Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:02, 5 June 2015

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

Giuliano Mignini

A Misplaced Pages administrator inserted a fly-by POV tag into an article. I thought that the POV tag cast doubt on the factual accuracy of the article and so I objected to it. Another editor removed it. The administrator reinstated it, and so on, resulting in an edit war. I took the question of biased use of a POV tag to dispute resolution but that got nowhere because all concerned where attacking each other's POV (not surprisingly in my POV). My straightforward question is, can a POV tag be placed in an article without subtstantiation and, if disputed, for how long and under what circumstances may it remain there?

My question is a general one but should you want background information in this specific case then please see the Giuliano Mignini article, its recent history, and its associated talk page.

Thank you. I want to know. JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

POV tags are not supposed to be permanent, whoever places it should immediately post on the article's talk page explaining as to why they have posted it there, the tag should then be removed after a resolution is found. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Butcher_of_Gujarat dispute

There is a Misplaced Pages:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_21#Butcher_of_Gujarat discussion going on here there has been alleged canvassing ,edit warring and claims of WP:BLP violation as it redirects to Narendra Modi which in turn is rebutted by claims of WP:RNEUTRAL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Countries in Europe

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

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

I think this says more about you than about me:

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

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

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

...and so on. Let's try to avoid personal attacks, and stick to the point, please. Should our article on Kosovo be in Category:Countries in Europe? bobrayner (talk) 13:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Why are you mixing a comment I made long time ago to an editor who came to my talk-page promoting Greater Albania and I made fun of him? Do you personaly feel involved in it? (The second one you posted here, the first and third were indeed directed to you)FkpCascais (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

This is the discussion you removed that comment from and you didn't even participated in it, the discussion was only between me and the other user. You wanted to mislead others here that I that I attacked you, such low punch on your behalve, shame on you. FkpCascais (talk) 13:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Let's try to avoid personal attacks, and stick to the point, please. Should our article on Kosovo be in Category:Countries in Europe? Uninvolved editors would be welcome. bobrayner (talk) 14:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Until there's no longer a dispute over Kosovo's status either way, it shouldn't be placed in the category-in-question. by GoodDay. But i guess that you will ignore this outsider's observation, as you dont like it. Maybe it is time for you to drop the subject and leave. #JustSaying...--Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 15:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Anastan! I'm glad you found time to comment.

You've been insisting that there are many reliable sources which say Kosovo isn't a country in Europe. If you'd like to retain some credibility, you really ought to provide those sources. Perhaps that's a higher priority than cherrypicking one comment which suits your current position. bobrayner (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I will, but on the relevant page, where you should be too. I could guess that you will mention "cherrypicking" for a comment that does not suit your current position, and actually is a . uninvolved editor's comment. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 16:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Since I have played a large part in the discussion and the editing, it is only right I state my case for outsiders. We know that there are sources that call Kosovo "a country" as it is recognised by over 50% of states. In fact many entities are called "countries" in many reliable sources such as the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic and Somaliland but the general pattern is that where sovereignty is disputed by the entity from which one is breaking away, these are not included in their respective "countries in" category. To date, nobody has provided an argument as to why Kosovo deserves an accolade denied to Republic of China which was before 1971 on the UN Security Council, and the State of Palestine which has 135 recognitions, a number I personally predict Kosovo will not reach given the gradual slowdown in incoming recognitions since 2008 (as with Libya, it would need pro-west revolutions to take place in dozens of countries before this became a reality). That summarises my view. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Hello, Vrhunski. I notice that (a) this is the first time you've ever edited a noticeboard, (b) this is your first edit in two months, and (c) this topic area has long had problems with sockpuppets and onsite & offsite canvassing. What brings you here? bobrayner (talk) 20:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I am free to edit where I so choose, and locating this discussion was not difficult since it is hardly obscure. You sought opinions from uninvolved editors and I gave you one, though clearly you do not appreciate it. If you suspect sockpuppetry, be my guest and do the honours of reporting me. Had I been one of those to have edited here then I could have extended my "original comment" with the points I raised. If my "other account" has not been used on this noticeboard then I am not in any contravention by editing here, right? As for what I have been doing these past two months or even past two years, the answer is none of your business. In the meantime, unless you can prove the rest of us wrong in our observations I suggest you keep your eyes and ears open, and you mouth firmly shut!! :) That way you might learn something :) Thank you! --Vrhunski (talk) 22:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

In other news: Anastan has been insisting that there are many reliable sources which say Kosovo isn't a country in Europe. Anastan still hasn't provided any sources. Can Anastan provide these sources, or is it just another sleight-of-hand? bobrayner (talk) 20:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

That comment has now become stale and you know very well that the arguments to oppose Kosovo appearing at Category:Countries in Europe does not rest on one or more statements from Anastan that state Kosovo is not a country. And what? Shall we just say Islamic State is a country because no source (at least on Serbian Google) finds no source to dispute this? . --Vrhunski (talk) 22:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Thanks, Iryna Harpy. However, I am still concerned about the tendentious editing, and would appreciate more eyes on the problem; for instance, Anastan's claims to have lots of reliable sources saying that Kosovo isn't a country in Europe, and then complete inability to provide any of those sources. bobrayner (talk) 19:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Bob, stop with this awful editing attitude, and drop the subject here. Go to the relevant page where we are, and stop spamming this page only to keep it off the archive. New word for me, and it looks like to you too - STOP FORUM SHOPPING. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 09:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello Anastan! I'm glad you found time for some personal attacks and an irrelevant reference to forum-shopping. Perhaps, instead, you could find time to provide the many reliable sources which, you claim, prove that Kosovo is not a country in Europe? I haven't found them, and you still haven't provided them. On the other hand, lies about sources are not unusual on WP:ARBMAC topics. bobrayner (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

COI Draft Review Request

User:FacultiesIntact has asked me to review their Draft for the article Honeywell. Their Draft can be found here. They have a COI on the topic and thus would like outside review and implementation of the draft. I've looked it over and it looks fine to me. There has been a significant expansion of the history section and the various divisions of the company. While there has been some minor reformatting of the Environmental record and Criticism sections, no content appears to have been lost, so no issues regarding the COI there.

Can I get some confirmation from 1 or 2 other people that the draft looks good? Then i'll go ahead and implement it. Silverseren 16:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

I am writing to complain about the lack of neutrality in this article:

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

I have posted extensive comments on the article's talk page detailing multiple instances of bias, lack of fairness, and lack of proportion in this piece, but so far, this locked page has not been revised.

I will not repeat all the points that I posted here:

Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

But the main point is this: A wide range of hostile opinions about the organization are quoted, especially in the introduction and the two concluding sections. There are virtually no counterbalancing opinions from outside the organization's leadership, even though it has many, many prominent members and supporters. Also, there is no section currently about the group's rescues of animals from roadside zoos and other sorry facilities where animals are abused incessantly. This is a topic that is far more central to the subject than much of what currently appears on the page. A section that explores the group's substantial impact on changing public opinion and the way that many companies conduct their business would also be extremely appropriate.

Please ensure that this article is brought in line with your standards of neutrality and fairness. 174.22.190.144 (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I think there may be some bias in the article but the main problem is not so much that as the fact that it is badly written and focuses excessively on the controversies surrounding the organization without giving a clear idea of what the organization actually does. This style can give a negative impression, since it leaves the reader feeling that the only thing notable about PETA is the controversy it has generated. Some of that is deserved, and many of the organization's foibles and hypocritical actions ought to be covered. On the other hand we don't need its opinion on Lady Gaga's dress and a million other minutiae. There is also some pointy original research: "Their modus operandi includes buying shares in target companies ..." (not well-sourced), "PETA has been criticized for aiming its message at children." (not sourced, and in context violates WP:SYNTH), "The ads featuring barely clad or naked women have appalled feminist animal rights advocates." (maybe true, but again unsourced OR, and this paragraph then goes into excessive detail about a couple specific controversial events, which is again SYNTH.) The "Positions" section gives undue weight to PETA's positions on shelters and omits mention of many other topics that belong there. (Minor point: it also mistakenly says that the Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty campaign is ongoing, which it isn't.) And generally there is a completely excessive use of quotes instead of secondary sources. So basically it's a total mess and needs an overhaul. To get it to comply with NPOV, the first place to start would be replacing most of the primary sources with reliable secondary sources, and then trying to look at how much weight neutral secondary sources give to various topics. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• It isn't "locked." It is semi protected. And for good reason; nine admins have semiprotected it because of excess vandalism over the years. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Should headings maintain neutrality?

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

Specifically Talk:Indigo children#"Claimed characteristics". And see related discussions at Talk:Indigo children/Archive 1#POV in first sentence. Sundayclose (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If the section about claims of attributes by WP:Lunatic charlatans, and the mainstream scientific assessment that there is absolutely no evidence for those attributes (and a more more parsimonious explanation for why parents would want to believe their kids have those attributes), "claimed attributes" is a fairly neutral heading. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned on the article Talk page, "claimed" is entirely appropriate for an article about children alleged to have paranormal powers, per WP:FRINGE guidelines regarding pseudoscience. Creation science, Parapsychology, Water memory, Holocaust denial, and Moon landing conspiracy theories all use the term "claim" dozens of times each. The argument that the word "claimed" is OK in the text but must be kept out of the headings is sadly misinformed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The section doesn't actually list any paranormal attributes though, just attributes that anyone could have. — Jeraphine Gryphon  17:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Attributes that are no more common to purported indigo children than the rest of the population, or which have more parsimonious explanations (like, being raised by a parent who thinks that new-age-woo is more plausible than ADHD). Ian.thomson (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course they have to maintain neutrality; but it's important to understand what neutrality means in the context of WP:FRINGE topics like this one. Specifically, since the concept is universally rejected by the scientific community, NPOV requires that section headers (like everything else) be carefully worded to make it clear how much weight and credibility each position has among reliable sources. WP:CLAIM warns to be cautious about using those words because they call the subject's credibility into question; however, in contexts where the overwhelming majority of reliable sources agree that the subject lacks credibility, using words like 'claimed' in that context is not only appropriate but sometimes required (because other terms would be giving a fringe viewpoint undue weight.) --Aquillion (talk) 08:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

United States and state-sponsored terrorism

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

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

NPOV issues at Nina Rosenwald

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

Craig Unger

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

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

WWE Global Warning issue

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

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

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

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

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

• I have absolutely nothing new to add to what Curse of Fenric already stated here. All of the evidence speaks for itself. Until he finds that elusive smoking gun, there is nothing to argue here. OldSkool01 (talk) 00:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• This link right here... http://www.pwwew.net/ppv/wwf/australia.htm is one of the links you provided above. You really should read those sources first before you link them. That site is yet another report from a fan that was there live who acknowledges that this was NOT televised live! How did you not notice that? So that makes 2 links(in addition to the many others) from a fan's perspective who was there live that mentions it not airing live. OldSkool01 (talk) 09:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Look at the actual URL - what is that after pwwew.net? What does it stand for? The link supports me, not you. No more discussion. We need an admin here to make a judgment on your manipulation, which in effect you have admitted to by not contesting my comments of events. Curse of Fenric (talk) 10:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• The URL says one thing, but what's written in the actual link says another. I also listened to that podcast you linked to. The 2 guys reviewing Global Warning(this podcast was 12 years after the event happened) are watching the DVD and they note that they did research and they can't find one single report anywhere from one single person who actually watched it on PPV. And they question if it did actually air on PPV later in the podcast. As far as me contesting any of your claims, you told the admins to check out all the links that I've provided and to read all the convos we've had. Those convos and all those links speak for themselves. Just to make it easier for the admins, here are the convos/debates that we had over the last couple of weeks. The first one is on my user talk page... https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:OldSkool01 and the second one is on the talk page of Professional Wrestling In Australia under the Global Warning section... https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Professional_wrestling_in_Australia The admins can read everything that was said and check out all the links/sources/references for themselves to make a decision. OldSkool01 (talk) 12:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Way to prove me right. You're trying to divert away from your manipulation. You have no NPOV, and I note from the history of this page that you've been called a bully. I disagree with the removal of your commentary because it should stay as proof that you are exactly that while "debating" this issue. That's all I need to add. Curse of Fenric (talk) 01:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• And now I'm a bully? This is not the first time you've called me names. I was accused of being uncivil, yet other people continue with the name calling and making false accusations towards me. I've done nothing, but continue to stay on the point of what this whole debate is about. It's all about deciding whether or not WWE Global Warning did or did not air on PPV somewhere in the world. That's it. That's what all this is about. Nothing more. We'll let the admins look at all the facts that have been presented and they'll make a decision on whether it was or it was not. OldSkool01 (talk) 03:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Note to the admins - this is about whether or not OldSkool01 manipulated a source, not whether or not Global Warning was shown on pay per view live anywhere. The latter is background only and all associated points made by him are diversions from the root issue. For the record, diverting and/or distracting from the root issue is typical of a bully. That is all. Curse of Fenric (talk) 07:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Again with the name calling. If this isn't about Global Warning then why is this section called "WWE Global Warning Issue"? That's very confusing. It should be called "Source Manipulating Issue". And with that all said, I still stand by my point on the manipulating issue that I did not manipulate a source. Asking a source a direct question is well within my rights. OldSkool01 (talk) 10:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• I say it's not within your rights, and the title is not confusing. Keep deflecting - it makes you look more guilty every time you do it. Bye. Curse of Fenric (talk) 11:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Oral Roberts

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

Ned Touchstone

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

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

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

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution