Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:17, 28 December 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.

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)

Not in most of Western Europe. Danny Morrison's statement "with a ballot paper in this hand and an Armalite in the other," (to which he could of added 'and semtex in the car') was more symbolic in those parts of western Europe where a much larger war took place. --PBS (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take the "most" back (and I don't want to play the game which country had the most violent terrorists). But at the least, it was a major symbol of terrorism in Germany, which is home to a significant share of Western Europe's population, and happens to be home to the Heckler & Koch, the manufacturer of the HK MP5. Stevo2001 (talk) 05:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Boycotts of Proposition 8 supporters

• Boycotts of Proposition 8 supporters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - article is mainly "owned" by one editor. I (and others) have been discussing it on the talk page, but it is still primarily a one-man effort relying significantly on POV and cites to op/ed columns of newspapers. Certainly not NPOV. tedder (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Update: the article's text issues are being resolved via discussion, but there continues to be an edit war over its inclusion in Category:Religious persecution. AV3000 (talk) 13:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

This is still an issue, perhaps bigger now than ever. POV disputes and ownership. tedder (talk) 04:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion concerning "terrorist" and related words at Misplaced Pages:Words to avoid

There is a discussion concerning WP:TERRORIST ongoing, and User:Dank55 suggested that I raise the topic over here, for resolution by people with more experience on POV issues. Specifically, the current discussion centers on whether words like "terrorist" should be banned from the narrative voice of the article. RayAYang (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the word "terrorist" pops up on this page, its archives, and the NPOV archives a lot. That suggests that, although we don't have a specific policy, how we want to handle this word is more a matter of policy than guidelines, and more a matter for NPOV experts than for style geeks (such as myself). You can see the arguments at Wikipedia_talk:Words_to_avoid#Extremist, terrorist or freedom fighter?; if you'd like a summary here, I'm sure PBS, Ray and others will be happy to give it a shot. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd be disappointed if we can't draw some discussion on this noticeboard; better to discuss policy matters here than to force them back into style guidelines talk or article talk pages. Would anyone like a summary of the arguments at WT:Words to avoid? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The problems with the use of the word terrorist in the unqualified narrative voice of the article is best described in the section "Pejorative use" in the article Terrorism.

The section has a quotation from Bruce Hoffman "On one point, at least, everyone agrees: terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore." As Misplaced Pages has a built in bias (see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Countering systemic bias) inexperienced editors in good faith can and do use the word terrorist citing reliable sources without realising that they are presenting information with a non neutral point of view.

For example in the 1960s the British called the Mau Mau terrorists and if Misplaced Pages had been written in the 1960s most of the reliable sources of the day would have labelled the rebels as such. However more recent research, particularly as the President elect of the US had a grandfather who was tortured by British because of his suspected links to the Mau Mau (Beatings and abuse made Barack Obama’s grandfather loathe the British The Sunday Times, 3 December 2008), presents the same issues from another perspective. An article written in the 1960 would have been much less bias to the British point of view if the article stated "The Mau Mau uprising in Kenya, members of which are considered to be terrorists by the British colonial government (citations), ..." than if it said "The Mau Mau terrorist movement is attacking civilians in Kenya (same citations), ...".

Personally I think that the general sections in this Policy are enough to cover this concern — "A simple formulation" ("Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves"); Let the facts speak for themselves"; and Attributing and substantiating biased statements — and that the details should remain in a guideline. --PBS (talk) 11:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with people making the arguments for how NPOV applies to the word "terrorist". On the other hand, logically, if we put this in WP:Words to avoid, then why are we not also defining "late-term abortion", "global warming", "intelligent design", "cold fusion", "independent candidate", etc? Why single out "terrorist" for this kind of discussion? It doesn't fit with 90% of the current content of WP:WORDS. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the solution may be to step back, consider this as a more general issue with WP:WTA, and change the emphasis of that guideline's lead section to more strongly refer the reader back to NPOV. I say this because, to me (as to PBS I think), all "words to avoid" are words that fail WP:ASF by presenting an opinion as fact, often implicitly. This approach may solve the problem by making the rest of the text of WTA more of a list of examples of the general principle - a how-to guide on the application of NPOV to word selection, if you will - and less of a proscriptive list of problem words. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 15:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

There are two ongoing problems here. The one Dank55 points out, and to which I am sympathetic, is that WP:WTA is not meant to be an elaboration of WP:NPOV. Rather, it's meant to be a style guideline, along the lines of what I associate with Strunk and White. That is to say, ideally it would give advice on ways to avoid mushy and unclear prose in favor of concrete, definite, and punchy prose, thereby improving the clarity and presentation of our articles. It is my feeling that the current guideline has been somewhat hijacked from that noble purpose, and actually acts against it in some places. In the case under dispute, it suggests we lose words like "terrorist" in favor of the much vaguer and muddled "militant" or "partisan," actually contradicting principles of good English style.

The second, closely related, dispute, regards the characterization of terrorist by PBS and his quoted sources as a purely pejorative term, as opposed to a term with strong negative connotations which can nonetheless be descriptive and factually accurate, and thus wholly appropriate for the narrative voice. Words like assassination, murder, kidnap, killer, pirate, loser, poisoner, spy, dictator, secret policeman, all have negative (in some cases, strongly negative) connotations, but we cannot deny that their negative associations spring from their accuracy of description, rather than any intent to insult. However fuzzy the definition of terrorism gets around the edges, there is no other word in the English language for easily describing the deliberate targeting of undefended, or weakly defended, civilian targets with violence in order to instill fear and hopefully compliance in a target political entity. See how awkward that construction was? But if I said "terrorism in Mumbai," people would know that I didn't mean "militants" had staged a march with fiery rhetoric, nor that "partisans" of particular factions had taken part in some sort of unspecified political activity. Where the word terrorism, in its plain meaning, fits, we should not shy away from it. Misplaced Pages is about facts, not the avoidance of giving offense. RayAYang (talk) 10:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC

RayAYang, you have just made up your own definition of terrorism "English language for easily describing the deliberate targeting of undefended, or weakly defended, civilian targets with violence in order to instill fear and hopefully compliance in a target political entity". So those people who include the attack on the Pentagon on 9/11 are mistaken and that was not a terrorist attack because it was against a military target? Does that mean an attack on congress is a terrorist attack because it is against a civilian target but an attack on the White House, the residence of the head of the American military, is not a terrorist attack (based on the US assertion that targeting Saddam, head of his military, was a legitimate US war target)? Does that mean one can not label United Airlines Flight 93 as a terrorist attack as the target was unknown and might have been a military one? The IRA never attacked Londoners to terrorise them (Having survived the Blitz without being terrified there was nothing that the IRA could do that would have come near that) instead their aims were to make the cost of maintaining the status quo ante bellum in Northern Ireland too high for HGM. So does this mean as the motive was not to terrify Londoners that these attacks were therefore not terrorists attacks? --PBS (talk) 10:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not define terrorism. I provided an example of a specific class of activities that are unambiguously considered terrorism, in the descriptive sense, by the overwhelming majority of English language users. This is a subset of the set of activities considered to be terrorism -- there are others that are considered terrorism as well, needless to say, with varying degrees of controversy, which is where the train wreck that is a full definition of the term currently resides. It was not necessary for me to opine on whether every single event that has ever been called terrorism actually is a case of terrorism, for me to point out that terrorism, unmistakably recognizable, does indeed exist. The existence of such a subset is a glaring counterexample to your insistence that terrorism is a purely pejorative term, as opposed to its being a term with a legitimate descriptive purpose in the English language. Ray (talk) 20:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

So when a person uses the term terrorism do you not consider it to be a pejorative term? Have you ever known a state in the last 30 years to describe its actions as terrorism? As to your statement "However fuzzy the definition of terrorism gets around the edges, there is no other word in the English language for easily describing the deliberate targeting of undefended, or weakly defended, civilian targets with violence in order to instill fear and hopefully compliance in a target political entity." So in your opinion was Goebbels correct to call areas bombardment by the RAF and the USAAF in WII terror bombing, from which if follows if ture that that RAF and the USAAF were terrorist organisations? Does this mean that the IRA was not a terrorist organisation because although they targeted civilians as they did not do it to install fear? --PBS (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, PBS, what does my opinion of particular controversies matter? Do you deny that there have been self-described terrorist organizations? That the term terrorist brings to mind a specific subset of activities for which there are no other handy words? That the word is an accurate description of these events? There's nothing in your reply I couldn't, with just a bit of editing, apply to the word "murder" or "assassin." Does that mean you want to ban those words too? What about killer? Kidnapper? Is there a single word in the English language describing generally disapproved activities your logic wouldn't require us to ban? Ray (talk) 19:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Murder is a crime, as is terrorism. Misplaced Pages should describe convicted murders as such, and the same goes with convicted terrorists (and there are many). When a murderer is not convicted, he is often referred to have been "charged" with murder, often by the police or authorities. Similarly, those terrorists not convicted should be described as "considered" to be terrorist, by whoever is making the charge.VR _talk 01:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The terrorist section needs a home, if not in the style guideline then somewhere else. The issue comes up too often, and is too contentious, to let things develop ad-hoc. The problem is that the word is quite pejorative but also does have some meaning. It is inconsistently applied and in many cases not objective. It may be useful, for example, to describe the Red Brigades a terrorist group to quickly and conveniently place them in context and inform the reader what kind of organization they are, but calling Greenpeace terrorists probably does not help us understand who they are or what they do. There are political and some practical reasons for the expanding definition of terrorists to including anybody who unlawfully damages anything or anyone for a political purpose. Now we have eco-terrorists, domestic terrorists, and drug terrorists. It seems to be more a mater of name calling and political ideology than actually explaining anything. Are rioters terrorists? Saboteurs? Crazy people? If you call someone a terrorist you can turn opinion against it, and likely get more funding and law enforcement resources. We have to be careful with that word.Wikidemon (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon, I don't see that that's a problem. If we state accurately and precisely that Charles Manson committed murder, we may turn opinion against him. However, when opinion turning against somebody is a natural consequence of facts objectively and fairly represented through precise use of the English language, that's not a problem. As far as the home question is concerned, I'm wondering whether it'd be wiser to break WP:WTA up into two sections, one on NPOV issues and one on style issues. Ray (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Most tags of murder are not a problem because people have a clear concept of what murder is in most circumstances and it is defined by law. But the type of the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes was still open to being called murder until Sir Michael Wright ruled out that option. In that sad case it will probably be accepted by the majority. But what about the victims of Bloody Sunday (1972)? There is no dispute that the killings took place, but that is about where the agreement stops, whether the Paras were or where not murders is a political label. What about Muhammad al-Durrah -- same thing. Much better to report the facts in a Misplaced Pages article on these two cases rather than to state in the passive narrative voice that they were either murder or lawful killings (unless one is attributing the accusation or justification for the killings to an authoritative source). Labels become much more difficult when they are one side descriptions and that is reflected in Misplaced Pages text. For example "Tyrant" and "Massacre" have both been subject to much debate because they do not have precise meanings, and they do carry a pejorative connotations. Take for example the run up to the English Civil War was it an Eleven Years Personal Rule or an Eleven Years' Tyranny -- it depends it you are a Cavalier of a Roundhead. That was some time ago, and the politics of it are not going to spark a civil war, but with more recent events such labels do indicate a political statement eg Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre, Mugabe: Liberation hero turned tyrant. -- PBS (talk) 09:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

PBS, many tags of terrorism are not a problem because people have a clear concept of what terrorism is in most circumstances and it is defined by law and common usage. That there are disputed cases doesn't mean we should ban the tag entirely, merely ask people to exercise caution where there is dispute. Where there isn't, the tag is uncontroversial and should be permitted. That's all I've been saying here. Ray (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

WTA doesn't ban anything. It is a strong recommendation that we avoid the words in it, to ensure that bias doesn't creep in and NPOV suffers. It is a call to stand in attention, and a tool to use in ending edit wars. But a hard prohibition? We can always WP:IAR. If fact, look at my contribs, then look at my points at WT:WTA then look at were in the mainspace I am most currently active, and look at what word is used there without my general objection. It gives you an idea. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW, why is this discussion here and not in WT:WTA? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Dank55 suggested we start one here in the hopes of getting learned opinions from people wise in the ways of POV disputes. That did not prove as successful as might have been hoped, which was one of the reasons I suggested an RFC over at WT:WTA. Ray (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I was hoping to get wider input here but it didn't happen. I'll change the template to point to WT:AVOID. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

"Chile" Article

Hello. I have a small, really small, question that I wish for a neutral editor to answer concerning a possible NON neutral statement.

This is what User:Likeminas keeps favoring as a sentence (which sounds highly PoV) in the Chile article:

"According to one theory the Incas of Peru, who had failed to conquer the Araucanians, called the valley of the Aconcagua "Chili" by corruption of the name of a tribal chief ("cacique") called Tili, who ruled the area at the time of the Incan conquest."

As you can see, he uses the weasel word "who had failed to conquer the Araucanians." It's a fact, but there is really little to no necessity to mention it in that particular way.

This is what I, User:MarshalN20 favor as a better "Non-POV" sentence:

"According to one theory, the Incas of Peru called the valley of the Aconcagua "Chili" by corruption of the name of a Picunche tribal chief ("cacique") called Tili, who ruled the area at the time of the Incan conquest."

What is your opinion on this matter? Do you agree that my proposition is more Non-PoV and less "Weasely"?-- (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that is much of a "weasel" problem. If it's a fact that the Inca failed to conquer the Araucanians... Grsz 02:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the first version, because it asks us to believe that the Incas wanted to conquer the Araucanians, or that they had tried to, or perhaps that they ought to have conquered the Araucanians. It does not explain what actually happened. Your version does not have those problems. However, your main concern must be to follow what your sources say. Can you find a wording that is closer to a description in a good history text? Itsmejudith (talk) 10:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Araucanians in a broad sense are classified into three major cultural subdivisions; the Huilliche, the Picunche, and the Mapuche, the last being the largest group.

The known history of the Araucanians began with the Inca invasion under Tupac Yupanqui. So yes, The Incas attempted to conquer them, and indeed, failed trying.

That's why I don’t understand how this historical fact can be considered weasel.

In any case, and looking at the article from an objetive perspective I do agree that it plays no significant role in that particular sentence.

I think your new revised version is much better than the one you previously tried to add.

Having no further objections all I can say is go ahead and edit the article if you wish.

Likeminas (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Without seeking to make an argument out of this, I do need to comment that what you claim is a "New revised version" is actually the same sentence that you kept reverting my edits upon prior to me coming here. In addition, like I mentioned, it is indeed a fact that the Incas failed to conquer the Araucanians. Yet, as you have explained: The Incas conquered the Picunche, therefore the Incas did conquer part of the Araucanians. In other words, the "more correct" way to refer to the Incas in terms of the Araucanians would be: "The Incas who failed to completely conquer the Araucanians."

You might ask what sort of difference a few little words make, but the truth is that in an encyclopedia (which is what Misplaced Pages claims to be) every single word matters. For instance, take note of this:

-According to one theory, Mike Robinson, who did not eat his pancakes, called his mom "Jackie."

This sentence follows the same structure as the one in the Chile article. The question thus stands, doesn't the "Who did not eat his pancakes" sound weasely? Why does the reader need to know that the person did not eat his pancakes other than to "downgrade" on the guy? Quite obviously, if the reader wants to know more about "Mike Robinson," they should go to the article of this person.

Thank you for your comprehension.-- (talk) 01:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I’m not so sure, that’s the actual sentence you wanted to add, but anyway, I have no intention either of making a debate out of that.

I notice, you attempted to change the article but someone else reverted it. And while I see why the phrase doesn’t quite fit into that particular sentence, I think it does have a place on the history section of the article.

Araucanian, as you probably already know, was the name given to the natives by the Spanish Conquistadors. However, none of these people, until this day consider themselves to be Araucaninias, but instead Huilliche, Picunche & Mapuche.

Having that in mind, if we now specifically state; “the Incas who had failed to (completely or partially) conquer the Mapuches” would not be weasel at all, since that’s just a historical fact.

I included your sentence on the etymology section and also included a rephrased mention of the sentence above.

Hopefully, this minor issue has now been settled.

Likeminas (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Chile&diff=249410495&oldid=249167741

The "someone else" who reverted the article is User:Selecciones de la Vida. I would not be surprised if he reverted the etymology section again. He does not want anything that I have posted to apparently stay in Misplaced Pages.

Your new edit is, without a doubt, a productive improvement.

The sentence “the Incas who had failed to (completely or partially) conquer the Mapuches” could be weasely depending on the context of the sentence or section. If the sentence and/or section deals with the Inca conquest of Chile, then that sentence would not be a weasel. Yet, if it is added in something as irrelevant to the point of that as the etymology section, then it does sound weasel.

By that standard, any word can be a "weasel word," but it all depends on the overall context of the sentence in order to determine whether it truly is weasel or not.-- (talk) 14:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The complete phrase is taken verbatim from the source and it is important to keep it unfiltered, because it tells us that the Incas had come into contact with the Araucanians —even as far as Aconcagua— and attempted to conquer them. It is necessary context provided to understand the significance of the origin of the word. ☆ CieloEstrellado 02:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure the Incas came into contact with the Picunches (not Araucanians), and that's explicit and briefly mentioned in the etymology section, which by the way, is used to discuss the possible origins of the word, and not the historical developments in which they Incas failed to conquer the Mapuches (again, not Araucanians).

I personally don't see how adding "the Incas who had failed to the Araucanians" gives any contextual or historical background of how the word came to exist.

Unfortunaly, I don't have a copy of the book that's being used for that claim, but if you can get a hold of it and post the paragrah in Spanish, then we would all be able to see how it's worded and how relevant that sentence is to the etymology of the word.

Likeminas (talk) 03:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the phrase:

According to one theory the Incas of Peru, who had failed to conquer the Araucanians, called the valley of the Aconcagua "Chili" by corruption of the name of a tribal chief ("cacique") called Tili, who ruled the area at the time of the Incan conquest.

is a combination of two sources: 1) Resumen de la Historia de Chile by Encina & Castedo and 2) "Chile: A Country Study" from the US Library of Congress.

The original text from Source 1 is:

Al denominar Chile al valle del Mapocho, confirmó el nombre que los incas daban al del Aconcagua, según Rosales, por corrupción del nombre del cacique Tili, que lo gobernaba al producirse la conquista incaica. (Page scan here)

The original text from Source 2 is:

The Spanish conquistadors heard about Chilli from the Incas of Peru, who had failed to conquer the land inhabited by the Araucanians, of which the Mapuche in central Chile was the most warlike group. (Introduction section)

☆ CieloEstrellado 04:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The specific mention of the "Picunche" in the etymology section is enough to clarify that the Incas reached the Aconcagua valley and created the name "Chile" from the PICUNCHE tribal chief. This "ETYMOLOGY" section is meant to specify the meaning of the name "CHILE." The HISTORY section of the article is meant to stand as the explanation of the history of Chile, which should include the "failed attempt" of the Incas to completely conquer the "Araucanians" (which technically should be called "Mapuche," as User:Likeminas suggests). Including the information of the "Inca's failure" in the ETYMOLOGY section is a blatant example of using "WEASEL WORDS." There exists no need for it in that particular part of the article. 3 users have already certified this point; Misplaced Pages goes by majority vote, not a single person's vote.-- (talk) 13:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOTDEMOCRACY ☆ CieloEstrellado 05:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Dispute over addition of POV tag

User SMP0328 and myself cannot agree whether it is appropriate to add a POV warning tag to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution article. I really want to avoid starting an edit war, putting the tag in, taking the tag out, over and over. The question seems simple to me: Is there presently a neutrality dispute? If yes, then add the POV tag, resolve the dispute, then remove the tag. I would appreciate outside opinion about whether there is presently a neutrality dispute, and if appropriate could another editor add the POV tag so I may avoid edit warring? Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This article is a crass example of POV, and now it has been protected on a version without the POV tag. Please, someone tell me it is not necessary to get a consensus with the owners of the article before an obviously appropriate tag can be inserted. WP:PROTECTION is silent about this kind of situation. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not a crass example of POV. On the contrary, SaltyBoatr has a long history of POV tag bombing this very article. See: Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution for more history on his egregious behavior. There was also an ArbCom activity after the failed MedCom addressing this very behavior by SaltyBoatr. The point of the POV tagline dispute at present is apparently a disagreement with the Supreme Court ruling on Heller by SaltyBoatr, not on the article itself. The article has been reviewed and is presently a Good Article, having been found to have no neutrality problems. Looks like a case of "deja vu" all over again with SaltyBoatr. (SaltyBoatr also edited this same article under an earlier "handle", as was addressed in ArbCom.) Yaf (talk) 05:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr's and Hans Adler's problem with the article is that it displays a pro-right view of the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. So shouldn't the article reflect that official interpretation? Would tax protesters be right to place a neutrality tag on the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution article, because they feel the article has a pro-ratification bias (they feel the Amendment was not properly ratified)? How about someone who feels abortion is murder? Would such an editor be right to place a neutrality tag on the Abortion article, because he feels the article insufficiently refers to abortion as an act of murder? If the neutrality tag disputed here is legitimate, a terrible precedent has been set. Neutrality must be more than being in the eye of the beholder. SMP0328. (talk) 05:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The above author asks "shouldn't the article reflect the official interpretation?" The answer is of course, absolutely, positively not. The idea that an encyclopedia article should take on a point of view that agrees with official court rulings would find agreement in totalitarian states, but has no place in Misplaced Pages. The encyclopedia's role is to lay out different sides of a disputes and say who is making what arguments, NOT to take a side in the disputes. The biggest issue here is not that the article is too "pro-gun" or "anti-gun"; it's that statements of opinion and original research are repeatedly referred to as fact. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Tags are there to encourage editors to improve articles. And my, isn't there a need for improvement! I am very surprised that this article got through GA, not because of NPOV but because it is a quote farm. I suggest that it goes through GA reassessment and that all editors agree a list of things to do on the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

So, are you saying we are now to start tagging articles with POV taglines not because of NPOV issues, but rather because they may not have correctly passed GA and need further improvement? I am puzzled. Looks like the wrong tag usage to me. Yaf (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I concur with notion that there are serious POV problems with the article. The biggest thing that can be done to improve it, in my opinion, would be to have Scalia's majority opinion in Columbia v. Heller not be presented as fact, but as the court's opinion. On a somewhat tangential note, it's also puzzling that this case is mentioned throughout the article, but the decision itself is only explained briefly near the end of a very long article. It seems that instead of giving proper weight to this decision in the article, editors have simply incorporated the opinions of the decision as statements of fact in the lead.Nwlaw63 (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the article lacks good coverage of dissenting views on the nature of the Second Amendment, and thus the NPOV tag is appropriate. However, the Second Amendment is a part of the US constitution, and thus the majority view of the Supreme Court should get billing as the controlling viewpoint on its implementation. Other views should be mentioned as minority and alternative (currently disfavored) interpretations. Ray (talk) 21:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Have to disagree with the last. That the Supreme Court holds a view is very strong evidence. But not always decisive or majority. There are about 5 people who ever held a very odd, very hard to understand view of the 11th Amendment. The scholarly consensus is that it is unfortunate that all five sit on the Supreme Court. Dred Scott is a more famous and important case of the problems of thinking the SCOTUS view is neccesarily the mainstream one.John Z (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It may or may not be the majority viewpoint, however, it is the legally controlling one, and thus should get first billing in any article on law. Whatever other people may think the law was originally intended to mean, the Supreme Court's word says what it means today, and that is of primary importance to our readers. I think we would be less than helpful if we were to encourage "majority" interpretations that are contrary to current legal doctrine in our articles on law. Ray (talk) 00:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

If it were only so simple. Yes, the SCOTUS has the authority. The problem in the article is that the meaning of the ruling depends a lot on which part of the court ruling the dominant editor(s) chose to selectively quote to push their preferred point of view. Is it that the individual right to firearms is now settled? (As wishful editors have presently edited the article to say as fact.) Or is it that "(n)ow the court must slog through an utterly predictable torrent of litigation, writing, piecemeal, a federal gun code concerning the newfound individual right." And never mind the 219 years of prior history about the Second Amendment. Dust is still settling. This all can be sorted out, assuming good faith collaborative editors and editing (lacking of late). In the mean time, a POV warning tag is fair. SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

neutrality issue.Osho.

hello I am quite new here .. less than a week old so excuse my unenlightened ways. the article that I am interested to tidy up has been nominated for its neutrality. the name of the article is Osho. the article is stagnating with two editors glaring at each other from opposite sides of the fence. I am attempting to bring them together to help create a good article. Is there anybody available to help resolve the issue? I would greatly appreciate it. thanks. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC))

First, welcome to you as a newbie editor. My advice is always to concentrate on the future of the article rather than on editors' conduct. You might also consider editing a variety of articles rather than just this one. At least you will find it helpful to look at some featured articles, particularly some biographies, to see what qualities they have. In relation to this particular article, why not look back at the application for good article and why it failed. Agreeing a list of things to do can be a spur to collaborative editing. (It goes at the top of the talk page, someone can help you with the technicalities.) If the article gets bogged down on one point, put in a Request for comment. My final advice is to look through the sources used. Are they the right ones? Have they been properly reflected in the article? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

thanks for that judith I appreciate the advice... the future.. yes looking at why the article failed requires improving is cool. request for comment like that too.. i'll look more tomorrow. thanks. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC))

US Congressional districts

I've "corrected" a few of names in the predecessor/successor box at the bottom of the bio pages for members of Congress. But there is a problem: Because that box contains a district number someone is going to change it back. Michigan (and surely other states) renumbers its districts so that, while the geography stays the same or similar, the number changes when redistricting.

Example: Bart Stupak represents the UP and northern Lower Michigan. Currently that is the first district. Someone listed John Conyers (whose district used to be number one and is now 14) as his predecessor. John Conyers district is primarily in the city of Detroit. About as far as one can get from Stupak's district. How can John Conyers be Bart Stupak's predecessor when Conyers still serves much of the same district he has since 1964? William Davis is in fact Bart Stupak's predecessor (in the old district numbered 11, which contained the UP and northern lower Michigan).

Someone/people are strictly adhering to the numbers which makes it innaccurate. Any ideas on how to resolve this? Has there been another category/topic where a precedent has been established?

I would suggest mentioning all applicable numbers in the box. If the district is dramatically altered, mention all predecessor who'd represented a significant (20-25%) number of the current district's constituents.mp2dtw (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC).

Sadly, there isn't an easy way to correct this, I'm afraid. Most states do not radically alter the borders of existing districts at redistricting, so there is some continuity in a district number between redistricting cycles. It would be an enormous task to undertake what you are suggesting. It might just be better to note on the articles (in or below the box) that the change of position is due to redistricting and not loss/gaining of Congressional position. Ray (talk) 21:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Smack (Finnish band)

Misplaced Pages's biography of the band Smack isn't especially neutral and worse still, most of it is copy-pasted from this site: http://smackonyou.com/history.html

Here's a link to the Misplaced Pages entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Smack_(Finnish_band) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.157.168.157 (talk) 09:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I have blanked the copyvio text, and tagged the article as being unsourced and needing notability. I was debating CSD A7, so if others feel inclined to delete...-Andrew c  16:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Robert J. Lewy

He gave a $1 million life insurance policy to Stuyvesant HS, not a contribution, I am told. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.115.220 (talk) 10:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Banana plantation

Please check Banana plantation for neutrality. Biscuittin (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Kosher tax

I understood "kosher tax" to be fees paid for kosher certification. When trying to quantify this, I checked the Misplaced Pages entry called "kosher tax", where I found out, to my horror, that I was a white supremacist. This hardly seems fair, because these markings  are on many food products, and the article implies that in merely questioning them, one is commiting a racist act. I consider it a consumer issue, in both pricing and preparation, and should not be called an anti-Semite or an extremist for merely questioning it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrHerbertSewell (talk • contribs) 10:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It appears you've been had, because there is no such thing as "kosher tax", but it is a common antisemitic canard in North America, and the article documents that.Galassi (talk) 13:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a pretty common reading difficulty, I fear. The article says "The "Kosher tax" (or "Jewish tax") is a canard or urban legend spread by antisemitic, white supremacist and other extremist organizations.". It does not say "Dr Sewell" is a white supremacist; it's saying the lie that he appears to support is spread by white supremacist organizations. Reading is hard. --jpgordon 03:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Paudash Lake

This article was suffering from serious NPOV issues and so I originally tagged it with {{peacock}}. The tag was removed four times by an anonymous editor (later determined to be User:Lake Central). The user left messages on my talk page objecting to my actions here, here, here, and the latest one (where I am called a liar and a fool) here.

I have attempted to remove the more blatant POV edits as well as some unencyclopedic content here, only to have it reverted by the above user editing anonymously. I suspect that this is going to continue, so I am bringing the issue here for wider discussion. ... discospinster _talk 04:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Paudash Lake #2

It is difficult to effectively deal with to an individual who:

a. Attempts to make their complaint known by the use of highly ambiguous, unspecific tags.

b. Finally makes some specific complaints regarding the so-called promotion of a non-profit lake conservation association, which makes no sense, and the mere mention of the nearest downhill ski facility to Paudash Lake, for which an explanation was provided.

c. Suddenly proceeds to make a quick and clumsy audit of the Paudash Lake article, removing content on which no specific complaint had been made and leaving a rather strange explanation that certain words, listed for the first time, were not acceptable in Misplaced Pages articles.

d. Fails to address a demonstration that the allegedly unacceptable words are utilized in Misplaced Pages best-practice Featured Articles and, instead, raises yet another complaint.

If this individual actually believes that certain words are unacceptable in Misplaced Pages, then I would expect her to edit them out of the noted Featured Articles. But, of course, I don’t see this happening. What I do see, is a damaged Paudash Lake article, and one which is damaged for no apparent reason other than personal whim. Furthermore, there seems to be no sense of proportion on this matter, which simply involves a pleasant resort area, rather than some controversial politial or religious matter. Lake Central (talk) 08:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Religion in Nazi Germany

I removed some material that violated NPOV from the article Religion in Nazi Germany. The disputed material is in the section entitled "Nazism and religion". I removed the following material:

"Heclo, who recently published a book ''Christianity and American democracy'', argues that "religion is to have a place in public life"<ref name="Helco14">Hugh Heclo, Religion and Public Policy, p.14; Journal of Policy History, Vol 13. No.1, 2001</ref> and emphasizes its importance for a developed democracy:

"If traditional religion is absent from the public arena, secular religions are likely to satisfy man's quest for meaning. ... It was an atheistic faith in man as creator of his own grandeur that lay at the heart of Communism, fascism and all the horrors they unleashed for the twentieth century. And it was adherents of traditional religions - a Martin Niemöller, C.S. Lewis, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Reinhold Niebuhr, Martin Buber - who often warned most clearly of the tragedy to come from attempting to build man's own version of the New Jerusalem on Earth."<ref name="Helco14"/>"

I wrote about my issues on the discussion page:

"I have removed the quotation block for the following reasons: 1. The book that the quotation came from is "Christianity and American democracy", which is not even a history book and so is not an appropriate source for the article. Please see Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources. 2. It is off topic, this article is NOT about the role of religion in communism or fascism in general, it is about the role is religion specifically in Nazi Germany. 3. This article is also not about whether or not "religion is to have a place in public life"; if you want to include this somewhere then find the correct article for it (not this article). 4. It pushes a point of view by being blatantly anti-secular/anti-atheist; blaming "secular religions" and "atheistic faith" for "fascism and all the horrors they unleashed for the twentieth century", which is no way a generally accepted statement among historians. This violates Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view."

User Zara1709 reverted my edit and added a reply to the discussion board that did not even address my concerns.

I do not want to start an edit war and am hoping for help in resolving this problem. Thank you for your time. selfworm 10:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that in a previous discussion Zara1709 explicitly stated "Yes, it is POV, but it is there exactly for this reason; to illustrate that particular POV;" selfworm 10:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was busy that day and didn't write an elaborate reply, but I can give you one now:

1), 2) Yes, one could object to the quote because it is not from a work about Nazism, and also makes a general statement concerning totalitarism; However, it approaches the problem the same way that most historians do it since the 1960s. I've added a reference to a work with the definite title The Nazi Persecution of the Churches. The problem is that the author of that book elaborates the issue in more detail and I haven't found such a nice quote in that book and that is is from 1968. The quote currently used is from a rather recent work and Hugh Heclo certainly is a notable academic, although he is working on different topics.

3) Yes, the topic of Religion in Nazi Germany is somewhat different from the question what importance religion should have in politics. But obviously they are related. And the historian Richard Steigmann-Gall just had to connect these two topic in the conclusion of his book. I think this is clear from the section.

4)Well, in case you haven't noticed this already: Steigmann-Gall makes an argument quite similar to yours, only not quite as direct. "Blaming 'secular religions' and 'atheistic faith' for 'fascism and all the horrors they unleashed for the twentieth century'" is not acceptable from a historians point-of-view. At least concerning Nazism he could confirm it. However, contrary to what you think, before Steigmann-Gall's book, most historians who work on the topic would have agreed to a less direct version of that thesis.

Of course, following wp:NPOV, we must not participate in such controversies. But we must give a balanced account of all the views, and if we'd remove that quote, that would make the article seriously imbalanced. If I find the time, I'll read a few more books on the topic and will see if I can replace that quote with a quote from a history book on Nazism. Zara1709 (talk) 08:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

With the little work I've done on that section in the meantime, could we close this issue as 'resolved', then, or do you still feel that I did not take your concerns into account? Zara1709 (talk) 08:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

David Smick

Written clearly as an advertisement. Mhym (talk) 04:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh

User:Capasitor was suggested not to use the partisan sources at Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh#Sources. However he engaged into bad-faith assumptions here, but was stopped by mediator User:Golbez and me. In this section further evidences on violation of existing policy have been given so that Capasitor retracted, resorting to the off-topic. I reverted the article once. Additional recent evidence is here. --Brandспойт 07:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality Check: Strengths and Weaknesses of Evolution

The article strengths and weaknesses of evolution needs to be checked for WP:NPOV. The basis for this challenge are as follows:

Undue Weight states, "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." (Emphasis added.) Attempts to insert a neutral explanation of the subject have met with reverts by editors who doggedly insist that "this article will, of necessity, give an entirely negative weight on the topic " to the exclusion of all else. (emphasis added.) While Undue Weight rightly dictates that majority scientific opinion be given more weight than the the minority opinion, it does not - as the authors claim - PRECLUDE a neutral airing of the minority opinion.

Undue Weight further states, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." (emphasis added.) Again, the very subject of the article is "strengths and weaknesses of evolution" which by it's very existence implies a POV that there are "weaknesses" in the science of evolution. That is the subject of the article, so regardless of "fringe opinion" arguments, SOME weight should be given to the subject from the proponents' POV because of it's "significance to the subject." per WP:NPOV. That the majority opinion be given more weight is not in dispute. What IS in dispute is the notion as stated above by authors that they will "not allow" any representation of the minority opinion.

Impartial Tone states"Misplaced Pages describes disputes. Misplaced Pages does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone, otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view." The wording of the article is not just weighted to the majority opinion, it is simply a recitation of that POV. The authors argue that opposing POV reliable sources simply do not exist, therefor the POV cannot be cited. Their argument is to forbid citing the source of the POV itself (an advocacy group) as inherently "unreliable" because they are by definition "ignorant" "fringe" creationists who cannot be given any inclusion in the article at all, even though their movement is the SUBJECT OF THE ARTICLE.

Impartial Tone also states "The tone of Misplaced Pages articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view." The entire article is not just an endorsement of one POV, but a sustained argument of that POV's positions. The use of dismissive quotes and advocacy wording is so pervasive in the article as to not require citations of instances. A read of the article leaves one with the impression that this is an position paper in opposition to the subject, not an encyclopedic article.

Neutrality and verifiability states, "Concerns related to undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal view, are not addressed even slightly by asserting that the matter is verifiable and cited. The two are different questions, and both must be considered in full, in deciding how the matter should be presented in an article." Authors insist (see links above) that absolutely no weight can be given to the subject POV because all reliable sources are on their side, and none exist for the subject POV. Clearly the NPOV rules address this. Such is not an argument for excluding neutrality from an article, as the authors maintain.

There are certain factual errors in the article. The errors (surprise surprise) lend weight to the POV of the authors, and tend to discredit the subject POV. I have suggested that such errors be corrected.... we shall see if the authors comply. Error: Language not "proposed." It already exists. "Proposal" is to remove it.

Finally, the subject article may violate POV fork in that it creates a topic covered ad nauseum in other topics, for the sole purpose of criticizing it.

If the authors hold to form, they will accuse me of being a creationist with an agenda. Such is not the case, and I challenge them to prove such slanderous accusations. I am in fact an unapologetic believer in evolution science. However, I have the ability to put my personal opinions in the back seat and let neutrality be my compass when editing Misplaced Pages. Neutrality and a fairly balanced representation of the subject is all I am looking for.24.21.105.252 (talk) 19:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The tendentious anon IP has presented various original research, but despite research has consistently failed to present any verification from reliable sources, and has shown a consistend failure to understand NPOV. The alleged "factual error" appears to be an inability of the IP to read the article as written. Other opinions welcome. . dave souza, talk 20:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Stormfront (website)

Greetings, there are a number of ongoing NPOV disputes at the Stormfront (website) article which would benefit from the input of neutral and experienced editors. Talk:Stormfront_(website)#Removed_per_POV, Talk:Stormfront_(website)#Racial.2Fracialist_and_NPOV are the specific discussions. Any assistance keeping the article neutral appreciated, Skomorokh 20:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

1. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/32188/Araucanian#ref126728

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