Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:19, 21 November 2008

• WP:POVN
• WP:NPOV/N
• WP:NPOVN

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors. Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.

Editors can post questions here about whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy, and editors interested in neutrality issues will give their opinion. If you are satisfied with a response, please tag your thread at the top with {{resolved}}.

For general questions about the NPOV policy, please go to the Neutral Point of View talk page.

Guidance on how to make articles conform to Misplaced Pages's neutrality policy can be found on pages listed in Category:Misplaced Pages neutral point of view, primarily the policy pages Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view and Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/FAQ. For a list of articles that have been marked as potentially containing a NPOV problem, see Category:NPOV disputes

If your question is about whether material constitutes original research, please use the No original research noticeboard. For review of whether a source is reliable, go to the Reliable sources noticeboard.

See also Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Neutrality and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Countering systemic bias whether these would be better venues for the issues you're trying to address.

Click here to post a new topic or discussion. NOTE: This noticeboard is intended for advice concerning specific NPOV issues. Please be concise. Post what is wrong with what content where, what you think it should say, and why. This board is intended for NPOV inquiries of a simple nature. For complex issues, please consider an article RFC or mediation. Be sure to provide evidence--links to sources, passages, etc.

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, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Cinema Rex fire needs POV checking

It seems like many of the previous authors of the Cinema Rex fire article wrote it in the point of view that Islamic fundamentalists started the fire. In many reports I read the Iranian public believed, and believes that the Shah did it. We should review the POV and sourcing of this article. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Heckler & Koch MP5

German terrorist group, the Red Army Faction, depicted a Heckler & Koch MP5 in their insignia.

• Donahue, Patrick (February 12, 2007). "German Red Army Faction Member Wins Early Release". Bloomberg.com. Retrieved 2007-12-08.
• Landler, Mark (February 7, 2007). "Germany Relives 1970s Terror as 2 Seek Release From Jail". New York Times. Retrieved 2007-12-08.

The addition of this simple, referenced statement has been summarily reverted repeatedly by User:Koalorka without appropriate explanation and he and several members of WP:GUN opposed the addition at the article talk page first as "violating WP:GUN#Criminal use", then later as being "trivia" and as violating WP:UNDUE. It was then proposed to hide (for all practical purposes) this " a criminal Marxist terror organization and their actions in an article free of politics" in the article's section on Users. But the RAF never did actually use the gun, and imho the "compromise" to put it there was suggested out of the same underlying POV motivation. Barring a reorganisation of the article to create a better place for this sentence, I believe the end of the article's lead is the only place and perfectly appropriate for this statement, especially considering the fact that the RAF logo is easily the most notable depiction of the MP5 ever. Yes or no? Everyme 02:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this fact belongs in the article about Red Army Faction, but not in the article about the firearm. It does seem like trivia, and placing it in the lead would probably be undue weight in my opinion. Jehochman 03:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I'll defer to your judgement. Everyme 05:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• OTOH, it already is mentioned in the RAF article. And why exactly is it so out of place to concisely mention it in the MP5 article? I mean, seriously, "trivia"? The RAF is quite notable and the logo is the most widely circulated depiction of the gun ever. Everyme 20:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

My take on this: most communist organizations that used a firearm on their emblems used the AK-47, so it's worth mentioning that RAF used something else (and what that something else was) in the article on RAF. Mentioning RAF in the article on MP5 seems very marginal; are there any references association with RAF significantly affected the gun's visibility/notoriety? If so, then mention it, otherwise don't. By analogy, MP5 is mentioned in the article on Half-Life_(video_game) as plot device, but Half-life is not mentioned in the article about the gun. What I'm trying to say here is that "X is worth mentioning in the article on Y" is not a symmetric relation. VG ☎ 09:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: to younger generations Half-life is/was way, way more notable than RAF, so it's reasonable to presume that for them Half-life was "easily the most notable depiction of the MP5 ever". In the absence of sources to support the claim, I wouldn't add it to the article on MP5 because it's WP:OR. VG ☎ 09:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that I didn't and don't propose to add that into the article literally. But consider e.g. this NYTimes article from 2007: "Ransom pictures of Mr. Schleyer posed in front of the Red Army Faction’s crude symbol, a star bisected by a Heckler & Koch MP5 machine gun, came to symbolize the scourge of 1970s terrorism." It's fair to say that —all recentism and other systemic bias aside— it is indeed the far more notable depiction. I mean, come on. Half-Life? Everyme 20:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Just "Half-life 2" has two orders of magnitude more ghits than "red army faction", so come on. VG ☎ 17:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Everyme that the use of the MP5 in the RAF logo is notable, for the reasons summarized in the NY Times quote. The RAF, together with other terrorist organizations, violently influenced the lives of many in Western Europe and the Middle East throughout the 1970s, 1980s, and to some extent 1990s. Furthermore I feel it is a notable use of the MP5, since the MP5 was mostly used by police forces and armies that the RAF vehmently opposed as "imperialist". Nevertheless they used the gun in their logo, which became a symbol of terrorism. The gun in the logo is also often mistakenly identified as a Kalashnikov. — I would say Half Life is not such an influential symbol, but since I'm not that familiar with Half Life 2 I'm not qualified to judge whether it's worth mentioning. Stevo2001 (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Wyher's edits to evolution

If you look here you see Wyher essentially replaced the evolution page with scripture from Genisis. This is severe vandalism and may even be indicitive of good hand/bad hand sockpuppetry going on.--Ipatrol (talk) 20:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Murder of Swami Lakshmanananda

Murder of Swami Lakshmanananda- Me and another user have raised some pov issues at article talk page. I feel this article desperately in need of cleaning up (see talk). Additionally, I feel the section "Murder" looks like a news report per WP:NOT. When I removed those contents, another pov editor undid my edits. Please have a look at this and resolve the issue. --Googlean 06:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I have corrected / chopped / fixed something. Please, have look at the article & do if something else to be done. --Googlean 08:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Not Notable

I added some information in the Names of God in Judaism article, under Tetragrammaton in the relevant section about Bibles. I found that although the context was about YHWH, and Yahweh, Bibles about Jehovah were being discussed. I decided to add perhaps one of the most well-read, known Bible in the sacred Name Movement, the SSBE, Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition which uses the Name Yahweh both in the Old Testament and New, and it is removed .

When I asked for an explanation from the user who did so, he/she said: "Not notable", hence the subject of this article ]

Would someone please help to get across a clearly acceptable source in to this section of the article. Jehovah Witnesses are entitled to have their say, but not to the point of UNDUE weight: ]

Discuss: Skywriter.

Kiddish.K (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

perhaps one of the most well-read, known Bible in the sacred Name Movement - Prove it, and then demonstrate that it's significant. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I've had a look on the web and found a few interesting sites:

• Tynadle House thinks highly of the SSBE. There a group which studies the Bible located in Cambridge, attended by scholars ands religious peoples from various parts of the world apparently: ] ]
• It has been used at the University of Cambridge and it's lesser institutions: ]
• It's first edition appears on the Internal Bible Catalogue ]
• Bible appears in well established Libraries. ] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiddish.K (talk • contribs) 16:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE NOTE -- Kiddish.K has been banned as yet another of the Mod_Objective Sock Puppets. This thread can be archived. Thanks. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 08:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Yamashita's gold

In the Yamashita's gold article this sentence is added by an anonymous (ip editor)

On February 28, 2000, the trial court conducted a hearing to determine the value of the golden buddha and the 17 bars of gold and awarded approximately $13 million.

Reference 2 makes no mention of the events that took place in Reference 1. Is this neutral? Jim (talk) 01:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV problem with Jack Ross (writer)

Ongoing NPOV issues with Jack Ross (writer), which may be part autobiography.

The article has improved since it was created but it still doesn't read like a wikipedia article to me. It does not seem balanced. Am I being too critical? What is the best approach to this kind of problem?

Is there a polite way of suggesting to users that autobiography is a bad idea? I noticed that another user has been encouraging the creator of the article to improve it. Bonfire of vanities (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Steve Munsey Article

The Steve Munsey article appears to contain information verbatim from the official stevemunsey.com website, and the remainder of the article almost sounds like it's being written by a faithful parishioner of Munsey.

The article contains absolutely no criticisms of any kind, and even comments on his "trendy creative edge."

The article is 100% praise with no balance at all.

Read below @: http://en.wikipedia.org/Steve_Munsey Jonpaulusa (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

NPOV problem with all years in film articles

Is this article considered by any way a violation of the NPOV rules? I have recently translated this article to the Hebrew Misplaced Pages and some folks over there say that it is since there is no real criterion for that list... ("a selective list of movie titles mostly from Hollywood which only the authors of the article think are notable"). Any ideas you might have which could help convincing them that it doesn't violate NPOV rules (such as an Inclusion criteria for this article or any film list article) would be greatly appreciated.

Please tell me what the film lists inclusion criteria are. 24.12.234.123 (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

bdsm photos

there is an inordinate number of photographs depicting bound females in comparison to those of bound males —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icevixen17 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Treaty of Trianon

The article about Trianon is clearly onesided (!!!), focus at lost a lot of territorry and people, but Austria-Hungary 1916 and Hungary 1921 were two absolute different countries, Hungary is not successor, not heritage, de jure and in reality it is a complete new startup. And Trianon is still in force and valid. In article abot Saint Germain is this balancing act successful, this article it is a clear falsification of history and the trample at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view. Please give your position after comparing with Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye (1919) and another article. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 17:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I think deleting four(!) English language, academic sources and a New York Times article will not further your case here. Squash Racket (talk) 17:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

no because, deleted statement is untrue and has to be deleted. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you too realize that is a weak "explanation". Squash Racket (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

If you ignore text of treaty, you surely reailze, that you don't have any explanation, not a weak one. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

As I have already shown you on the talk page you misunderstood the text of the treaty. The parties who concluded the treaty are very clearly listed. You just don't accept that.

BTW I didn't "ignore" anything, you removed several English language academic sources. Squash Racket (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Once again, statement Hungary seen as a successor of Austria-Hungary is a clear falsification of history and a violation of Treaty of Trianon and the trample at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view.--Nina.Charousek (talk) 18:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

What is your problem with that? Hungary is a successor of Austria-Hungary - that is true. Two states, Austria and Hungary lived in a dual monarchy for a few decades after the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867. Then at the end of WWI (1918) this was over.
I don't see how on Earth that would "violate" the Treaty of Trianon of 1920. Squash Racket (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC) Ich habe überhaupt keine Lust mich zu wiederholen,aber leider muss ich es tun, ich sehe dass sie gut deutsch sprechen, also nochmal Text des Vertrages: in Anbetracht, daß die ehemalige Österreichisch-ungarische Monarchie heute aufgehört hat zu existieren und daß an ihre Stelle in Ungarn eine ungarische Nationalregierung getreten ist - und dann die Bestimming der Grenzen, also Der Friedensvertrag von Trianon hat Oesterreich-Ungarn aufgeloest und für Ungarn neue Grenzen bestimmt, sprich es gibt keien Kontinuität zwischen Oesterreich-Ungarn 1916 und Ungarn 1920, es ist eine komplette Neugründung. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 20:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand German, but others here do not, so let's just keep it English. The German translation of the text slightly differs from the English one (for example "heute" - "by now"). Would you add a link for it?

The Treaty of St. Germain dissolved Austria-Hungary way before the Treaty of Trianon.

One more important thing: the text of the treaty is a primary source, and Misplaced Pages prefers secondary (or tertiary) sources, the ones that you can already find in the article. The text was heavily influenced by Eduard Benes, the French etc., while Hungary had not much influence on it for obvious reasons.

We prefer neutral scholarly view of the subject. Squash Racket (talk) 11:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I would ask Charousek to stop the disruption along these lines. Things like this "no because, deleted statement is untrue and has to be deleted." are clearly troubling. We do not go by your word on what is true or not true against multiple citations. Just for your information there was no Austria-Hungary in 1920 it simply did not exist since 1918, so your main point and argument is moot and void anyway, but still your word does not overrule the sources in any case. Hobartimus (talk) 23:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

it is only one aspect, this article is clear violation of NPOV and need a deep revision, full of half-truths and did not cover important aspects of mutter.--Nina.Charousek (talk) 11:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Schismatic dioceses = POV forks

Due to disagreements over theology and social issues, two dioceses in Episcopal Church (United States) have decided to change their allegiance to other "provinces" or hierarchies. In both cases, some churches decided to stay within the U.S. hierarchy, effectively splitting the dioceses. The problem we have is that now we have articles on both sets of dioceses that are POV forks:

• Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Episcopal Church)
• Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Southern Cone)
• Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin
• Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin

The problem is worse for Pittsburgh, where the articles(s) include a long history dating back to 1755. Both dioceses now claim to be the "true" dioceses, and so both claim the history, etc. One suggested solution is to have one article on the pre-schism dioceses and one each on the new bodies. Any other ideas? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

There are two separate kinds of content forks going on here. In the case of San Joaquin, the duplicated content is basically limited to recounting the history of the split. The current case of Diocese of Quincy and soon-to-be case of Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth will probably be similar in scope. In the case of Pittsburgh, the fork is worse because of the superiority of the older article, which had a long and excellent history written. Leaving aside Pittsburgh for the moment, because of the additional complexity, I think that in the case of San Joaquin, Quincy, and Fort Worth, the best course of action is to document the detailed history over on Anglican realignment where it mostly is anyhow, (and just expand that piece), and then prune all that history from the separate diocesan articles and have pointers to Anglican realignment. In the case of the Diocese of Pittsburgh this solution isn't adequate, because the longer history does not belong in Anglican realignment. But if we create "history of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh" it won't be limited to the pre-schism history by title, and so it will simply invite continued editing for current events, and likely conflict. So to implement this for the Pittsburgh case, we will need a good title, and I'm not sure yet what that should be. In addition, we need agreed language in the lead for the post-schism bodies that avoids thumb-on-the-scale stuff. Tb (talk) 06:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really certain if I am posting this in the right place, but the article "Conservative Christian" is being used by user N0nr3s to put forth his opinion of Catholic Teaching (on Biblical inerrancy) rather than the Catholic Church's stated position. The page has been subject to repeated edits and undos.Catholic monarchist (talk) 09:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

American Family Association‎

Heyo. We could use some more eyes over at American Family Association‎. The article is included in some questionable categories and editors are warring over whether to include some user-generated content about the organization as a "reliable source". I've been watching this page for awhile and really don’t have the energy to push back that the moment. Cheers, HiDrNick! 17:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Conservative Christianity

I'm not really certain if I am posting this in the right place, but the article Conservative Christianity is being used by user N0nr3s to put forth his opinion of Catholic Teaching (on Biblical inerrancy) rather than the Catholic Church's stated position. The page has been subject to repeated edits and undos.Catholic monarchist (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The term is ambiguous and there is no evidence that it clearly identifies any group of people or set of beliefs, it overlaps with other identified groups, and there are no references to prove otherwise. Compare this with the article on Conservative Judaism, which is well-understood and refers to a specific group of people. This article should be deleted. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Conservatism in the United States

This article was written from a modern American conservative point of view, presents history in a way that is not generally accepted by scholars, and has attracted numerous edits and comments. I have described how this article could be re-written. In the meantime, could the article be labelled POV? The Four Deuces (talk) 20:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Right-wing politics and Conservatism

For some time now, these articles have been passionately defended by libertarian editors trying to make right-wing/conservative = free markets and limited government and deleting any other aspect posted. Bobisbob2 (talk) 20:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think protecting the article is the way to go -- it is apt to get "protected" in its current awful state. Also, I've found that discussions of an article are best held on the article's talk page, rather than a noticeboard. So, back to talk. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Oklahoma Christian School

In addition to the question of notability, this article is written in a way that does not conform to Misplaced Pages's neutrality standards. The author's biases emerge loud and clear. It also reads like promotional literature in places. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Oklahoma_Christian_School —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cymbaline69 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:BBL sidebar

Not sure this is the best board to ask for input but ... does anyone see Template:BBL sidebar as being a bit POV-ish? The "BBL Controversy" also known as the "Autogynephilia Controversy" is an ongoing and heated line of discussion in the transgender community. We might have a content fork here as well. -- Banjeboi 02:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Six-Day War Article

see Talk:Six-Day War#Section Break This Dispute is over Censorship and Talk:Six-Day War#"Disputed", Israel's refusal to host UNEF

A dispute has arisen over a series of deletions of material from scholarly WP:V secondary sources, i.e. The Making of Resolution 242, by Sydney Dawson Bailey; International History of the Twentieth Century, by Anthony Best; Peacekeeping Fiascoes, by Frederick H. Fleitz; The Evolution of UN Peacekeeping, By William Durch; and The UN Yearbook (a reference work published by the United Nations Information Service. Those secondary sources also happen to be supported by a published primary source document -UN Secretary General U Thant's report on the situation in the Middle East. One of the editors has selectively picked WP:V sources which support his master narrative, and is acting as a gatekeeper to exclude any other published views. I appears to be a violation WP:NPOV policy.

After a lengthy discussion on the talk page these well-sourced quotations from WP:V secondary sources were added, but they were immediately deleted by the same editor:

After the war Yitzhak Rabin, who had served as the Chief of the General Staff for Israel during the war stated: "I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it." Menachem Begin stated that "The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." both men quoted in One Land, Two Peoples: The Conflict Over Palestine, By Deborah J. Gerner PhD, Westview Press, 1994, ISBN 0813321808, Page 112

Former Chief of Staff of the armed forces, Haim Bar-Lev (a deputy chief during the war) had stated: "the entrance of the Egyptians into Sinai was not a casus belli." Major General Mattityahu Peled, the Chief of Logistics for the Armed Forces during the war, claimed the survival argument was "a bluff which was born and developed only after the war... ..."When we spoke of the war in the General Staff, we talked of the political ramifications if we didn't go to war —what would happen to Israel in the next 25 years. Never of survival today." both men were quoted in "Was the War Necessary?", Time Magazine. Peled also stated that "To pretend that the Egyptian forces massed on our frontiers were in a position to threaten the existence of Israel constitutes an insult not only to the intelligence of anyone capable of analyzing this sort of situation, but above all an insult to the Zahal (Israeli military) quoted from 'The Terrorist Conjunction: The United States, the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, by Alfred G. Gerteiny, and Jean Ziegler, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2007, ISBN 0275996433, page 142 harlan (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

If Harlan were really interested in neutrality, rather than just finding secondary sources that included the specific quotes he was so keen on inserting into the article, he would instead have actually reproduced the thrust of the arguments the sources were using. Deborah J. Gerner, for example, suggests that it is unlikely that Nasser was actually going to attack Israel. However, she also points out that Nasser was engaged in brinkmanship in an "attempt to improve its standing in the Arab world and to humiliate Israel by forcing it to accept what it said it would not accept—the renewed closure of the Strait of Tiran". Someone interested in NPOV would have edited to include that view. Jayjg 17:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Stefan Uroš II Milutin of Serbia

A new account, Humormekill (talk · contribs), has been adding some "See Also" stuff, in bad English, that is surely intended to push some sort of point: a couple of sentences like "North Kosovo 1420km2 with Stprce area and Titova Mitrovica, its 13% of Kosovo under Serbian Beograd control!" I reverted once but he put it back. Since I'm not really up on Balkans issues, I should probably let somebody else take charge of this. looie496 (talk) 06:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

NPOV at Grossmont Union High School District article.

The Grossmont Union High School District article had edits made after the recent election ]]]]] may contain possible problems. Some of them I revertd, but they were placed back. After a brief discussion, I decided to allow him to keep the information for now, as long as he cleaned it up a bit, but I made it clear that I was still not in favor of the information and would seek an outside opinion. Could someone take a look and explain it to the other editor or if I am wrong, explain it to me. The more editors that we get in on this the better. The page has been changing so much in the past two weeks, I can't even keep up.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The Kings College

http://en.wikipedia.org/The_King%27s_College

Most of this article was clearly written from the perspective of a student or employee trying to further this school's agenda. I attended this school, so I clearly do not have an "objective" opinion. However, the article is not at all written in an objective way, particularly in the sections entitled, "Degree Programs", "Student Housing and Activities", "Houses" and "Criticism and Response".

I find the article entirely misleading, particularly concerning the fact that the school is only made up of several hundred students and the programs are small and limited. This article makes the programs sound enticing and full of opportunity. I suppose all I have to say is that I experienced the exact opposite in my year at this college. Perhaps I am not able to express myself very well due to my bias, however, I feel the article is rather biased and misleading if you look over it carefully. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcgill lass (talk • contribs) 07:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Rick Ross (consultant)

I would appreciate wider community input on the above article, notably the sections on (1) the Jason Scott case and (2) the Branch Davidians.

The article subject, Mr Ross, as well as editors Cirt (talk · contribs) and Ohconfucius (talk · contribs), feel that these sections are too unkind to Mr Ross:

1. in the first case, for reporting too many details relating to the Jason Scott case, and
2. in the second case, i.e. the Branch Davidians section, for reporting scholarly criticism of Mr Ross's involvement in the Waco siege.

The article shouldn't be a hatchet job, but on the other hand, such notable criticism as there has been should be fairly represented. The Jason Scott case was a landmark case that set an important legal precedent (it ended the North American practice of forcibly abducting adult "cult" members in order to change their beliefs).

Also, I feel unduly pressurised by the subject, Mr Ross, on the talk page; for example to portray events in a light flattering to him, based solely on his own assertions made on the talk page, when this flattering interpretation of events is flatly contradicted by a statement reported in a reliable source – which Mr Ross says is "of little value here".

As I see it, the article has for many years suffered from the inclusion of many statements that were either unsourced, or sourced to Mr Ross's writings on his website, thus failing to reflect significant published views on this subject in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. Here, for reference, is an old version of the article, which Mr Ross prefers – it has multiple clear violations of Misplaced Pages:Blp#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source. I was also concerned to find that around a quarter of all edits that the article had received over the past five years were made by single-purpose IP accounts that seem reasonably attributable to Mr Ross himself, as they are all consistent with a New Jersey location, use the same diction and lines of argument as Mr Ross's (recently-established) account on the talk page, do not cite published sources but personal knowledge, seek to attach a "cult apologist" label to any academic that has been critical of Mr Ross, etc.

I'd appreciate uninvolved editors' input on how to find the right balance. Jayen466 11:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Both my bio and the article about the Jason Scott case have become dominated by single editor Jayen466, who seems to be either a volunteer or staffer working for a guru group often called a "cult" founded by Osho/Shree Rajneesh, now deceased. Anyone interested should also see the article about Osho/Rajneesh, which Jayen466 has sought to turn into promotional advertising for the guru.

However, Osho/Rajneesh was most well-known historically as a notorious "cult leader" that was deported from the United States after being jailed by authorities.

I am pointing this out because Jayen466 seems to be an editor at Misplaced Pages because of such personal interests and his participation at my bio and the Jason Scott article reflect his unhappiness that the Ross Institute Internet Archives contains a subsection with critical information about Osho/Rajneesh.

See http://www.rickross.com/groups/rajneesh.html

Jayen466 bias is reflected by his work here at Misplaced Pages and there are specific problems with his editing of my bio and the Jason Scott article, which I have noted specifically at the talk/discussion pages attached to those articles.

Jayen466 has used various quotes from unreliable and biased sources, edited/parsed language and inserted opinions in an effort to mislead readers and generally promote his POV. For example, he has relied heavily upon the writings of Anson Shupe, who was paid by Scientology lawyers to become their "expert." Shupe worked very closely with Scientology lawyer Kendrick Moxon.

If Misplaced Pages is to be a credible and reliable source for objective information editors like Jayen466, who wish to use this site as a platform for propaganda, need to reigned in and held accountable.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Mr Ross, as has been pointed out to you before by others, these are personal attacks. Please cease them forthwith – you have made essentially the same attack ten times now, on multiple talk pages: . As for Anson Shupe, he is widely considered a leading scholar in his field, your unpublished opinion of him notwithstanding. Cheers, Jayen466 13:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The point remains the same, which is your conflict of interest as an Osho/Rajneesh devotee with an ax to grind. This is something you have notably never denied per the ten examples you offer and it is the motivation for your editing work at Misplaced Pages. Attempting to portray this conflict of interest as a "personal attack" doesn't change the facts. Are you a full-time staffer or volunteer for the Osho community? It is also a matter of record historically and evident to anyone that does serious research regarding Anson Shupe, that he has worked professionally closely with Scientology and Scientologist lawyer Kendrick Moxon specifically. The writings you have quoted are evidence of that.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 21:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages neutral point of view
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution