my edit here should stand, without the Cage Match reference of course and with the other sources mentioned above. I am trying to find a smoking gun at my end, but publications are hard to find in south east Asia particularly from Australia. It's likely going to be hardcopy and not online if I'm right about where the smoking gun may be. The bottom line though is that neutrality on the basis of evidence needs to be maintained, and OldSkool via manipulation has violated that neutrality. Curse of Fenric (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

  • I have absolutely nothing new to add to what Curse of Fenric already stated here. All of the evidence speaks for itself. Until he finds that elusive smoking gun, there is nothing to argue here. OldSkool01 (talk) 00:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • This link right here... http://www.pwwew.net/ppv/wwf/australia.htm is one of the links you provided above. You really should read those sources first before you link them. That site is yet another report from a fan that was there live who acknowledges that this was NOT televised live! How did you not notice that? So that makes 2 links(in addition to the many others) from a fan's perspective who was there live that mentions it not airing live. OldSkool01 (talk) 09:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Look at the actual URL - what is that after pwwew.net? What does it stand for? The link supports me, not you. No more discussion. We need an admin here to make a judgment on your manipulation, which in effect you have admitted to by not contesting my comments of events. Curse of Fenric (talk) 10:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The URL says one thing, but what's written in the actual link says another. I also listened to that podcast you linked to. The 2 guys reviewing Global Warning(this podcast was 12 years after the event happened) are watching the DVD and they note that they did research and they can't find one single report anywhere from one single person who actually watched it on PPV. And they question if it did actually air on PPV later in the podcast. As far as me contesting any of your claims, you told the admins to check out all the links that I've provided and to read all the convos we've had. Those convos and all those links speak for themselves. Just to make it easier for the admins, here are the convos/debates that we had over the last couple of weeks. The first one is on my user talk page... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:OldSkool01 and the second one is on the talk page of Professional Wrestling In Australia under the Global Warning section... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Professional_wrestling_in_Australia The admins can read everything that was said and check out all the links/sources/references for themselves to make a decision. OldSkool01 (talk) 12:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Way to prove me right. You're trying to divert away from your manipulation. You have no NPOV, and I note from the history of this page that you've been called a bully. I disagree with the removal of your commentary because it should stay as proof that you are exactly that while "debating" this issue. That's all I need to add. Curse of Fenric (talk) 01:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
  • And now I'm a bully? This is not the first time you've called me names. I was accused of being uncivil, yet other people continue with the name calling and making false accusations towards me. I've done nothing, but continue to stay on the point of what this whole debate is about. It's all about deciding whether or not WWE Global Warning did or did not air on PPV somewhere in the world. That's it. That's what all this is about. Nothing more. We'll let the admins look at all the facts that have been presented and they'll make a decision on whether it was or it was not. OldSkool01 (talk) 03:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Note to the admins - this is about whether or not OldSkool01 manipulated a source, not whether or not Global Warning was shown on pay per view live anywhere. The latter is background only and all associated points made by him are diversions from the root issue. For the record, diverting and/or distracting from the root issue is typical of a bully. That is all. Curse of Fenric (talk) 07:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Again with the name calling. If this isn't about Global Warning then why is this section called "WWE Global Warning Issue"? That's very confusing. It should be called "Source Manipulating Issue". And with that all said, I still stand by my point on the manipulating issue that I did not manipulate a source. Asking a source a direct question is well within my rights. OldSkool01 (talk) 10:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I say it's not within your rights, and the title is not confusing. Keep deflecting - it makes you look more guilty every time you do it. Bye. Curse of Fenric (talk) 11:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Oral Roberts

An editor has argued for adding to the lead section of this article that Oral Roberts was seen as a "con man", based on a newspaper editorial that used that term. This article has been a subject of contention for a long time. Additional views about the lead, and perhaps about the rest of the article, would be helpful. See Talk:Oral Roberts#This article is a joke. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I made some minor changes to cleanup the page and remove POV. The "con man" claim does not deserve to be included in the lead. It is sourced to a newspaper editorial and would violate WP:BLP. If the claim is to be included at all, further down the page, it needs to be verified in multiple reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the edits. I restored one small piece of that content, to correct a quote and to restore an item that I think is reasonably significant in his life story. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
You're right, what you restored is notable. Page still needs some work. I've added it to my watch list and will try and make improvements if I can find the time. Best, Meatsgains (talk) 02:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Ned Touchstone

Ned Touchstone ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm quite concerned about the article on Ned Touchstone. It cites no reliable sources at all, and contains a large number of statements that seem quite biased in favor of Touchstone, including that he published "the most detailed, fact-proven essay on the conspiracy that planned and hid the truth of Kennedy's murder in Dallas" and many similar, some of which seem to defend or explain away Touchstone's inflammatory views on race. Rewriting this article neutrally would require a fair amount of research, which I do not have time to do, unfortunately, so I am at a loss. Chick Bowen 22:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@Chick Bowen: The obituary and the Institute for the Study of Academic Racism/Anti-Defamation League piece are likely reliable sources, but do not cite any specific statements. @Billy Hathorn: As you are the article's creator, I thought you should be aware of this thread. Thoughts? - Location (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

More input sought

  • Flyte35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) I was looking at old discussion on the College_tuition_in_the_United_States talk page, and noticed this discussion, in which 3 editors, ElKevbo, 71.101.54.88, and Flyte35 all agreed that if credible sources could be found to support a claim that college loan forgiveness was not inflationary, it could be included in the article. However, one of the prior editors decided to refuse to abide by the community consensus, and it has created an edit war. The other 2 editors can not be reached: One is unregistered and the other is taking time off due to vandalism and ill will. The 3rd, remaining editor, Flyte35, decided to violate community consensus (with edits, such as this one), and thus when I arrived on the scene to edit, in accordance with the consensus previously reached, and when he (or she?) deleted the post, I marked it as vandalism, but tried to talk about it in the talk page. That did not work, so we are in need of your intervention.96.59.137.142 (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Procedural note. This IP has only made two edits: here and to WP:RSN. On top of other issues, this looks like forum-shopping. —C.Fred (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
For the record, Fred, My IP address is dynamic: I am not a newbie: I have made a few more than 2 edits. But, why is the number of edits an issue? Should not the merits of the complaints be the main issue?96.59.137.142 (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
With regard to the forum-shopping concern, was I not told by more experienced editors to come here? See the links above. Moreover, when consensus can not be reached, what do you suggest? Is this not the proper protocol to resolve disputes and get consensus when none exists?96.59.137.142 (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Having looked over the edit in question as well as the relevant discussion, I agree with Flyt35 that that text is unnecessary, poorly sourced and WP:UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

How many sources do you want? I found 4 sources, and 3 are very-credible... even the 4th one was cited in the NY Times. What more do you want? God, Himself/Herself to personally weigh in!?96.59.137.142 (talk) 16:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
My apologies, Fred: The link where I was asked to come to this page was not mentioned above. My bad - here it is: Per this suggestion, I am asking for help settling our dispute with regard both to the sources as well as the view, in general. OK, I've done what I was asked, and, moreover, what else would you suggest?96.59.137.142 (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Just to lay things out a little more succinctly, Flyte35's edits which OP has a problem with are:
Yes, I was mistaken. The problem with the line was not that it was SYNTH; it was that it was an unreliable source. I discuss this in the talk section. Flyte35 (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • (a series of edits removing the Watts source) - If the reliability of the Watts source is what this hinges on, this should probably go to WP:RSN. The source is an amicus brief, which isn't good/neutral enough to make a definitive statement about the law, but seems perfectly appropriate for a "recommendations" section if it comes from a reliable source (the issuing individual/organization). So certainly the amicus briefs issued by, say, the Berkman Center, ACLU, or Stanford Law School are perspectives worth including in a section like this, but I frankly don't know about Watts.
As an additional point, I think this "recommendations" sections needs to do a much better job of attributing the recommendations in the article text. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The Feminism portal seems to brigading various suffrage articles with their sidebar

Sorry, if this is all done incorrectly, I've never had to come the the noticeboards before. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to cite specific users or just address the general nature of my concern. If I am supposed to cite specific users, I tried to read the instructions for doing so but don't really understand them. Help on this would be appreciated. I will be more than willing to bring this up to standards if it falls short.

I've notice across several women's suffrage articles (Women's suffrage, Women's suffrage in Switzerland, Women's suffrage in the United States) the Feminist Portal has attached their sidebar. While I can sympathize with the Feminist portal and what (I believe) they are doing, this seems entirely inappropriate for these articles. Perhaps I am wrong, and I hope the discussion of other Wikipedia editors will help resolve this, but it seems to me that any primarily historical article should not be linked in any way to a portal dealing with a political philosophy (another user used the term "ideology") that has obvious and inherent bias.

While I am not accusing members of the Feminist portal of exhibiting any such bias, my assertion is that linking this sidebar to Women's suffrage articles is no more appropriate than linking the Communism sidebar to these articles (while they are separate philosophies, both advocate for women's suffrage). In this, I mean that by including this sidebar in historical articles not directly related to Feminism (such as the history of Feminism itself, or the history of some particular Feminist theory) it colors the article in the same way that linking the Communist, Libertarian, or Anarchist sidebars would; i.e. it implies that the article is told from or related to a certain ideology or a particular political point of view. I believe if we allow the feminist sidebar on this article, we can only maintain WP:NPOV by adding all sidebars of all ideologies that advocate women's suffrage.

I discussed this with another user on the Women's suffrage talk page who effectively stone-walled me and engaged in a revert war until an admin showed up and basically decreed that the sidebar will remain a part of the article. If the community feels this is appropriate and I am being unreasonable, that's fine. I am only here because discussion on this issue seems to have been shut down entirely.

Thank you. A dc zero (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@A dc zero: I'm confused. Our article on feminism begins "Feminism is a range of movements and ideologies that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, cultural, personal, and social rights for women". Are you saying that women's suffrage is not related to the rights of women? Seems about as feminist as it gets? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
No, the point I'm trying to make is that Feminists may believe in Women's suffrage but not all those who believe in Women's suffrage (or any issue on Women's rights for that matter) identify with or agree with Feminism. I don't have to be a Christian to be a Monotheist, and it would be inappropriate to but a Christianity sidebar in Monotheism. This one reason why I disagree with the inclusion. The second is that (as mentioned) these are historical articles. Not ideological articles or articles on the history of an ideology. I find the sidebar inappropriate in these articles in the same way that I would find a Judaism portal sidebar inappropriate in Circumcision. An article about Circumcision may (and should) include any and all references to Judaism and it's role in the religion as appropriate but the article should be written from, or portrayed as being from a Jewish perspective. This seems to violate WP:NPOV. A dc zero (talk) 01:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
It's not about ideology; it's about the subject. Feminism the subject is not something you "agree" or "disagree" with any more than you agree or disagree with "ethics" or "politics". The sidebar is about that subject, not feminists. The women's suffrage article is about the subject of women's suffrage, not people who "agree" with women's suffrage. If something has to do with the rights of women, it has to do with feminism per the definition of feminism, regardless of any particular ideologies you associate feminism with. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Suffrage seems to me like one of the most iconic and unambiguous elements of feminism. Rhoark (talk) 05:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with the assessment that the presence of the Feminism sidebar in a handful of articles closely related to feminism means that feminists are "brigading" or pushing some political agenda on Wikipedia. The sidebar is a convenient list of links, and it quite rightly tells the reader that the topic is relevant to feminism. Binksternet (talk) 05:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be a strange anti-feminism backlash in culture, social media and Wikipedia where some people talk as if it is a dirty word. The fight for suffrage is often seen as the beginning of the modern feminist movement and to think of these two efforts for women's rights to not have a natural connection or that a sidebar would affect the neutrality of the articles shows a poor understanding of the history of feminism. I encourage the OP to do a little more homework on Wikipedia on the effort to secure women's rights across the world. Liz Read! Talk! 02:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
The basic concept (don't put unrelated or peripherally-related sidebars in articles) is good, but in this particular case they are closely related, not unrelated, so the sidebars should stay. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

As an aside (since I think numerous people have covered how centrally feminism and woman's suffrage are connected), what do you mean by 'brigading?' I'm only familiar with the term in two contexts (I believe it's Reddit slang for when people are directed to another reddit or comment to spam it with votes, a common problem when dealing with controversy-heavy or politically-active subreddits; it might also be a reference to the Web brigades employed by Russian government?) Either way it strikes me as a fairly accusatory way to frame a dispute over whether or not a sidebar belongs on an article, and I don't quite see how it applies. --Aquillion (talk) 08:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

POV tag restored on one article, added to a fork/split of it also

I will not be back here; but posting notice here of my restoration of illicitly-removed POV, ESSAY and SYNTH tags on Chinese Canadians in British Columbia, which were removed almost exactly a month after a non-consensus block was imposed on me for getting in the way of the OWNership and POV behaviour and content created by User:WhisperToMe; and I have added them to his 'new' split of it, Chinese Canadians in Greater Vancouver, which has all the same problems, which include systemic bias and the scholarly sources fallacy. I argued myself blue in the wiki-face trying to explain all that is wrong with his 'contributions' and his ongoing AGF attitude and got blocked for it by people who refused to read anything I had explained about the POV and SYNTH problems. It's not just these two articles either; he's created others with the same biased tone and soapbox agenda as spin-offs and also on parallel ones like Indo-Canadians in British Columbia and related articles.

He's in violation also of SYNTH and ESSAY and TRIVIA and OWN, but NPOV is policy and per its own wording is not negotiable. It's also laid out in WP:NPOV and WP:POV fork that using behavioural guidelines against editors frustrated by POV edit/content disputes is against policy but that's exactlywhat was done to me. The upshot is that the Wikipedian who created vast amounts of British Columbia content was blocked by a newbie int he subject area who did not want to be 'interfered with' and asked for me to be blocked without an ANI so he could 'get on with it'. No don't ask me for edit-links I've wasted too much of my life and energy pandering to instruction creepery and won't be back. but if there are responsible admins and editors out there capable of and willing to undertake reading the arguments since last fall on this page and others he's created (the Indo-Canadians one just one of many; he'd wanted to call it "Asian Indians" and argued against Canadian English irrespective of ENGVAR) then please do; I have no more time for this and was condemned for being 'controversial' and confrontational - but what else to do with lies and distortions and gamesmahship than confront it? Go along with it??

Talk:Chinese Canadians in British Columbia and various links in now-archived sections on my talkpage and around those of the "interfering" admins/editors can be found by reviewing my usercontributions; I will not name them as though they have a lot to do with giving his POV carte blanche as they have done, they each one refused to read anything I said, but listened to anything he said; and condemned me for the length of my talkpage items while ignoring thet length (and illogic and contrarian nature) of his, or of the NOR and RS discussion board 'rants' he engaged in whiel trying to end-run me and not have to address the issues of content I raised.

There was a lot he could have learned from me about BC history and about Chinese history in BC; instead he sought to ahve me blocked to protect thte POV content he was building, and has been allowed. Part of the problem here is also systemic bias as noted, and his own treatment of obscure academic opinions in the course of building POV essays. Note the difference between teh two "Hongcouver" sections on both pages; he may have amended mine, so go back into March to see what I had added to balance the biased, hate-mongering POV tract he composed using single-adjectives condeming the term and/or white people (he uses "White" which is against ENGVAR but he uses cherrypicked sources to do that).

I'm done, done, done; my block happened to end today, but I don't care; Wikipedia has shown itself inept and inadequate in policing its own policies, and too many rankly POV editors are free to game the system including blocking editors who point out their violations of policy.

Maybe there is one editor out there who will take me seriously instead of like the French knights in the Holy Grail, "blow snot in my general direction" as so many have done. Too many.

I should have posted the POV issue here long ago, long before an admin who wouldn't even research the background to the dispute singled me out as the problem without ever lifting a finger to understand or read up on the content.

Maybe one of you will. I doubt it, but I'm posting this as 'one last try' to see if there is any decency left here. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS has been used to condemn my responses to; but that essay doesn't mean that great wrongs should bd perpetrated much less mollycoddled and encouraged. There are other POV disputes out there I could have posted about in the past, I have never come here before with any; I dislike the wiki-bureaucracy, being so much victimized and harassed by it.

So many specific lines in WP:NPOV and WP:POV fork have been violated that it would take all day to write them out, nevefr mind find the diffs to demonstrate them; but my provision of cites and sources were all ignored too, and anything I said; so looking up diffs that will also be ignored seems pointless; read the Talk:Chinese Canadians in British Columbia talkpage and 'listen up'. If you don't, don't fire in my general direction, I don't care; but someone here should.Skookum1 (talk) 02:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

General question

Suppose Wikipedian "A" says that NPOV requires treating reliable sources according to their prominence, but Wikipedian "B" says that the degree of reliability should also impact how reliable sources are treated. What is the proper response to Wikipedian "B"?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Please note that in the context that Anything is asking this about, "prominence" means comparing two differing individual sources by their circulation and fame, on the one side, and reliability on the other. It does not mean anything about a preponderance of multiple sources. And the question is also not about whether the sources should appear at all, but about the proportion to which each source's opinion should be described within an article. And just to be clear, none of the sources that we're arguing about are particularly well informed, but the prominent one is inarguably prominent, and both have been deemed to be reliable as sources about their own opinion but not the subject. An analogous question: suppose Justin Bieber and an associate professor of mathematics state contradictory opinions about the existence of life on Mars. Both sources are published in ways we would normally consider reliable, and the mathematics one specifically and clearly refutes what Bieber has to say. Do we treat these sources according to their prominence? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
What a ridiculous framing. In David's rendition, "Justin Bieber" is the full editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, who together have excellent academic and journalistic credentials, are veterans in the field with a couple Pulitzers between them, and are writing in the name of their publication, and the "associate professor of mathematics" is in fact a blogger who has no science credentials whatsoever, has very little experience, journalistic or otherwise, and is barely old enough to grow a freaking beard.
It's also not correct to say that WSJ is only being argued as "more prominent", as if it were a mere argument about circulation or readership; those aren't irrelevant, but the WSJ authors also have much stronger credentials pretty much any way you look at it. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 11:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)