Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:13, 8 September 2013

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

Lindsey Graham

Please note Talk:Lindsey Graham#Neutrality dispute--August 2, 2013, relating to how to summarize opinions of Graham's tenure in Congress. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done Users on the page seem to be satisfied with a solution implemented. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Tiger vs Lion article

Hi

This article seems to be very biased toward the tiger without evidence or in fact much zoological context. Numerous contributors on the talk page are either dismissed without thorough discussion or just ignored entirely if they do not share the pro-tiger bias.

In particular

1 - The page states that tigers usually kill lions when they meet in captivity, without citation, then lists several examples of this happening with citations. In reality there is no thorough study done comparing which animal kills the other more often and therefore no conclusive information about his, and the article should say so. Also there are many individual examples of either animal killing the other, and this should also be stated clearly with examples, if any, of both tiger and lions being dominant.

2- The page supplies 4 "expert opinions" favouring the tiger, none of which are actual zoologist, and a neutral fifth expert opinion. Once again, there are random and spurious, merely giving a false impression that most experts would favour the tiger. There are expert opinions that favour the lion, including an actual zoologist, but none are included, requests to have them included are simply denied.

3 - There is no discussion of the relative adaptations of the two cats, and the fcat that the male lion in particular has evolved in a climate of high conflict between each other and with other predators. This seems incredible since the size and the relative adaptations of the two animals are the only two relevant factors in comparing the animals. To leave in comment on size (assumedly because the tiger is bigger so this favours the tiger) while leaving out comment on the adaptations (assumedly because the lion has evolved in an environment where it fights more often and therefore will naturally be better adapted for fighting) is clearly another form of bias.

I would like to inform the editor of the offending page about this complaint as it says i should, but i don't know how to and can't seee the link here. Please advise as to how i can do this.

Thanks

NickPriceNZ (talk) 12:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I encourage you to take your concerns to Talk:Tiger versus lion and also to be bold and make changes to the article as you see fit. Talk with the community there and improve the article in collaboration with others. I am marking this as resolved and also posting instructions to your userpage - feel free to raise the issue again if you need more. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Politically Incorrect (blog)

Politically Incorrect (blog) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). There's a long running debate here as to whether Template:Islamophobia belongs on this article. My view is that it is clearly relevant to the article and thus belongs on it. The counter view seems to be that this template labels the PI blog and is simply wrong as we can't call the blog Islamaphobic. I'd like some independent comments on this issue. Dougweller (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

"Islomphobic" does not appear to be an unfair discription of the English language version of the blog, at least. According to the article, it sells merchandise with the slogan "Islamophobic and proud of it". I'm sure there must be more the counter-argument than you are suggesting, but "part of a series" infoboxes always label things. It's sort of what they are for. Formerip (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd say it's a fair call. The German press labels the blog as Islamophobic, and as Formerip rightly notes, the blog itself sells merchandise with that very label. Yintan  23:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The first and foremost question is this: what provisions do the guidelines make about the adding of templates? I would like to have a clear reference from Dougweller (or anybody else) on what basis the template should be added, so that we can start to have a meaningful discussion guided by criterias. Sentiment and gut-feeling alone, I am sorry, is simply not enough when it comes to such controversial and loaded 'scare templates' such as Islamophobia or Antisemitism.

Because the situation is there is in fact no general agreement in reliable sources as how to classify the blog. I tried to make this clear as it can be in the article. The opinions are divided and in no small part fall along political lines (see the article for sources): while the clear majority of liberal and left-wing media does indeed label the blog as "Islamophobic", some conservative outlets like the Gatestone Institute, FrontPage Magazine and American Thinker regard it as right-conservative website which exercises its freedom of speech against the demands of political correctness. And while the Bavarian branch of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution does observe the Munich office, and only the Munich office, for Islamophobia, the other 15 Bundesland branches do not observe it. Most importantly, the national bureau in Berlin has repeatedly classified PI as - quote - "Islam critical" and not islamophobic. Since Islamophobia is a different subject in Misplaced Pages than criticism of Islam, it follows that we cannot use its template for articles which fall outside its scope.

As for the argument that the founder's words "Phobia is fear, and I'm afraid of Islam" are to be understood as evidence for the blog's Islamophobia, this does not stand up to scrutiny for two reasons. First, Misplaced Pages generally does not view self-classifications as authoritative or binding, but makes a point of relying on reliable, third-party sources. The founder himself, however, is first-party, not third-party. Secondly, the 'Islamophobia' the founder speaks of is clearly a different beast than the negatively-loaded Islamophobia as defined in the WP article. He makes it clear he means really fear of Islam, whereas the WP article defines the subject quite differently as (irrational) animosity, antipathy or hostility towards Islam. This is obviously not the same thing and we can't throw these things indiscriminately together.

Thus, there is no clear consensus either way. Adding the Islamophobia template against the substantial amount of dissenting reliable sources would be too much into POV lands and negative labelling. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I find the above argument compelling. Irondome (talk) 21:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I equally find this explanation convincing. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 21:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• Keep the template per Dougweller, FormerIP and Yintan. Furthermore, there are authors who have described the hate and vitriol hosted by PI against Islam. The 2009 Routledge book Muslims in the West after 9/11: Religion, Politics and Law (ISBN 9780203863961), edited by Jocelyne Cesari of the Harvard Divinity School, includes a chapter written by German historian Yasemin Shooman and German scholar of Islam Riem Spielhaus titled "The concept of the Muslim enemy in the public discourse". Shooman and Spielhaus use the PI blog as a case study on pages 206–221. They describe PI as "one of the most vibrant Islam-hostile blogs in the German language", one that forwards a deceitful "conspiracy fantasy" of European invasion by Islamization, a blog that polarizes the issue of Islam in Europe to foment hatred and incite action to counter the perceived threat. The authors point to the PI forums as a particularly hateful venting of Islamophobia "under the cover of anonymity" (page 218). See also the chapter written by German social scientist Alexander Häusler in the book From the Far Right to the Mainstream: Islamophobia in Party Politics and the Media (Campus Verlag, 2012, ISBN 9783593396484), the chapter titled "The PRO-Movement: A New Motor of Anti-Islamic Right-Wing Populism within the Extreme Right in Germany". On page 39, Häusler describes the PI blog as host to "Islamophobic alarmists" and racist comments against Muslims. Further, there is the assertion by German religious scholar Martin Rötting that the PI blog is host to islamfeindlichen (Islamophobic) statements: Religion in Bewegung: Dialog-Typen und Prozess im interreligiösen Lernen, volume 9 of Interreligiöse Begegnungen, LIT Verlag Münster, 2011, ISBN 9783643114655, page 52 (in German). Binksternet (talk) 22:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • If anybody here is concerned about bringing better references to the article, the three books I linked above are good choices, and not yet utilized. Binksternet (talk) 01:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Are we talking about Islam or politically aggressive Islamism here? There lies the rub. The sources above do not in any sense make that distinction clear. "Zionists" are routinely villified by anti-semites (with many Islamic activists amongst them) whom are given a free pass in much of the western liberal press, most notably in the UK The Guardian, which has the dubious honour for a left-leaning paper to have its own readers often vile anti-semetic comments monitored via an on-line website, CIFWatch. I see great hypocracy here on the part of some liberal intellectuals. It would not be good if it spread to WP. Irondome (talk) 23:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

We're not talking about any particular type of Islam. We're just talking about a website. It is self-avowedly Islamophobic and is described by reliable sources as such. It's English language front page includes "a 20–page indictment of Islam". There's no ambiguity about this case. Formerip (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

So what is it actually "indicting"? Islam or violent or repressive Islamism, to Gays, women, Hindus, Christians or Jews? Can you provide a link so that uninvolved editors can see for themselves? I find it odd that there is no WP article outlining CIF Watch and its history by the way. Irondome (talk) 23:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

If you haven't looked at the website, go and do so. If you have and still see fit to defend it, hang your head in shame. Formerip (talk) 23:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Apologise now for your unpleasant and unfounded POV assumptions which I find personally deeply offensive. And provide the link. Irondome (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

It depends what you want me to apologise for. If you're actually familiar with the site and wish to defend it, then I find that disturbing. If I've somehow misunderstood, sorry.

I'm not interested in engaging in a discussion about what types of criticism of Muslims are and are not OK. That's not relevant here. The website describes itself as Islamophobic, is described in the same way by reliable sources and has content which, clearly and consistently, is Islamophobic. That's all there is to it.

What link are you asking me for? Formerip (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I have never seen the site before. I never heard of it before. I merely became involved on this board out of curiousity. You appear to be confusing my genuine questions with some kind of POV. Check my edit history. I have never been involved in any discussions or controversies regarding this general subject. I was attempting to explore the alternatives, balance. Based on my real world experiences with the media in the UK, I prefer to discuss these things without a POV and agenda pre-ordained. I was merely asking you for a link to this list of issues with Islam, or Islamism, so that others may see it, and inform other editors. Irondome (talk) 00:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Irondome, your claim to be an uninvolved neutral commentator dissolved as soon as you posted assertions about "great hypocracy here on the part of some liberal intellectuals" - without bothering to look at the website in question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Nothing "dissolved", nor do I claim anything which is untrue. You would dispute the reality of this hypocracy in some sections of the Western media, regarding "anti Zionism" and classic anti-semtic tropes? I am not referring to this website, but in the round. It could be a vile racist sewer, but I expect a link to examine it. I expect a link to be here. Especially by the co-sponsors of a WP change. So can you apologise for that unfounded and offensive assertion? I will be waiting for it. Irondome (talk) 00:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I have nothing to apologise for - you made the assertions without looking at the evidence. Still, for the benefit of someone evidently incapable of clicking on the Wikilink to the article in question, and then to the clearly labelled link in the infobox, see here: . Note that not only do they chose to post such filth as a section telling us that "Every female Turk is to bear three children for her Führer. This demand by the highest chief of all Turks – also those living among us – was reported yesterday by FOCUS, and we find ourselves catapulted back to the worst chapter in German history", but that they also chose to engage in a clear racist attack on Oprah Winfrey, for no obvious reason beyond the fact that they evidently don't like black women to be successful. Nothing to do with a 'criticism of Islam'. Nothing to do with Islam at all. Bigotry, plain and simple... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I really think you do mate. I see no neo-nazi stuff. I see vitriolic attacks on nazism, harking back to Germanys "dark past". I see a case of anti-Christian arson. I see material highlighting the disgusting prevalence of anti-semitism in the Islamic world which is largely ignored in the mainstream media. I even see admittance of the close WW2 links between the nazis and nationalistic Islam. Oprah and her handbag? I was expecting stormfront. Ive seen far worse and more hate-filled stuff in the Guardian or the Indie when Israel builds a public toilet in East Jerusalem. What I do see is a huge attack of POV faux-outrage by a few eds. I have not yet found this 20 points thing. If I find it genuinely offensive, then I will comment. So far I see some inconvieient truths, its perception being reinforced by the Islamic leaderships' failiure to address and rationally discourse in any widespraed and meaningful way beyond local initiatives. And a multi-millionaire attemptuing to get some publicity out of an arguably racist but deeply trivial incident over a £15,000 handbag. That materialism is what I found the more disturbing, wheter the consumer be black, white or battleship grey. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm no 'mate' of yours. Still, thanks for proving the point - your claim to neutrality was bogus from the start... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Im certainly no mate of yours either. But you merely proved how an antagonistic and aggressive POV can push genuinely neutral people off the fence. Now I am vaguely amused by the bloody rag. Your initial assumptions on POV were staggering. And still deeply offensive to me. Your patronising guesses at my extremely sophisticated view of this hugely nuanced and sensitive issue did the damage. Its not the WP policy and definitions here. Its your inability to see the total argument. You just cannot seem to grasp independence of thought untainted by bigotry, of the type you have clearly displayed, in an ideological sense. You could not discuss, but resorted to kneejerk phrases and actually offensive phrases and assumptions, both of you. Nice one! Not. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 01:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Undecided Irondome (talk) 03:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Awiting a more coherent and less preordained discussion with no personal attacks. Shameful.(talk) 03:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• It appears to me as if you !voted without addressing the Islamophobia identified by de:Yasemin Shooman, de:Riem Spielhaus, de:Alexander Häusler (Sozialwissenschaftler) and de:Martin Rötting. Would you care to discuss this aspect? Binksternet (talk) 03:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Some, if not most of these authors are actually known left-wing extremists. Häusler, for one, published regularly in Antifa publications like Lotta which are themselves observed by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution. He is therefore useless as a WP:neutral source.

Besides, the fact that far-left and liberal media are highly critical of the blog, has been included in the WP article right from the start and is no point of contention. But the point is conservative media and the Federal Office share a different opinion. So why do think WP should sweep them under the carpet and hand over the entire floor to the others by including the template? I would say this is WP:undue weight and a violation of WP:NPOV. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

These are respected scholars, not pawns for you to dismiss because of the way you perceive their position on a left–right continuum. Misplaced Pages does not require its reliable sources to be free from bias. And you have not addressed the text from Häusler—you simply tried to demean him and so remove him as a source. I hold that his text is still reliable for use in the article about the PI blog. Binksternet (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Alexander Häusler is not a reliable source. Agree with Gun Powder Ma's classification of such authors. Häusler recently had to sign a cease and desist due to a book of his, in which he slandered the political party Citizens in Rage as 'racist' based on improper quoting .Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 20:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I would be happy to have a rational and bamlanced discussion using those well-respected intellectuals (especially personally Shooman) with SOMEBODY yes. Thats what I came here for. This thread is getting bloody long. New section? Suggestions? I would like to discuss the original quotes in context and any countervailing arguments. I would invite all. Just very peeved at the moment by this trainwreck of what could be a fantastic discourse if some just dropped the PC and personal attacks by wildly inaccurate POV assumptions. I won handsomely by the way :) Cheers! Irondome (talk) 03:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Before the discussion deviates even further from the original subject, I would like to repeat my initial question: on what basis in the WP guidelines do those who want to add the template act? Please cite the relevant guideline which says that a template can be added even when there clearly exists no consensus in reliable sources. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I read where you said there was "no consensus" in reliable sources about use of the term, but you didn't provide any evidence as to a dispute about the use of the term. It being not the only adjective used to describe the site is not enough. Formerip (talk) 15:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I thought it was self-evident that I am summarizing the overall state of affairs as outlined in Politically Incorrect (blog). The Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution refers to the blog as "Islam critical". Being critical of Islam is clearly a far cry from being phobic of Islam. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:OR. No more convincing than the umpteen times you've said this before. There is no evidence that the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution were ever asked whether they considered the blog Islamophobic - and there is certainly no evidence that they would concur with your attempts to redefine words to mean whatever you want them to mean. We cite sources for what they say, we don't cite them for not saying something... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

There doesn't have to be consensus for it to be a related article. What I observe is that having failed to have the blog article removed from the template in June, you are now trying to have the template removed from the blog article here. There will never be consensus on a lot of political articles that deal with issues at the extreme - that's the nature of such articles on the right or left. And " The blog's internet shop sells items with the slogan "Islamophobic and proud of it". Herre says his Islamophobia is without shame: "Phobia is fear, and I'm afraid of Islam.""Dougweller (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, you still fail to provide an answer, but keep on asserting things. We have reliable sources not supporting the view that PI is "islamophobic". We have also users disagreeing with this view in this discussion and we have users who have long disagreed with it at the article (1, 2).

Additionally, there is not even a consensus about the existence of the Template:Islamophobia as such. Many users believed this tag to be not WP:neutral and rather POVish. In fact just as many voted for delete in the last deletion request. The only reason why it was kept eventually was purely procedural (namely the in dubio pro re principle applied in case of a tie in the vote). So there is no real consensus nowhere, not in reliable sources concernning PI, not in the community about the NPOV of the template, and not about labelling PI with the template. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

We have reliable sources not supporting the view that PI is "islamophobic" - sure, but that is a trivial fact. On the electrodynamics of moving bodies is a reliable source that does not support the view that there was a Roman Empire, or that Kennedy was president. What you have failed to show is a reliable source that actually disagrees with the classification. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Since this is not a BLP and we need not consider the selfidentification of the blog as a requirement for tagging the categorization is a navigational help and should be added in so much as it is likely that people will find the articles in the template to be useful reading. Given that several academic sources discuss the website in relation to islamophobia it does not seem unreasonable to have the template in the article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so the blog self-identifies as islamophobic, we have several reliable sources saying it is slamophobic and the only objection is that not all sources say it is islamophobic. Why is this even up for debate? // Liftarn (talk)

The template itself is a bad idea (WP:LABEL) to begin with. Remove it. Athenean (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

2002 Gujarat riots

There seems to be NPOV problem in 2002 Gujarat violence. I find the whole article to have departed from NPOV, with Books beings used wherever it suits the POV and Newspaper articles to be used wherever it suits the POV. For example, the opening paragraph of the article states that The attack on 27 February 2002 on a train, thought by most to have been carried out by Muslims, and which caused the deaths of 58 people . But the sources mentioned there did mention that it was direct attack by Muslims. So, after my edit got reverted twice, I took it to the Talk page. There, I produced various sources that directly says carried out by Muslims, rather than thought to be carried out by Muslims. However, on the talk page, I could find fellow editors rejecting all the sources I gave. Not alone this example, the whole article seemed to be have done with non-NPOV and looks like a provocative article, rather than informative one. Please discuss on the NPOV status of the article and give your valuable suggestions! - Vatsan34 (talk) 16:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Some editors on the page in question are bent on claiming that sources from 2002 and 2005 refute a court finding from 2011 cited in multiple reliable sources. Furthermore, there have been a number of sources used in the article that do not actually say what people are claiming they do, as well as multiple unreliable sources used.Pectore 00:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I had notified the concerned editors on their talk pages, on the same day I had brought the article to this NPOV discussion. But, it has been two weeks since this topic was started and no replies from them. Does it concretes my opinion that the article lacks NPOV and the editors are biased? - Vatsan34 (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

No, it means the editors who are involved are waiting for uninvolved editors to comment. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

It also means that the editors are tired of facing and refuting the same arguments over and over.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it should be me who should be tired of things that are happening. Being called a BJP brainwashed, sockpuppet, etc, I should be the one tired here, not the way around. Wikipedians should not be tired of arguments, especially when they are pushing away the POV from neutral zone. - Vatsan34 (talk) 16:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

You have been involved in this less than a month, I have been called a lot worse than that during the three months I've edited India related topics. And I've heard your tired arguments over and over. There is nothing neutral about trying to make the page look as if Muslims caused the violence when the large majority of the literature considers it a planned pogrom on Muslims by Hindus, and another large part of the literature throws doubt on the claims that "a Muslim Mob" set the Sabarmati express on fire, and another large body of literature documents the Gujarat high courts pro-Hindu bias and failure to conduct thorough unbiased investigations. There is no basis for considering the official Gujarati account neutral or objective, and for the article to be neutral it must include both the view of the Gujarati courts and BJP pundits as well as the many many dissenting sources.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is nothing Neutral in that article. Show those large majority of literature that shows it as planned pogrom on Muslims by Hindus. The same sources that were referenced throughout the article states that it was in fact carried out by Muslims. 1. In Hakeem, Farrukh B.; Maria R. Haberfeld, Arvind Verma (2012). Policing Muslim Communities: Comparative and International Context. Springer. p. 81, all I could find is this An attack by Muslims on Hindu pilgrims travelling in a train and burning of coach in Godhra that killed 50 Hindus set off... 2."An attack by Muslims on Hindu pilgrims traveling in a train and burning of a coach at Godhra that killed 50 Hindus set off a major retaliation inwhich almost 2,000 Muslims were killed (Sinha 2010)." 3. In A Time of Coalitions: Divided We Stand By Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, Shankar Raghuraman Pg.32, it is mentioned The orgy of violence began in the early hours of February 27,2002 when kar sevaks...travelling on the Sabarmati Express were torched to death by a Muslim mob near an obscure railway station called Godhra . I am ready to provide all sources here, if you wish! - Vatsan34 (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Western academics like Paul Brass, Martha Nussbaum and Christophe Jaffrelot tend to give more credence to the Banerjee commission and the Concerned Citizens Tribunal than to the Nanavati committee and the SIT reports, which is reasonable given the former are independent whereas the official investigations are not, and given the documented irregularities of the official investigations.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Irregularities are more pronounced in Western publications rather than government nominated commissions. Banerjee commission was set up by Lalu Prasad Yadav to downsize the image of Nitish Kumar in their home-state Bihar, by shifting the core incident i.e.,Godhra train burning from inciting factor of subsequent violence to fire accident. This will, in turn, make this violence a planned pogrom, which will confirm the berth for Lalu in the state assembly elections. Try learning about the politics of a country before commenting on which is right and which is wrong. The non-BJP central Government (which was in rule for 9 years) would have nullified the Nanavati Commission, if it was just a lie and would have dismissed the apex court of India (Supreme Court of India), if it was giving a false judgement. Can we go ahead and say Supreme Courts of all countries deliver false judgements?? Again, show me where did the Western authors rely to Banerjee rather than Nanavati commission. - Vatsan34 (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry but I dont have a reason take your word for why the Banerjee commisison was set up or the validity of its results. Here Brass a highly respected academic, clearly relies more on the CCT findings and is highly critical f the fficial stories of Muslim instigation. In The Clash Within: Democracy, Religious Violence, and India's Future. Harvard University Press. pp. 50–51. Martha Nussbaum wrote: ""There is by now a broad consensus that the Gujarat violence was a form of ethnic cleansing, that in many ways it was premeditated, and that it was carried out with the complicity of the state government and officers of the law"", and she cites the CCT reports conclusions abut the unlikelihod of a Muslim mob causing the Godhra fire. In this article Jaffrelot is highly critical of the SIT investigation and the Nanavati commission - basically rejecting their validity. Jaffrelot, C. (2012). Gujarat 2002: What Justice for the Victims?. Economic & Political Weekly, 47(8), 77. As long as such prominent voices doubt the validity of the official story, it cannot stand uncontradicted in the article - that would be a gross violation of WP:NPOV.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Ivan Massow

In the Ivan Massow article, User:Welsh-marches has recently added material which is always critical of the article subject, and seems to me to be worded in such a way so as to emphasize the negative. I am not disagreeing that some of this information should be added to the article, my concern is the way it is being presented. I have tried to word the information in a way which seems to me to be more neutral, though Welsh-marches doesn't see it that way. I do not have sufficient knowledge of the subject (financial services) to feel confident of discussing details on the talk page, so have come here. The particular wording which I seek comment on at the moment is in this edit.
For background, please note the discussion with a COI editor which took place here (and all sections beneath it) in 2012, in which myself and other editors, arrayed against a previous employee of Massow (User:Lisa Thorne), were trying (and ultimately succeeding) to prevent the article being too positive about it's subject. In my view Welsh-marches may possibly have a conflict of interest the other way; their editing history is primarily in the subject of financial services, and on 11th July 2012 they made a number of edits to this article which, in the main, tended to emphasize negative information about the article subject (e.g. see this edit). If I've brought this to the wrong noticeboard, can someone advise a better one (COIN?). Thanks. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

No conflict of interest since I am not in any way connected with Massow. I believe all my edits are well supported by the facts and referenced using reliable sources, often based on interviews given by Massow himself. I believe that PaleCloudedWhite is at risk of censoring the article in the name of neutrality. The facts are the facts and tell their own story. Massow is an interesting figure and his story deserves to be told in full, particularly as he has not been shy in talking to the media about his life. Welsh-marches (talk) 00:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but the 'story' which the facts tell depends on which facts are placed in the article, and how they are presented. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 02:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I have access to the same internet that you do. Everything that I have added has been based on published sources. I am sorry if you feel that this portrays Massow in a negative way. By all means expand the article to include any facts that you feel have been missed. I do object, however, to censorship of the article disguised as attempts at neutrality or balance. The way to balance things is to include additional facts, not to remove those already there, particularly when they are closely based on reliable sources, including interviews and other sources provided by Massow. You are correct that my interests are in financial services and Massow does not appear to have been very successful there so the facts might seem to tell a negative story. You could expand the section on Jake and on charity work if you feel that would present a more balanced view. Welsh-marches (talk) 10:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I am glad you have clarified your position. I shall be interested to hear whether other editors here consider it appropriate for an editor to state that they are only interested in editing the article from a particular perspective. As you state, you have access to the same internet as I do - you are also able to include additional facts and expand sections. Perhaps your disinclination to do so suggests that you are less interested in the overall quality of the article (and thus Misplaced Pages's aims) than inserting particular "facts" which you are keen to include. Considering you admit that your interests are in the same field in which the article subject operates, perhaps this is indeed a case for WP:COIN. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 13:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Nice try, but it doesn't really work like that and I think you know it. This is a collaborative process and everyone adds what they feel they can usefully add. I have some knowledge about financial services so I add that part, you may have other expertise. I have not stated I will only add content in that area and the edits that I have made there and in other articles are on a range of topics. I think you know that nobody is obliged to do anything here. I notice that you don't really argue that the information that I have added is wrong, presumably because you know that it is well supported by the sources. I am sure that between us and in conjunction with others we can create a good article that fully reflects the story of this interesting and complex individual. Good luck with your work. Welsh-marches (talk) 13:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

My concern with the information you wish to add is threefold: first, that it is a very particular and recent aspect of the article subject's history, and hence I think is unsuitable as per WP:BALASPS; second, it is not worded in a neutral way; and third, I have a general concern that you have a conflict of interest with regards to this article. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I have replied to these things above and don't propose to explain it all again, apart from to say that just because we don't agree does not mean that I have a COI anymore than you do. Can you stop throwing accusations around please and threatening to report things to various places as you have here for instance. Your behaviour could be misconstrued as a form of user harassment over what is nothing more than a content disagreement. The COI Noticeboard specifically says that "COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content." For the avoidance of doubt, I have had no dealings of any kind whatsoever with Ivan Massow or any of his firms ever. Please direct your energies to something more constructive. Thanks. Welsh-marches (talk) 22:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Putting my COI question to one side, it is nevertheless imperative that additions to this article conform to Misplaced Pages's policy on neutrality. This is particularly important in this biography of a living person. See WP:BLP. Your previous assertion that it is acceptable to add 'negative' content with the view that 'positive' content can be added later or by someone else, is incorrect. The 'Balance' section of WP:BLP states "The idea expressed in WP:Eventualism – that every Misplaced Pages article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape – does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times." (The italics are mine.) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

That really wasn't what I meant at all. Welsh-marches (talk) 13:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Rujm el-Hiri: in 'Israeli-administered' or 'Israeli-occupied' Golan?

Requested remedy: We request independent evaluation of this issue. If it is decided that 'administered' (or some other term) is a preferable non-partisan term over the more prejudicial word 'occupied' then we request that this replacement be used (and protected) to describe 'Golan' in the "Rujm el-Hiri" article.

The article may be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/Rujm_el-Hiri The article's talk page may be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Rujm_el-Hiri Though the issue of 'occupied' and related language is discussed in various places on this talk page, the most current discussion (between Nableezy, Zero0000, and myself) is in the section titled: "Partisan Politics does not belong here: WP:POV and WP:OR"

Summary: The article's topic is a 5,000 year old archeological site which has nothing to do with the modern Arab-Israeli conflict (since the site was constructed before 'Israel' or "Arabs' even existed :-). A group of editors, e.g.: Nableezy, Zero0000, Tiamut, Supreme Deliciousness, have insisted on using the phrase 'Israeli-occupied' with a link to the Misplaced Pages article on the political history of 'Israeli-occupied territories' to modify 'Golan' in the Rujm el-Hiri article. Some editors find the term 'occupied' to be violation of NPOV in this context, since the Israeli government considers the area to be a part of its own country, and (as the map displayed within the article shows) it may be better described as 'disputed' territory. This NPOV issue has become the focus of a small edit-war. I recently did a quick 'google' search and found others who had similar conflicts with these editors (and others who have a reputation of working with them as a concerted group on anti-Zionist issues) over the same prejudicial use of the word 'occupied' and found that some other editors in the past have proposed that 'administered' would be a more neutral alternative to the more politically-loaded term 'occupied.' The use of 'administered' was rejected by Nableezy, et al, who reinserted the 'occupied' language and link, just as Zero0000 had done the previous day.

............

The diffs of the two edits may be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rujm_el-Hiri&diff=569666323&oldid=569660529

The (edited for compactness) text of these diffs:

Rujm el-Hiri: Difference between revisions ...

Revision as of 01:53, 22 August 2013 (edit) 143.232.129.69 (talk) (Changed 'Israeli-occupied' to more neutral phrase 'Israeli-administered' in an effort to minimize biased language -- see talk page)

Rujm el-Hiri (Template:Lang-ar, Rujm al-Hīrī; Template:Lang-he-n Gilgal Refā'īm) is an ancient megalithic monument, consisting of concentric circles of stone with a tumulus at center. It is located in Israeli-administered Golan Heights ....

UNDONE: Latest revision as of 02:47, 22 August 2013 (edit) (undo) (thank) Nableezy (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 569660529 by 143.232.129.69 (talk restore accurate terminology)

Rujm el-Hiri (Template:Lang-ar, Rujm al-Hīrī; Template:Lang-he-n Gilgal Refā'īm) is an ancient megalithic monument, consisting of concentric circles of stone with a tumulus at center. It is located in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights ...

............

This insertion of 'occupied' has occurred in other parts of the article and stimulated editor controversy in the past. For instance:

Revision as of 12:39, 26 November 2011 Biosketch (Rmv "recently" commentary not in any of the sources.) ... The site was cataloged during an Israeli archaeological survey carried out in 1967-1968, after the Six-Day War....

Revision as of 18:37, 26 November 2011 Tiamut (talk | contribs) (→‎History and purpose: missing detail about occupation of syrian territory)

The site was cataloged during an Israeli archaeological survey carried out in 1967-1968, after Israel occupied Syria's Golan Heights during the Six-Day War.

.............

Link to the current Talk:Rujm_el-Hiri#Partisan_Politics_does_not_belong_here:_WP:POV_and_WP:OR section. (copied text replaced by link) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronreisman (talk • contribs)

To me, the term "administered" implies consent on the part of the governed; and we don't need to debate census data in light of the thumb of Israel and its military on the scales of Golan's demographics because.....

(A) "Occupied" is consistent with UN views of the matter and

strike out by original author, explanation for strikeout is in later commment in the tree down below (B) Neither term belongs in an article about an archeological site, unless it is related to RS-based disputes over the integrity of the science being performed.

Out of curiosity, are the news reports that Israel will pay students to defend it online involved in this dispute?

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, no one is paying me anything for my time spent on Misplaced Pages. My opinions, actions, and words are solely my own responsibility. If, OTOH, *you* would like to send me a check to help support my wife & kids .... well drop me a line, maybe we can work something out :-)Ronreisman (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Three points (a) WP:TLDR; (b) the Golan Heights is no exception to any other territory occupied by Israel in 1967. It is accepted that it and the West Bank, and East Jerusalem, is technically, in law, 'occupied', as even the Israeli Supreme Court admits; (c)kerfluflfle is spelt 'kerfuffle', and 'fussing' to get things said neutrally and correctly, without POV finessing to push a national euphemism into texts, is part of our remit as editors. Nishidani (talk) 10:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

To clarify the issue, it is entirely about the phrase "Israeli-occupied Golan Heights" used to indicate the location of this archaeological site. None of the other political issues mentioned above are relevant since nobody is proposing to mention them in the article. The reason "Golan Heights" by itself is insufficient is that only a portion of them was occupied by Israel in 1967 and so it does not properly identify the site. The reason "Israeli-administered" is undesirable is that "administered" is an adjective invented by Israel to euphemise the fact of occupation (which would contradict Israeli's denial that the Geneva Convention applies, etc). The phrase "Israeli-occupied" is far and away the most common description in English and is the overwhelming opinion of the nations on Earth (few political issues are voted on repeatedly with such near-unanimity at the UN). The UN always calls it the "Occupied Syrian Golan", but I don't propose using that. Though it is much less common, I could live with the phrase "Israeli-controlled" as an alternative to "Israeli-occupied". Zero 13:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that 'Israeli-controlled' is a neutral alternative.Ronreisman (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Though 'controlled' does not imply either 'settlement' or 'production' which is a good part of what takes place under the control. It's best to go with the term in most general use internationally,'Israeli-occupied', if only to remind Ms Rudoren of the New York Times, and their bureau chief in Jerusalem, when she or others visits the Golan, that it is not a part of Israel in international law, something their fact-checkers are beginning to ignore.Nishidani (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with Zero000, say "occupied"; Zero's reasoning is strong enough that it persuaded me to change my mind, specifically the part when Zero said that "The reason "Golan Heights" by itself is insufficient is that only a portion of them was occupied by Israel in 1967 ...". To help educate others on the same fact background that tripped me up, I would make it explicit saying the site "is located in that portion of the Golan Heights that has been occupied by Israel since the 1967 Arab-Israeli War".NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

First of all, it would be extremely helpful if the talk page section was linked instead of copied and pasted. It was insanely difficult for me to make sense of the text. Also, could the original poster please clarify what is being requested? Thanks! Leujohn 18:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm the 'original poster' and the 'request' is to reach a respectful consensus regarding a 'neutral' alternative to the partisan use of 'occupied' -- and accompanying link to a controversial political-territorial topic -- inserted into an article where none of these political issues are mentioned (eg 'Rujm el-Hiri' is an archeology topic). I agree with Zero000 that 'controlled' (*without* political article link) is an acceptable alternative. Do we have consensus? Ronreisman (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I should add that I only suggested "Israeli-controlled" because I agree with the general principle that archaeological articles should avoid modern politics where possible. There are very few other Golan-related articles where "Israeli-controlled" is appropriate. Zero 00:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

In my view, it would create a silly WP:EGG to write this as "] portion of the ]". Resolution of this should be through what the RSs with the greatest amount of weight say. And I don't know of any greater-weight RSs than Israeli courts and the UN, where "occupied" has been at least acknowledged in one and is common usage at the other. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

"Occupied" is the correct and neutral word. Anything else is misleading. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 03:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. As an outsider with no personal stake in the P–I issue, I find the phrase "Israeli-occupied portion of the Golan Heights" entirely neutral and helpful. I can understand that "occupied" may strike some as a political assessment, but I suggest they are reading more into the text than what it says. Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe the best solution would be to simply state "the Golan Heights" without further description. Any interested reader should click on the wikilink. However, "controlled" seems acceptable if a description must be included. Leujohn 17:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

That's like saying Machu Picchu is in South America, instead of specifying that it is in Peru. The Golan Heights is neither a nation nor under one-nation control/occupation/whatever. We don't say SS Edmund Fitzgerald sank in Lake Superior, we specify that it was in "Canadian waters". Likewise, this site is not just randomly on some unclaimed bit of geology. It is on a specific part, a region that in geopolitical RSs with greatest weight is called "Israeli-occupied". There is such a thing as false neutrality, when we make these calls from the seat of our pants instead of comparing the way different RS speak of them. To paraphrase the little old lady in the classic Wendy's commercial, "Where's the RS?"NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Leujohn: I agree with Zero000 and NewsAndEventsGuy(strikeout added by NewsAndEventsGuy because this falsely characterizes my position) that we need to specify Israeli-Golan, vs Syrian-Golan. The location is relevant; the recent political and military history, however, is not relevant. For instance, Syrian-Golan could be further subdivided into the different polities who currently militarily control and occupy it. In fact, territory very near Rujm el Hiri has been recently disputed between the Syrian government, several rebel groups, and the UN). The nature of the Syrian-Golan occupation, however, is irrelevant to this article's topic. Inserting them where they don't belong is a violation of SYNTH and OR. This issue is not about ethnic over-sensitivity. It's about allowing compromise the Neutrality principle with controversial partisan political rhetoric. Topic ledes should only contain language and links that are mentioned in the article. I agree with Zero000 that 'controlled' is preferable to the disputed term 'occupied.' Ronreisman (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not controversial partisan political rhetoric to describe any of the Israeli occupied territories as Israeli occupied. It's not prejudicial either. It's editors doing what they are absolutely required by policy to do whether they like it or not. It maximizes policy compliance. It's the most neutral and functional solution. No one is to blame. It's just what happens when you take the sources and apply Misplaced Pages's decision procedures to them. This issue has needlessly caused disruption to hundreds of articles for years. Editors just need to have the humility to switch off their personal views, simply follow the rules and everything will be as it is meant to be. Sean.hoyland - talk 21:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland's observation that 'This issue has needlessly caused disruption to hundreds of articles for years' is a clear indication of the controversial and political nature of this issue. This is partially because Golan's status is both complex and disputed; e.g.: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14724842. A significant minority object to 'occupied' as the exclusively acceptable term because this masks real and relevant differences of opinion. The 'Misplaced Pages decision procedures' do *not* automatically dictate imposition of the dominant majority opinions at the expense of minority rights. The suppression of minority rights in this context is not compatible with Misplaced Pages's emphasis on consensus and etiquette. Of course, these concerns take a back seat to the larger issue: don't compromise the quality of an article by importing extraneous issues that don't pertain to the topic. That's why political language and links in the lede of a non-political topic should, as a general rule, be considered a violation of Misplaced Pages Neutrality Point of View. Ronreisman (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Ron, when you review RSs beware of reading in what you want to hear. That's called Confirmation bias. Try going to the BBC RS link you cited, and read the whole thing, i.e., click on the tab that says "status", and you'll find the BBC describes the place as "Israeli-occupiedcontrolled". (Correction by original author NAEG, sorry... kid distracted me)NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You mean BBC Facts tab = "Status: Israeli-occupied" and Overview map = Occupied by Israel (1967). There is really nothing controversial at all, not even slightly, about referring to the Israeli occupied Golan Heights as Israeli occupied. Of course, the BBC's reliability on these issues is always challenged. One of my favorites from an editor is that the "BBC has an Arabic station. The Brits create Jordan, so of course their national station is not reliable." Sean.hoyland - talk 12:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It isn't "a clear indication of the controversial and political nature of this issue". It is a clear indication of the powerful effects of ethno-nationalist imprinting on human beings. It takes a long time to do that. Misplaced Pages can only ask people to do their very best to follow the rules here and if they aren't able to do they should walk away or be helped to walk away. The Golan's status is not "complex and disputed" on this question. There are no "minority rights" here, there's just the sources and our policies/guidelines. It would be entirely inconsistent with policy to put "is Great" after the word "God", or "Saves" after "Jesus" or "is just a theory" after "Evolution" just because a significant minority of Misplaced Pages contributors have learned to prefer it that way. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

@RonReisman, your comment at 20:55 today falsely characterizes my position because I explicitly oppose saying "Israeli-Golan" for the reason that this phrasing would be an NPOV violation departing from the RSs of greatest weight. I have modified your comment by striking out my name. Please do not ascribe false positions to me. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: my apologies for any misunderstandings that may have offended you. To be clear: I was explaining to Leujohn that I was *agreeing* with others who point out that we should not just leave 'Golan' without some adjectival language that distinguishes whether it's on the Israeli or Syrian side. I did not mean to imply that you agreed with the specific language we should use (since you favor status-quo 'occupied'), just that you did agree that unlabeled 'Golan' is not sufficient. No offense intended. Also: my other response to your question about whether I was a paid Israeli student was my attempt to make a friendly joke; we do *not* seriously expect you to send me a check. I'm just trying to reach consensus by incremental agreements (whenever possible :-) until we reach a final settlement.Ronreisman (talk) 23:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no "Israeli side" of Golan, there is a free part of Syrian Golan and then there is an Israeli-occupied part of Syrian Golan. Rujm el Hiri is in the Israeli-occupied part of the Syrian Golan, so that is what we will use.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

@Ron, no harm done, thanks for apology and clarification of your intent.

@Supreme Deliciousness, no your opinion about the facts (even if right) is not why we should use that expression. Rather, we should use that expression because that is the way it is described in the RSs of greatest weight. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I also believe the best solution would be to simply state "the Golan Heights" without further description. I'm bit frustrated that neutral editors enable POV pushers to turn apolitical articles into turf-war zone. Yeah, making this into Derry riot does not help. Some editors just love "not in Israel" game. When I looked for reliable sources about the site, its location was described as Southern Levant, or Golan specifically. I am talking about Archeological surveys.The high quality academical sources used do not specify political authority on the ground or use occupied word. Le'ts not pretend the current wording in the article is sourced. The sources that do use such wording, like BBC source are news and not related to this subject, i.e. do not mention the Archeological site, thus such sources are quite useless. We mark the point on the location map in the infobox and wiki link Golan Heights, that should be enough, for non-POV pusher. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Generally, when some RSs are offered to make a point, when one wishes to advocate for a different outcome they produce specific alternative RSs to consider, not an entire paragraph of opinion. I've an open mind. Put up some RSs to back up your opinion please. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

AgadaU. Reflecting on this, I thought that this might be a reasonable proposal, actually. But then, as usual, when I have to make a close call, I discern the underlying principle, and generalize it by analogy to see how it would act, if a precedent is established, on other articles. The proposal would, if enacted, have a wide impact within wiki. Are you suggesting that all archaeological sites in foreign territory occupied by Israel should be classified by archaeologists' usage? I.e. archaeologists never use words like ' located in the Palestinian West Bank' of a place like Tell Balata. Archaeologists often use terms Jewish terms like Samaria and Judea, to describe their sites. We, by established principle, don't, because it is recognized that such loaded words in political usage have an appropriative connotation. Nishidani (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Could someone provide a quote from sources currently used? Do we still pretend the current wording is supported by reliable sources?

Let's make a 5 mins survey of top three results for Google scholar search "Rujm el-Hiri location":

• Rujm el-Hiri, a Bronze Age megalithic monument in the southern Levant.
• Rogem Hiri a megalithic monument in the Golan.
• 1988-1991 Excavationa at Rogem Hiri, Golan Heights

Still in doubt? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

A bit, since all three are behind a paywall. Meanwhile, dig director refers to the location as "in Israel" in the "heart of the Golan". http://digs.bib-arch.org/digs/rujm-el-hiri.asp NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Right. If the phrase used in the original documents referenced by current article content:

• Jerome Murphy-O'Connor (15 April 2008). The Holy Land: an Oxford archaeological guide from earliest times to 1700. Oxford University Press US. pp. 457, 478. ISBN 978-0-19-923666-4. Retrieved 30 March 2011.
• Avraham Negev; Shimon Gibson (July 2005). Archaeological encyclopedia of the Holy Land. Continuum International Publishing Group. pp. 207, 443, 518. ISBN 978-0-8264-8571-7. Retrieved 30 March 2011.

is occupied then that would seems to me to be the best language to use.

Not knowing the language used in these documents could potentially be a problem. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The most reliable sources and the international community use "occupied". Case closed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

First, I agree with the result, but disagree with the reasoing of Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) above. In my view, this isn't a battle of which is RS is more reliable than the other RS's. Rather, this debate has to do with which RS's carry the greatest WP:WEIGHT.

Second, AgadaUrbanit (talk · contribs) seems to imply that the professional archeological literature generally has the #1 claim to "greatest weight". I disagree with this implication for the following reasons.

(A) Misplaced Pages is a resource for everyone, not just for professional archeologists. Whereas expert-level readers would be able to make the leap from geo-coordinate to contemporary geopolitics, elementray school readers can not do that.

(B) Misplaced Pages is not a hard-bound resource but a dynamic encyclopedia. Were I a hard-bound publisher of materials that had to talk about contested boundaries, I'd be slow to write "x" when tomorrow the boundary issue might be "y". Being a dynamic encyclopedia, we don't have that problem.

(C) Professionals writing in professional journals have a vested interest in gaining access to the site, which has been under Israeli control since 1967. As such, they have a motive to not kick the gatekeeper in the political tender parts when they publish their findings.

For those reasons, I do not agree that the professional archeological RS's are the RS's of "greatest WP:Weight".

Third, as a general principle, intellectual integrity admits the possibility that omission of well-documented facts can, in some circumstances, be a form of POV. In this case, Israeli occupation of this specific locale is well-documented in a wide range of RS's. Since we are neither a professional journal writing for experts nor a hard bound resource, we should describe locations in a way that makes sense for the widest general audience. For Lake Superior shipwrecks, that means stating whether the locale is in US or Canadian waters. That's easy, because it doesn't push emotional political buttons. If that logic makes sense for Lake Superior shipwrecks, true NPOV requires applying the same logic for locations in regions of conflicting international claims. In the article under discussion, that means a simple statement of the widely-documented fact that this spot is in the "Israeli-Occupied" part of the Golan, rather than a well-intentioned omission of this fact. Plus we are supposed to avoid ambiguities if possible. The site is not in the Syrian controlled/occupied/claimed/whatever part of the Golan Heights, but the Israeli. Instead of the ambiguous "Golan" why not just say "Middle East", or for that matter "Planet Earth"? No, our task is to be NPOV matter-of-fact and avoid ambiguity. This spot is considered, by nearly the entire international community, to be "Israeli-occupied", and omitting this is at worst a form of POV-by-intentional-omission and at best creates a good-faith-but-nonetheless-impermissible ambiguity.

Fourth, upon the suggestion of this Misplaced Pages guideline, I took a peek at the CIA World Factbook, which says "Golan Heights is Israeli-occupied". They appear to have less motive to say one thing and not another than professionals writing for other professionals in such a way that greases the wheels with the controlling authorities when they want to do field research at the site itself. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I note that Gamla nature reserve, Hamat Gader, Katzrin ancient village and synagogue, Kursi, Golan Heights, Nimrod Fortress, and Umm el Kanatir all refer to their location simply as "the Golan Heights" on first mention, though more details are in some cases provided further on. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Whatever the geographic location, all articles from all subject areas should inform readers who are from some other country (relative to the article) where they need to book passage and to what government they need to seek visas/permits in order to visit. If these articles do not distinguish between Syrian Golan and Israeli-occupied Golan then these articles need improvement, and their failure to include that matter-of-fact information is not a reason to omit that information from the example article under discussion. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

So more thoughts? Maybe it is a good idea for uninvolved administrator to formally close this discussion, so we sill not have to guess about the consensus established. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Asaram Bapu

Please have a look at Talk:Asaram_Bapu#Removed_sections, which is most probably going to become an edit war now. Tito☸Dutta 17:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

No it won't become an edit war because anyone who repeatedly restores the BLP-fails will be blocked, although we will have to go through the usual rigmarole of WP:AGF and explaining everything ten times first. I explained the basics at WP:Administrators' noticeboard#Asaram Bapu and WP:BLP, which you have seen, per your comment to User:Bbb23 diff. Johnuniq (talk) 07:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• You have not understood. Tito☸Dutta 08:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• It would be more helpful to identify something I said that you think is incorrect, then briefly explain why. It is extremely common to find prominent people that are accused of various bad things, but Misplaced Pages is not the place to seek justice. If the subject of an article has been convicted of some crime, then that should be recorded in a due manner, but stuff like this is off-the-scale in terms of its unsuitability (someone claimed they saw sexual exploitation; a report alleged the subject had failed lie detection tests although "no direct evidence" was found; and more). Repeatedly editing that POV into a WP:BLP will lead to blocks. Johnuniq (talk) 10:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• FYI, chances are I'll leave and unwatchlist all these Asaram Bapu articles very soon. I am asking for help everywhere (India noticeboard, editors' talk page, this noticeboard, not getting any co-operation anywhere).
  Your assessment of Bbb23's edit and full protection at WP:AN was incorrect, allow me to explain— there were 3 or 4 reverts in the article. Of those 3 or 4 reverts, one revert was reversion of Bbb's edit (more clearly, his edit was reverted). And, when an admin's edit was challenged and reverted, he can not fully protect his own version. I did not have much energy left at this moment, so I posted at Bbb's talk page only (if you see it, see Soham's reply too). But, I don't have any problem with his protection, so, you can re-assess his protection at WP:AN, or leave it as it is, do whatever you wish, that is not the main issue.
  And, I was not talking about edit warring between Bbb and me. Both of us have been editing here for a long time and know how to deal with such situation. I was talking about that other editor User:Pee and a bunch of other editors (User:Naveen etc, there might be few socks too). Might be unintended, but IMO, this article has become a scandalizing and defaming article. Political gaming or CoI/paid edits might be involved here too (these are not new for WikiProject India articles). I have already confessed, I don't have much knowledge on this person, so, for last two-three days I was attempting to draw attention of experienced Wikipedians and WikiProject India editors towards this article, so that they can do some study and comment/help. I request you to see this post which I posted at a WP:India editor's talk page. This will make clear, I hope, what I have been trying to do so far. --Tito☸Dutta 11:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• If you want to challenge Bbb23's administrative actions, the place to do so is at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Asaram Bapu and WP:BLP where Bbb23 provided an explanation. It is unclear what you want. This is the NPOV noticeboard, so presumably you think something in the article is not neutral. What? Your report pointed to a section on a talk page where Bbb23 explained why three sections had been removed. Are you wanting to restore the material that Bbb23 removed? Are you wanting to remove more material? What action do you propose? Johnuniq (talk) 11:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• My "post" above and my "no post" at WP:AN shows I am neither worried nor annoyed with Bbb's reversion. You have told, I pointed towards Bbb's section at article's talk page. If you read my or Ugog Nizdast's reply in the same section (please read), you'll get details. In more clear words, there are two groups of editors in this article

1. the first group who are writing all controversies with every possible details and removing those portions which talk about subject's positive works.
2. the second group of editors are apparently followers of the subject and deleting all controversies.

So, NPoV might be badly disputed here Tito☸Dutta 12:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• Please see Redtigerxyz's post at Talk:Asaram_Bapu#Removed_sections, which is very helpful, IMO. --Tito☸Dutta 12:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Johnuniq (talk · contribs). Perhaps there is a problem with the article, but this does not seem to be the place to raise it. Leujohn 17:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Genetically modified food controversies

Genetically modified food controversies. IMHO this article is not NPOV according to its title. There is material in the article that is not controversial that should be removed as promotional 'fluff' for one side of the controversy. There is notable RS material that should be added that isn't. When either are done then the edits are reverted without adequate discussion using what appears to be WP:GANG and WP:OWN. I could provide diffs but I will let the regulars here judge by looking at the article, history, and talk pages.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I feel this issue extends beyond just the one article. I tried to add Taco Bell GMO recall material to the controversies article and it was reverted. I then created it as a stand alone article as a well sourced and notable event. At present others are seeking consensus for a move to StarLink corn recall. I suspect this is a preliminary move to eventually redirect it to Genetically modified maize and remove much of the material along the way. There are many editors that seem to want this incident either swept under the rug or buried deep in other articles. The same happened with Roundup (herbicide). At present some editors are trying to unmerge it back to a standalone article because much of the material was unilaterally removed during the merge by one editor. See Talk:Roundup_(herbicide)#RfC:_Un-merge_from_Glyphosate.3F for details. A similar merge and material removal was also done with Organic farming methods. That merge had zero discussion, let alone consensus. Our goal should be to expand and split material for our readers and not to collapse and delete it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Requesting feedback

Requesting feedback on scope at Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews#Scope of this article. Thanks. Ignocrates (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Kim Cascone

This article does not cite a single reliable news source, and appears to be a vanity article written by Mr. Casscone himself. There's plenty of biographical information to be found, with absolutely no verifiability, and the article seems to conflict with Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy. Should be a candidate for deletion, if these issues cannot be addressed, and Mr. Cascone's Silent Records page also has zero citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.3.12 (talk) 23:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Animal shelter

This article seems to be very judgemental of "kill-shelters" and uses a lot of emotive language like "less grim." I don't feel qualified to write a more balanced article and wouldn't know where to begin. There is no mention of the fact that kill shelters usually have a policy of not turning away any animals. No-kill shelters have limited intakes, the overflow go to kill shelters. 105.224.143.112 (talk) 09:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the 'less grim' statement as in any case it was unsourced (or rather the source didn't back this and failed WP:RS. I'm not sure there are other problems other than the fact it doesn't mention intake differences. That should be added if you can source it. Dougweller (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It's looking better now. Would be very helpful to get more content covering other parts of the world, especially the Global South. bobrayner (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Violence against Muslims template

I found Template:Violence against Muslims which links

• Anti-Muslim violence in India
• Persecution of Muslims
• Persecution of Muslims by the Meccans
• Persecution of Muslims in Burma

Don't these all violate WP:NPOV? As they look like all just lists of conflicts between Muslims and other religious groups. Look like Misplaced Pages:Coatrack articles. Would having articles Persecution of religious group xyz then listing all conflicts they've been in be neutral?--Loomspicker (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

There a several templates of the form "Violence against X" and there are many categories of the form "Persecution of Y". What you won't find are templates of the form "Violence by X" or "Persecution by Y". In general, victim groupings are tolerated but perpetrator groupings are usually not. Although we do have categories of "Persecution by Y." That's the pattern. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Question about editorial standards in projects:policy:coi name space

I started editing the Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest policy page recently. I noticed systemic bias towards Public Relations editing. As I edit, I have faced reversions simply because they disagree, and they have not entertained consensus building discussion on talk. Since PR firms have the ability to recruit more editors and simply outnumber disagreeable opinions, the argumentation process of consensus building is important to ensure we're not gravitating towards vote counts.

So, some issues I am seeing on the Misplaced Pages policy page on COI is that oped pieces that give tailored advise to those editing in Corporate Communications/Public Relations capacity from and written in a way that resonates with them. Referencing to its PR trade organizations like PRSA and Further Readings material that tailor to "edit for consideration" / vested interest group are also quite questionable.

Can I get some input on this?Cantaloupe2 (talk) 13:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I took a brief look at the discussion in the talk page, and I think your efforts relating to section 5 of the talk page seem reasonable. Of course, be careful not to start an edit war. I think you should have left the "Further Readings" section alone though, as the existence of the links doesn't seem to harm the overall neutrality of the article (at least in my opinion). I'll look into the page with further detail tomorrow and make a more detailed reply. Leujohn 18:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Have you had a chance to look at the PDF? It's a self-published write-up, which means that the only option is have it there, or not have it there and not subject to editorial scrutiny of contents. Should that kind of original research opinion piece have any place for representation on Misplaced Pages policy article? Let us know what you think of it once you have a chance to take a look. Some of the books are credible, yet topics of business ethics and such is a tailored audience material towards PR editors. Other self-published materials raise questions on why they were chosen to have representation as EL. Misplaced Pages's idea isn't to allow the use of topic page's EL section as a think tank, is it?Cantaloupe2 (talk) 09:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

"Gay people" vs. "persons with homosexual inclinations" or "with a same-sex attraction"

Which is more neutral: "gay people" or "persons with homosexual inclinations"/"with a same-sex attraction"? Discussion here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Branding individuals as bigots via Templates

We are currently debating the listing of individual and organizations on the templates Template:Islamophobia and to a lessor degree Template:Racism topics (see Template talk:Islamophobia). What are the criteria for inclusion?

• (a) In essence we are branding individuals as bigots by pigeon-holing them on these templates and then embedding the brand on their biography page.
• (b) I suggest that if we do list individuals, we should seek a broad and near unanimous consensus of sources if we are to avoid partisan bias. Broad across-the-board sourcing should be a reasonable criteria for making such a judgment.
• (c) This isn’t a problem when the subject openly adheres to an ideology. Besides the two previously mentioned templates, I've looked at templates on fascism and communism and there seems to be no problem because the individuals listed are open adherents of the movements covered in those templates. In the Template:Racism topics we have a mix of those who admit to adhering to racialist theories or proudly boast of being a racial supremacist and cases where the individual/group denies such tendencies. In Template:Islamophobia almost all the individuals/groups deny being Islamophobic. Without broad across-the-board sourcing or an explicit admission we should withhold adding these names to the template.
• (d) Indeed, we might want to consider taking this a step further and omitting biographies of living persons from the templates without their explicit self-inclusion to avoid witch hunts and WP:BLP violations. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

AS far as I can tell, there are no BLPs containing the Islamophobia template: . On the more general point, I would suggest that perhaps Jason from nyc might do better to take into account the fact that this is the neutral point of view noticeboard, and inflammatory and hyperbolic language is hardly appropriate here. If he wants a serious discussion on the issue, I suggest he starts a new thread worded in more neutral terms. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree, no individuals are listed so BLP is not an issue. Also compare with templates such as Template:Antisemitism. // Liftarn (talk)

I view categories and templates as navigation aids. If reliable sources say x is y, then we can usually use them. I'll also note that, for instance, white supremacists generally say they are not really supremacists, just nationalists - so we might quote them, etc but also use sources where they meet our criteria that describe them as supremacists, and those categories/templates would be appropriate. We do not simply accept at face value what an organisation says about itself and prohibit any templates or categories that don't reflect what the organisation says. Dougweller (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Some organizations are closely tied to one or two people so that they are surrogates for the individual or individuals involved. One is even named after the individual who runs it. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Both individuals and organizations omitted ... Jason from nyc (talk) 11:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The case of bias categories has already been discussed, the result being that individuals and organizations should no longer be added to the various "bias" categories (racism, sexism, homophobia, antisemitism, anti-Islam sentiment, etc). The same should go for templates. --Ankimai (talk) 07:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I was unaware that the discussion already took place. The same should go for templates. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

To be specific, we need to follow WP:BLPCAT and we also have guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Categorization of people. How this affects organisations should be done case by case. Dougweller (talk) 11:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLPCAT makes it clear that list and templates are like categories. Thus, the consensus on a prohibition of people and organizations in bias categories should establish it for bias templates and lists. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems clear that long standing consensus applies to both individuals and organizations with respect to templates as it does to categories and lists. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

No, BLPCAT refers only to BLPs. It doesn't mention organisations. What WP:BLP does say is " A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources."

BLPCAT itself says "Caution should be used with content categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light). For example, Category:Criminals and its subcategories should only be added for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal." Caution is the key word here. It doesn't say we can't use them. Dougweller (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I see you removed organisations from the template claiming consensus here, I've restored them as you don't have consensus here. Dougweller (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised that a fairly small and remote discussion decided something like that. I ould have thought a larger RFC would be desired given it's such a core policy being changed. It seems a bit inconsistent with other aspects of BLP that would allow such descriptions if self identified. Ravensfire (talk) 15:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

As I read the template... The purpose is to link readers to related articles about Islamiphobia (as a conceptual phenomenon). I don't think it appropriate to use it on articles on people or organizations that might be considered "Islamiphobic". Such articles are not really within the scope of the template. (Note... I could see adding the template to an article about an organization that is dedicated to the study of the phenomenon of Islamiphobia... if such an organization exists). Blueboar (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Organisations have been removed from the template once again, this time by another editor with no explanation. Doesn't seem a good idea while this discussion is ongoing. I agree with Ravensfire, we would need a larger RfC. Dougweller (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The prohibition against adding individuals and groups to bias categories is long established and cautionary words are added to bias categories to hinder such additions. I referred to BLPCAT to show that templates and lists are treated on an equal basis to categories. Yes, in BLPCAT it is in reference to individuals but my point was that templates are categories--in a visual form. I thought we were agreeing. I see not. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

A larger RfC probably would be best. As an addendum to my comment, I see this the templates under discussion as being similar to Template:Criminology and penology... it would be inappropriate to add that template to articles about individual criminals or crime gangs. Blueboar (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

A RFC would be helpful to settle this long-standing issue, but until then we should go by the consensus established as early as 2011 that "the general trend and the BLP policy incline against the inclusion of individuals and organisations" in bias categories and templates. The burden of proof rests on those who want to make exceptions from the general rule for the Islamophobia template. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes we should go by that consensus as far as it takes us, but it is to do with categories not templates. Formerip (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Where is the best place to raise an RfC? We definitely need one as there is edit-warring and claims of consensus/no consensus going on. Text probably should be "Should organisations be included in templates such as Islamophobia, Racism and anti-Semitism". We need to get more people involved. Dougweller (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I would guess Talk:Racism would probably be the best place to go. It would probably also be a good idea to check the "Encyclopedia of Race and Racism" and the "Encyclopedia of Racism in the United States", among others, if anyone has access to them. They're supposedly both available to me locally according to WorldCat, but it might be awhile before I can generate lists of articles in them. That is, if anyone thinks they would be useful. John Carter (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy) with abundant FYI links posted to the talk pages for the various other guidelines or articles where people who are likely to be interested hang out. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

It would probably be a good idea to get it included in the next edition of the Signpost as well. John Carter (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm out today, anyone want to start one at the Village Pump? I think my suggesting wording is neutral, which it needs to be. Dougweller (talk) 05:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Template Antisemitism

What are people suggesting about this template, which mentions Jew Watch and Stormfront? What other templates will be affected? Or are just the Islamophobia and racism templates being singled out? Dougweller (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The rule applies there as well. In regard to categories it’s a policy applied uniformly with respect to Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, Islamic, and Arabic bias categories. It appears to be only 3 templates affected, as templates are relatively new compared to categories. But the rule should apply to anti-bias templates uniformly. Jason from nyc (talk) 22:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

It would also affect {{Nazism sidebar}}. // Liftarn (talk)

Disagree. Nazism is a political ideology, not a sentiment. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Please explain what you think the difference is. For instance some nazis prefer the label "national liberals". // Liftarn (talk)

Big difference, you are mixing up things big time. See List of political ideologies: Nazism's right there with Communism and Islamism, but Islamophobia and Antisemitism are not. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

A common trait among islamophobes is to claim Islam is an ideology and not a religion. I also notice that you refused to answer the question. // Liftarn (talk)

Thomas Jefferson

Page: Thomas Jefferson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Text: "Overseers were instructed to provide wool for knitting to any negro woman that wanted it".

The source is a direct quote from Jefferson's instructions to his foreman, where he wrote, "Give wool to my negro women who desire it, as well those with Mr. Craven as others, but particularly to the house women here."

This sentence was added to the section about how Jefferson treated his slaves. I object to using it because it implies a positive treatment, yet no explanation is provided in the source about why Jefferson wrote this. It could be that his slaves were allowed to earn income by making and selling clothing or it could be that he refused to buy clothing for his slaves and forced them to make their own. Also, I find the use of the term "negro woman" to be objectionable, even if "my negro women" appeared in the original text.

TFD (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

This is just a passing opinion (and perhaps posting here requires some authority that I don't possess), but I see that no one's responded. I would make three suggestions:

• If this detail is retained, one solution would be to use it as a direct quote: Jefferson instructed overseers to "give wool to my negro women who desire it". I'm fairly sure that in WIkipedia's voice we don't say "negro women". I don't see the detail as being either positive or negative, at least not out of context. Even if it means he didn't buy clothing for the slaves and they made their own, I don't think it was unusual at that time for most people other than the well-to-do to make at least some of their own clothing, particularly woolen items.
• However, if that's the source cited, it's OR. For instance, isn't "knitting" just an assumption? "Wool" might also be the raw material for spinning and subsequent weaving, as is indicated in the passage just below about 10-year-old girls beginning their lives of labor. A source that speaks to the "treatment" of slaves from 1862 cannot be regarded as a secondary source for the topic. The inclusion of the detail would require context, preferably from a post-1970 scholar, or even better from the last ten or fifteen years. As you've observed, this is not a transparent fact if the intention is to point to some conclusion about how Jefferson interacted with his slaves. Is it needed? Is it worth the trouble to research further?
• At the top of the diff, I notice also that we say (with a proper citation) Jefferson felt a moral obligation and a duty to protect and provide well for his slaves. Not being mindreaders of the dead, we don't know what Jefferson "felt". It may be that scholars have noted passages in which he expresses his sense of moral obligation in writing. It may be that scholars have collected information on how he interacted with his slaves, and that scholars have drawn the conclusion that he acted on his sense of moral obligation. It may be that scholars have collected testimonia from his contemporaries on how he "treated" his slaves, and can report that they observed how well Jefferson protected and provided for them. Biographers or historians may offer these psychological insights as conclusions of their research, but the encyclopedia avoids asserting them as facts.

You can just take these comments for what they're worth, but not having read the whole section, in general this diff causes me some concern that even when scholars are properly cited, the statements aren't entirely clear that these are interpretations, and some of them are quite dated (1862, 1901). Jefferson's policy was is the correct way to frame these kinds of observations; Jefferson would not overwork his slaves, expecting them to work no harder than free farmers is not. How do we know what he expected? Should it say something like "Jefferson's diaries record that he did not want to overwork his slaves, and expected them" etc? Or "It was Jefferson's stated practice not to overwork his slaves, expecting" etc? Without a close examination of the sources, it's hard to say how to make these statements more precise, contextual, grounded, neutral, and in keeping with current scholarship. Sorry, I know that's more than you asked for, but I found this rather surprisingly "off" in tone for such a high-profile article. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Cynwolfe makes excellent points. The sourcing for the slavery text should not be from before about 1970. I found that there was synthesis involved in the wool paragraph so I removed it. As well, the TJ biography article should allow most of the slavery details to be presented in the main subarticle, Thomas Jefferson and slavery. Only a summary of this article should be in the biography—the most important points and themes. Binksternet (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Revisionist_Western

This article is written entirely from very biased and VERY RACIST viewpoint, could this please be looked into. 219.90.242.41 (talk) 06:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

It is not written from a racist POV, quite the opposite, but it does need sources. TFD (talk) 14:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The article is currently dominated by a single dramatic edit which is the sole edit by Lsuecamp; this edit removed most of the text and all of the references. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Jonathan A Jones, there is a term for such behavior: vandalism. Dimadick (talk) 08:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Usage share of web browsers; NPOV dispute over whether a statistics source should be mentioned along with other statistics sources

The article Usage share of web browsers has a summary section which cites current statistics from a number of statistics counters measuring page impressions and/or unique visitors to websites on the Internet. Recently editor user:Complainer raised concerns about one of the sources (Net Applications) and deleted the source from the table. The argument for deleting was this "Netapplications statistics do run against common sense, with MSIE market shares that are double those of any other independent source, including wikipedia itself (and I would liek to add "and my own tracker", but will abstain); these guys make a good argument of how and why they do it. I personally think their presence in the article is embarrassing, to say the least, and am about to remove them. If anybody sees it fit to reinstate them, feel free". I (user:Useerup) disagreed and reinstated the statistics, noting that "Reverted. Netapplications is *the* most cited source in reliable sources (3rd party) and thus *the* most notable source". The statistics was promptly deleted again and we inched preciously close to an edit war.

User user:Complainer wants to remove the statistics because he/she has concerns about the quality/potential bias. I (user:Useerup) don't believe that suppressing the most often cited statistics (sample list provided in the discussion) on the subject would be a fair and neutral representation of the topic.

The discussion on the talk page here: Talk:Usage share of web browsers#Source for faking. Please join the discussion with your point of view. Thanks. Useerup (talk) 21:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Blood-spinning

An unregistered user pointed out several potential neutrality/verifiability issues in Blood-spinning (talk page) and added a POV tag. About a month and a half ago, I made a few revisions attempting to clean up some of the language and improve citations. I haven't heard anything since on the talk page - it's not a heavily trafficked page though - and I'm curious if there are still major neutrality concerns, or if we can consider the issue resolved?

Thanks! SwedishRussian (talk) 22:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, according to the template docs, in the absence of a discussion on the POV issues the template may be removed from the article. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Direct Democracy Ireland

This article was listed at Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Direct_Democracy_Ireland. Jeff Rudd does have a COI with the topic, but that that does not mean his concerns are not valid. For example, he states that "Direct Democracy Ireland is NOT an Freeman Ideology based organization." The Direct Democracy Ireland article now states: "A number of publications and commentators have highlighted DDI's close links to the Freemen on the land movement and the Christian Solidarity Party. DDI leader Ben Gilroy denied links to the Freeman movement when questioned about them on the Prime Time current affairs show on RTÉ and by the Irish Times. This is written in a hopelessly biased way. The opinion of the mysterious number of publications and commentators is presented as fact, fails to characterize what "close links" means, presents Gilroy side as though his is on trial and fails to establish that Gilroy denied each allegation of close links to the Freemen on the land movement made by each of the mysterious number of publications and commentators. "Freeman on the Land" also appears in the Infobox political party, even though it is clear that the Direct Democracy Ireland party does not hold itself out as having "Freeman on the Land" Ideology. This has only served to inflame Jeff Rudd (see Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Direct_Democracy_Ireland. He appears to have a number of other concerns, however the Freeman/Freemen issue appears to be the most pressing. Jeff Rudd joined Misplaced Pages four days ago. To help get this matter under control, Freeman/Freemen references in the Direct Democracy Ireland article should be removed per NPOV. Given the current short length of the article, I suspect that including anything about Freeman/Freemen in the article would not place the subject in context at this point in time. If neutral wording of claims and views regarding Freeman/Freemen that are written in a fair way and without bias that place the subject in context and are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources, then that information can be added to the article. Until then, it would help bring the situation under control to keep out such POV. Please consider Freeman/Freemen references in the Direct Democracy Ireland article per NPOV for the time being. -- Jreferee (talk) 02:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

1. ^ Negev and Gibson, 2005, p. 207.

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution